RolStoppable said:
d21lewis said:
Oh, I just tossed those particular games in there to show that Sony games aren't what made Sony popular. Almost all of the system sellers were made by third parties. Hell, I owned over 100 PS1 games and the only ones made by Sony were Crash 3, Gran Turismo, and Omega Boost. it was a 3rd party paradise! Even when I was typing it this morning, I was hoping nobody would call me out on the fact that Castlevania was on the N64.
On to the rest of the post, I think that the Wii thrived in spite of the fact that it didn't have great third party support. It had some truly great Nintendo games, though. I think the Wii succeeded because of the system and it's something that may never happen again. Most every other system thrives because of its library. Hence the people calling it "a board game" that people only break out when company is over and then toss it back into the closet.
And for the final question--The Gamecube had great third party support, in my opinion. Almost every game available from many on Xbox and PS2 got a Gamecube port. It's true! Maybe not some of the crazier franchises like Silent Hill or GTA but they had Resident Evil, SSX, Tony Hawk, Splinter Cell, etc. We can go into detail but, in my opinion, it all comes down to this: N64 failed (not really but it could have done better) because of a lack of third party support. Gamecube failed because it was too similar to the competition (and it looked like a little girl's jewelry box). The Wii succeded because it was like nothing we'd ever seen before. The right combination of great 1st party, good third party, and a slick system is all Nintendo needs and the Wii U will be okay.
|
The N64 Castlevania games aren't important in any way, so there's no point in mentioning them.
Regarding the Wii, did you know that its tie ratio isn't too far behind the 360 and PS3? It's also pretty close to the home consoles of last generation. This contradicts the board game theory. It means for every person who only plays Wii Sports, there is somebody else who bought at least a dozen games. So if you have 65m 360 owners who bought nine games for their system and apply a radical split to the Wii userbase (half of them being people who only play Wii Sports, the other half enjoying the system), you get 47m Wii owners who bought 12 games for their system. That's 18m less than the 360 crowd, but they bought 33 % more games. I think instead of calling the Xbox 360 a board game, we are better off by acknowledging that the Wii is actually quite a normal console.
My final question allowed three possible answers: less, more or equal. You didn't answer it directly and your post here is a little bit of everything, as if you can't settle for one answer. Although it looks like you know it. You realize that the Wii succeeded (almost) solely because of first party games. You realize that the Gamecube sold the least despite having the best third party support out of Nintendo's last three home consoles. You realize that the Nintendo 64 didn't have many good third party games, but neither had the Wii. It's pretty obvious that Nintendo's own games have far more influence on their fate than third party support.
|
