|
First, I mostly game on Nintendo hardware, but I do also game on PC. But thanks for suggesting that I must be "in the extreme minority". Do you have any evidence to back up that claim? I'm looking for facts, so you'd better have a study or something similar to back up your claim. Otherwise I'll just assume you're full of it. Im not suggessting anything, i just asked a question to see why you are in the state of mind you are constantly in when it comes to third parties. I don't mind ACIII having some technical imperfections. I *do* mind them not advertising the Wii U version. And I do mind Blacklist having major glitches. But ultimately, those aren't the issue. I'm not arguing that ACIII should have been better, I'm arguing that they're not solid arguments for why third parties shouldn't support the Wii U. They're franchises that are new to the console, inferior to the other versions, and yet people point at them as proof that there's no market for that franchise on the system.
The logical thing to do would be to build on the market established by those titles, use the lessons from development to make a tighter port, and push the title harder. Instead, there was no followup to Blacklist at all, while ACIV lacked any DLC support that the other versions had, had some major framerate issues, and no attempt was made to seriously push the game on the Wii U (but hey, at least the ads had the Wii U logo, albeit rather small, at the end). Markets have to be built for each franchise, they don't just magically materialise. Meanwhile, I do like how you tried to sneak in that blatant attack on the Wii U with the implication that the Wii U's hardware is weaker than the PS3 and 360 - facts that just don't hold up. Mind you, if it weren't for continuing attitudes by third parties, the issues I've listed about ACIII and ACIV probably wouldn't have stopped the games selling well. But when you're used to being skeptical of the quality of a third party title, you're a lot less likely to be satisfied with "almost comparable" quality. And that's the point I'm making - if you have a choice between buying a third party title and a first party title, and you know the first party title will be good, you're going to need the third party title to actually give you reason to look at it. And "we've almost reached comparable quality with the other versions" looks more like "we couldn't be bothered to put in the resources to get the game up to scratch". And I've done that repeatedly, so I'm not misrepresenting things at all. About three quarters of my Wii library is third-party titles, covering everything from Red Steel (I really wanted a real sequel to that game), to No More Heroes, to Dewy's Adventure. I bought Call of Duty: World at War, because I saw Treyarch's effort even despite Activision's treatment. And again, I bought Black Ops, because I saw Treyarch's efforts. But as the Wii generation went on, I became more and more cautious about buying non-Nintendo games, because multiple times I'd ended up with games that just didn't live up to what they should have been; a problem I almost never have had with Nintendo games. Nowadays, I tend to go with more independent titles, because most of them put passion and effort into every game they release, on every platform the game is released on. I'm itching for a Dynasty Warriors on my console because I love the Hyrule Warriors titles and want more of that gameplay... yet no such title is on the way, as far as I can see. I've bought multiple third party titles only to be kicked in the gut, colloquially speaking, each time, this generation. I buy good games. There are only a few types of games I just don't like (not a fan of the "Horror" titles, because I don't get enjoyment out of games trying to scare me, whether they succeed or not), and otherwise, if a good game is made, I'll pretty much certainly buy it. I buy Nintendo consoles because I know there will be enough good games to satisfy me. Nintendo games are pretty much guaranteed to be good games. But I'd love to have more good games, and I've prioritised third party titles over first-party titles multiple times, where there's been good reason to do so (Rayman Legends, for example). But it's funny - people like you like to refer to "Nintendo-only gamer", as though that's a thing. What? They buy Nintendo consoles and not the PS/Xbox systems? They must only like Nintendo games, right? |
I've only read the first sentence because thats all I really need to know. You are championing a silly cause, you have the ability to experience the best way to play said 3rd party games and you refuse for...reasons? They are the cheapest, have the best graphics, are fully advertised, have all DLC, tend to have fewer glitches and these are all based on what you want to spend on the PC itself.
Instead of continaully writing about how 3rd party (multiplat especially) games should be on Nintendo consoles (which is the worst way to play them because of various situations), you should focus on telling people the best way to, especially if you feel that the games are worth playing.
