| tastyshovelware said: ^^ What the hell is your problem? I never once in that statement used the word "wii." You insulted the ps2 catalog, I defended it, end of story. |
And considering it has over 2,000 games, roughly 98% of them are crap and not worth playing, yes.
There is no defending the PS2 library. It was what it was and for every glimmering gem, there were 10-20 road apples. It got that way because Sony let everyone develop games for it and having the biggest library meant people bought the system purely because it had the most games.
If you took ALL of the GC's library, the Xbox's library and the PS2's library and averaged the scores of ALLLLL the games, I'm quite certain that the PS2's would be lower than both of them, despite the fact that the PS2 also had the most good games.
I've no doubt that 98% of Wii games will be terrible, but being crappy didn't stop crappy games from selling on the PS2 and it won't stop them from selling on the Wii, either.
And unlike what the TC suggests, this is no fault of Nintendo's. Regulating console content is a great way to piss off 3rd parties and have them go to other consoles...like how Capcom moved Monster Hunter 3 from the PS3 to the Wii because Sony forces devs to develop in HD.
Nintendo made the right choice by letting devs just do what they want to do.
"I mean, c'mon, Viva Pinata, a game with massive marketing, didn't sell worth a damn to the "sophisticated" 360 audience, despite near-universal praise--is that a sign that 360 owners are a bunch of casual ignoramuses that can't get their heads around a 'gardening' sim? Of course not. So let's please stop trying to micro-analyze one game out of hundreds and using it as the poster child for why good, non-1st party, games can't sell on Wii. (Everyone frequenting this site knows this is nonsense, and yet some of you just can't let it go because it's the only scab you have left to pick at after all your other "Wii will phail1!!1" straw men arguments have been put to the torch.)" - exindguy on Boom Blocks
