TheSpindler said:
mine said:
Mr Puggsly said:
Nope, you're wrong.
For example, doing a port of Mass Effect 3 or Batman Arkham City was an easier job because they use the Unreal engine. That engine was already ported to the Wii U. However, Watch Dogs uses the Distrupt engine. So the Watch Dogs port is more work than Unreal engine games, because they have to port the new engine and the game.
Namco is using the Unreal engine for the next Tekken because that engine is already on all major platforms. Therefore its less work for them to port that game.
Another example, Titanfall uses the Source engine because they wanted to be able to port it on multiple platforms easily. But that decision was made before it became a Xbox and Windows exclusive.
The Wii U install base is growing, but they primarily just want Nintendo games. Year over year, core software sales didn't see much if any growth even with the the userbase growing.
Wii U fans like yourself set the bar for success lower than 3rd party publishers. You say Zombi U is a successful AAA exclusive, while 3rd parties obviously disagree with you.
|
You can ask any Wii U gamer if they want only games published by Nintendo.
Not the case. Not even remotely.
What Wii U owners want are unique quality games. Not halfbacked ports which which are there because the eninge used works on the Wii U too.
Zombii U failed because the reviews weren't that good. It's like the first Red Steel. Right direction but somehow flawed execution.
|
Not the same I'd say. Red Steel was built on lies, from the very first trailer, from the graphics to the gameplay. Zombi U however had everything up front, and was undersold in just what it does. I'd more blame that on the fact that the game actually changed twice and the original game was an entirely different one. And the Zombi U game had alot of things working against it, A)A new horror IP on the Wii U B)It changed from the original game C) Seemed to be a bit of a budget title, not a looker by any means D)Not nearly enough weight(marketing) put behind it as a new IP. You'd need it to be big in what you're trying to convey, the genre it's in and to properl show its new gameplay concepts to get people on board E) doing some things very differently from a normal horror IP, and confused reviewers F)Needed more polish or time in the oven.
Red Steel was mediocre and all its ideas fell flat and never delivered. Zombi U at least delivered some of its promise, and Red Steel still sold more. Too bad there'll never be another one. I doubt Zombi U would sell on PS4/XBO with the kind of problems and little marketing it had. Also dat name. You can't sell a game like that, with the marketing you put forth with a name like that.
|
This. I know a ton of people bought Red Steel on the idea that it would offer 1:1 sword combat in a video game, which seemed like a pipe dream would be coming to life in 2007. There was absolutely no mistaking what Zombi U was.
I think the other big difference between Red Steel and Zombi U is simply the initial install bases of each system close to launch. If the Wii U had blown the doors of the gate like its predecessor, I think it would have put up Red Steel's numbers. I don't think it was a case of customers unwilling to support the game, but customers unwilling to purchase the system to get to the game. The customers who purchased the system supported the game.
