blunty51 said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
First of all, the reviews have mattered less on the Wii as the other systems. Check out user score discrepencies with regard to Wii games.
Second, the GC didn't get as much as it could have. Splinter Cell was based off the PS2 version, when it could have handled the Xbox version (or at least something closer to it). Metal Gear Solid was a remake on the GC, not a multiplatform game. Final Fantasy wasn't a multiplatform series until XIII; Crystal Chronicles was an exclusive action adventure game, which Ctystal Bearers still is. Soul Calibur only got the second game, when the third game was dropped from multiplatform. Killer 7 was going to be GC exclusive, so became multiplatform in detriment to the Wii (although was a niche game anyway), same with RE4 (which wasn't niche).
Third, being dumbed down only matters if the game has something the Wii can't handle as well, like as many AI enemies. Modern Warfare shows that isn't the case. The main reviewers are calling that dumbed down more for spite than any flaws in the game.
|
Yup, I agree. But, can we also agree that if the Wii had horsepower along the same lines of the HD systems, it would have dramatically increased the chances of a multiplat game being released on it? This is in line with the OP of course. They might still have the 3rd party syndrome, but at least the port would have been a bit more up to mark, and no publishers/devs would have the excuses they have now. I guess they'll go back to the 'this can't sell on a nintendo platform' saying.
|
The thing is even though the next Nintendo system will likely handle all those games, I doubt developers will flood it with the games the Wii should have had.
