Seece said:
BTSaga said:
Seece said:
Carl2291 said:
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
Carl2291 said:
Khuutra said:
Some people have missed my point
Quality itself is not an indicator of AAA status. Budget and marketing emphasis is.
Yes, Lair and Haze were AAA titles
That is how meaningless it is in reference to quality. |
In that case, how many AAA games does the Wii actually have?
|
According to many people, only a handful made by Nintendo itself. Since only Nintendo has been making games that would be considered on the level of games that could compete with the HD games.
But I think, since Wii isn't competing with the HD systems and is in its own category, it should be more of a measure of what constitutes a 'high quality' game for that system. Is Tales of Symphonia 2 AAA? Madworld?
Personally, I'd definitely count Monster Hunter Tri. Along with the recent Resident Evil outings, eventhough they're rail shooters. Heck, for a Wii title, Muramasa is even bordering on the high quality level. But most people won't count that simply because its a 2D game that was made by a small studio and didn't cost tons of money to make. Its a question of what you think consists of 'AAA'. 'Quality' or 'Costs to develop'.
|
Red - Since when? They get sales compared, so games should also be compared.
|
Wait for it, he'll tell you it's out fault and HD fans are the ones spouting that it's not competition.
Fact of the matter is wii fans are touchy about metacritic because it just doesn't stack up ... thus they come out with a host of reasons why metacritic sucks.
|
just like HD fans are touchy whenever wii fans bring up sales, i guess nobody wins
|
TBH I don't think HD fans even acknowledge Wii sales around here anymore. They're just used to the Wii selling bucketloads, it's not exciting anymore 
|
some just cant keep up with the times, like this guy http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?post=3010715&page=2&postnum=3 still using 06 arguments against the wii
