| Master Diwa said: So you're basically saying that, it's Nintendo's fault for making their games so damn good? |
Hello,and welcome to VGhartz. I see you are fairly new so this is likely your first Rol thread. The frist one consfused the crap out of me, and I had to read it several times to catch his meaning. hope your having fun.
"But as always, technology refused to be dignity's bitch."--Vance DeGeneres
| RolStoppable said: A lot of the criticism towards Nintendo this generation is ill-founded, often times because the people who complain have no reason to say those things other than the fact that they just don't like Nintendo. That obviously doesn't hold true for me, because I am the biggest Nintendo fan on this website right after The Ghost Of RubangB. Now where does Nintendo go wrong? It's obviously in regards to their third party support. Many of those games (like Little King's Story) don't sell as much as they deserve, because Nintendo's first party titles get in the way. They simply have a too high hour/$ ratio. You buy a game like Mario Kart Wii and can play it for weeks if not months without getting bored. The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess will take most players at least 30 hours to finish just for the main quest and the amounts of hours people put into DS games like Pokémon are insane. You don't feel the need to go out and buy a third party game as a filler until the next first party game is released (the sole purpose why third party titles exist in the first place), because your last Nintendo game lasts you so long. There's just no time to play another game and the result is that third party sales are for the most part less than stellar, to put it nicely. Microsoft and Sony have a superior business model because they keep the campaigns of their $60 games usually below 10 hours of playtime in order to fuel more sales of third party titles. They not only get more money per title, they can also sell far more software that way while gamers still end up with the same amount of playtime as on a Nintendo system. Nintendo is leaving a lot of money on the table by offering so much bang for our buck. Until they change their business practices to get more in line with the industry standard, analysts will be ultimately right: Nintendo is doomed. |
So, in conclusion. The whole purpose of this thread is to say that Nintendo gives you more bang for your bucks than Sony/MS? It's amazing how you keep managing to get away with these kinds of threads. They used to be funny but now they are just lazy.
PS One/2/p/3slim/Vita owner. I survived the Apocalyps3/Collaps3 and all I got was this lousy signature.
Xbox One: What are you doing Dave?
The 3rd party companies have to learn the wonders of advertising. Without ads and promotional stuff Nintendo games would be nowhere near their current success.
Of course, you can't throw in the big TV ads when you start but it's the way it goes with everything. Start small, grow big. There are so many ways to get your game known, yet 98% of 3rd party publishers don't give a damn and cry about weak sales.
This is to help you if you couldn't read between the lines in this topic :P
Not saying that Nintendo is making mistakes, but there are ways that it can't go without counting too much on its major franchises.
Without Mario, Zelda, Pokemon or Sonic, Nintendo probably won't have anywhere to go except with their WiiSports and all those bundles
Seriously, I don’t think this is an issue with the games Nintendo makes as much as this is an issue with the games third party developers are making. The quality of local (often 4 player) multiplayer is the one feature that seems to most closely correlate with success on the Wii; and it is also the feature that seems to be consistently lacking (or missing) on many of the third party "Flops" on the Wii. Certainly, there are single player successes on the Wii but they follow a pattern that third party publishers seem unwilling to follow; basically, producing a high game with well known IP and marketing it well.
only read OP, but this thread is fail all the way. You ignore that PS3/XBOX have huge online portions to their games. You buy CoD and dont have to buy another game for a VERY long time. The same online effect is in sports games as well. Madden/NHL give much more replay value on the HD consoles then on Wii simply because of online competition.
ignoring online killed your argument
The only game this theory holds up for is the legend of Zelda. For singleplayer only games the others aren't particularly long, especially when compared to titles like Demon's Souls on the PS3, and Demon's Souls is a fair bit longer than Zelda.
In my household, most the Wii titles we have are third party, and they generally consume more time for singleplayer playthroughs too.
Plus of course you don't take into account multiplayer... well in a sense you do... like with Mario Kart. I don't see the point in playing Mario Kart for months unless you're going to be playing multiplayer, in which case you should realise that the lifespans on 360/PS3 games are in fact much, much longer due to additional multiplayer content.
I'd even go as far to argue that typically multiplayer only games like MAG will get much, much more playtime than Singleplayer first party Nintendo titles.
It's because Wii is for casuals and casuals don't research purchases, and make them on the basis of brand recognition and whatnot, little more.
| Xero said: The only game this theory holds up for is the legend of Zelda. For singleplayer only games the others aren't particularly long, especially when compared to titles like Demon's Souls on the PS3, and Demon's Souls is a fair bit longer than Zelda. In my household, most the Wii titles we have are third party, and they generally consume more time for singleplayer playthroughs too. Plus of course you don't take into account multiplayer... well in a sense you do... like with Mario Kart. I don't see the point in playing Mario Kart for months unless you're going to be playing multiplayer, in which case you should realise that the lifespans on 360/PS3 games are in fact much, much longer due to additional multiplayer content. I'd even go as far to argue that typically multiplayer only games like MAG will get much, much more playtime than Singleplayer first party Nintendo titles. It's because Wii is for casuals and casuals don't research purchases, and make them on the basis of brand recognition and whatnot, little more. |
I would disagree, my most played game of all time is the original Mario. I still have my original cartridge, and in fact, I played today. I don't have it yet, but I imagine that the same is true for NSMBW.
SmoothCriminal said:
I would disagree, my most played game of all time is the original Mario. I still have my original cartridge, and in fact, I played today. I don't have it yet, but I imagine that the same is true for NSMBW. |
I have over 1500 in the Disgaea series, 40 on Demon's Souls (haven't really started playing it yet), 200 on White Knight Chronicles, . You can't say there's not plenty of time sinks exclusive to the PS3. It's also easy to argue Little Big Planet has a much longer lifespan than any Mario game.
Besides it's purely subjective. If you enjoy a game enough you can play it over and over, yet that game probably doesn't have a long 'lifespan' in the traditional sense. Most Mario games do not have long lifespans in the traditional sense.
I can't speak for the 360 though, on my box the longest time I played an exclusive was for about 30hours. I did spend 42 days on Call of Duty 4 but I'm not sure if this counts.
I love Rol's commentaries. This was awesome as usual. Blast Nintendo for substandard third party games :) fantastic.
Squilliam: On Vgcharts its a commonly accepted practice to twist the bounds of plausibility in order to support your argument or agenda so I think its pretty cool that this gives me the precedent to say whatever I damn well please.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
i
