Nintendo's down, but not out.

[DanneSandin]

Dodece said:

DanneSandin said:

Dodece said:

@curl-6

You do realize of coarse that your lists amount to about two really good games per year. That qualifies as starvation. While the other platforms average six or more per year. That qualifies as being well fed.

A good number of titles on your list did not achieve a meta score of over ninety. Excite Truck, Super Paper Mario, both of the Kirby Games, one of the Metroids, Mario Kart, and none of the Donkey Kong games qualify as fantastic console exclusives. Ruminate on this for a moment. The Wii had all of fourteen games with a meta rating of ninety or higher. While the 360 had fifty, and the PS3 had forty five. There just isn't any comparison. The Wii was just plain bereft of really good games.

It isn't my imagination. It is yours for actually thinking the platform had a lot of fantastic first party titles. Which it plainly did not.

This is what I gather from your reasoning:

PS360 had a more consistent flow of good games.

A good game has to have a score of 90 or more on metacritic.

You are saying that Wii didn't have a lot of fantastic first party titles, which kind of sums up the other two points you made before; PS360 had more consistent flow of good (1st party) games than Wii.

Let's just say that we're talking about exclusive games here, alright? You brought up the 1st party games criteria, but let's say that we're talking about exclusives.

PS3 had 13 games with a score at or above 90 at metacritic (even though some of them appeared on other Sony platforms)

Xbox360 had 11 games with a score at or above 90 at metacritic

Wii had 8 games with a score at or above 90 at metacritic (although some of them appeared on other Nintendo devices)

This tells us that Wii did NOT suffer from the lack of good exclusive games, like you want to make it out to have done. It got almost as many good games as Xbox360 in fact. And this isn't even talking about the 1st party line ups. This is exclusives. Now, what would happen if we took away all the 3rd party exclusives?

As far as good 1st party games are concerned, Wii had quite a few of them. Fact.

You would like to limit the inquiry down to next to nothing wouldn't you, but your logic is flawed out of the gate, because there are true console exclusives, and there are games that are effectively exclusives. Even if a game is available on both the other platforms. What matters for the purpose of this discussion is that game isn't on the Nintendo platform. You didn't disprove any of my arguments by the way. You just tried to change the subject. The Wii didn't have anywhere near enough really good games consistently to keep honest gamers happy.

All of two games a year isn't near enough, and 360 and PS3 owners weren't compelled to go digging through the garbage for games to play, and they didn't have to settle on games they probably didn't want. A paltry handful of games throughout an entire generation isn't any kind of rational justification for paying a premium for a console. Twenty or thirty games without a doubt it is money well spent, but four or five is just wasteful. At best it is an argument to pick a console up five or six years down the line used no less. When even those games could have been gotted for a song.

Perhaps the most damning evidence that what I am saying is true has to be the fact that the GameCube had eleven more titles that scored over ninety percent, and the 64 actually had a few more then the Wii in a much more professional, and much harsher reviewing environment. Reviewers back then had far fewer titles to review, and more time to do their reviews. So flaws didn't go overlooked, because someone only spent seven or eight hours with a game. Whether you want to believe it or not Nintendo games have seen a noticeable decline in quality generation over generation. In fact if you had the time to average out all of the games they brought to their platforms you would probably see that the Wii averaged far below either of those two predecessors.

Nintendo being about the only supplier of good games on their platforms. Needed to maintain a high level of excellence, because it wasn't going to come out of third parties. They didn't and the fans noticed the mistreatment on the part of Nintendo. Every casual game wasn't just one less core franchise game made. It was also less time spent on each core franchise installment. Which does bring us to the problem of Nintendo dialing in their games. A game like Halo doesn't justify the behavior on the part of Nintendo. In fact it highlights their disdain for their fans.

Halo sees more improvements from installment to installment. Which is usually all of one or even two years apart. Then gamers have seen in Mariokart in all of fifteen plus years. If anything the improvements should be more profound. Videogames aren't like board games, or even sports. There is always some serious room for improvement, and developers should want to be creating those improvements. Making their games so much better then the one that came before. Nintendo doesn't do that. They aren't trying to exceed expectations. The company literally wants to put in the least amount of effort possible. Be recreating the same game over and over again.

Hey, I only used the same inquiries as you did. You were the one talking about exclusive games that had a metacritic score of 90 or above, and I showed that Nintendo wasn't lagging too far behind X360 or PS3. I was even generous to PS3 and counted games that appeared on PSP/PSV and PS2 as well.

I am not arguing that PS360 more good games than Wii; because they did. What I'm arguing is that by using your own goal posts I can argue that Wii had quite a few 90+ exclusives. But as far as the most good games PS360 had the best. But I guess I could make the argument that if all you want is 90+ games you should go for a PC...

"Making their games so much better then the one that came before. Nintendo doesn't do that." This caught mu eye... Because it's utter bull shit. Have you played Mario Galaxy? Best reviewed game this gen. Hell, of ALL gens - e-v-e-r. And take a look at Zelda SS. There is some that considers that game better than OoT, and people consider OoT the best game of all time... That's saying something. In fact, Nintendo was the company that improved/changed the way we game the most this gen; it's called the Wii. X360 played just like the last 2 gens had played before it, not making any improvements as far as game play is concerned, and then came Nintendo with Wii and nullified your statement "Making their games so much better then the one that came before. Nintendo doesn't do that.", because they pushed the limits more than any other this gen.

But I wouldn't expect you to understand any of that because you're biased as hell.