routsounmanman said:
Mr Puggsly said:
routsounmanman said:
Mr Puggsly said:
routsounmanman said:
Mr Puggsly said:
PS2 memory cards were only like 8MB. You can't keep much DLC or updates in that.
While the PS2 Slims had networking built in, the masses already owned a PS2 fat with no networking built in. To the contrary, every Wii has networking hardware built in.
Ultimately, the Wii was designed for online gaming on day one. The PS2 wasn't. Therefore the Wii is "better suited" for online gaming. That has a lot to do with why Monster Hunter performed better on the Wii.
|
Spin, spin, spin.
|
And ofcourse... broadband internet is more common in households now than it was in 2004.
But hey, none of this is relevant at all. Nope, 2004 and 2009/2010 didn't have different circumstances at all.
|
Why can't you just accept the fact that gamers will go to whatever platform their favorite game goes, and that Wii can sell core games perfectly fine?
|
Hmmm... what the hell are you talking about?
I'm explaining why the Wii has an advantage for online gaming over the PS2. Hence, why Monster Hunter is better suited for the Wii compared to the PS2 and why it has performed better on the Wii.
I do however disagree with one thing you said. The Wii typically doesn't do a great job selling core games. But that's not relevant with the discussion I'm having now.
|
This whole argument started when jarrod simply implied that such core games actually sell on the system. Then, you tried to downplay it on the lack of PS2 online.
|
That's a highly simplistic view on things, I thought Jarrod's point was that sometimes things can change that make an old port do better than the original. Such as Monster Hunter becoming a huge series on the PSP between the PS2 and Wii version of that game, or NMH getting more brand recognition since it was first introduced.
Puggsly put out a legitimate theory on why the Wii version may have done better than the PS2 and you decided to add nothing to the conversation. Dissapointing.
