I should add that I looked up the sales, and while only one NFS game sold about a million on the Wii, the others sold quite well anyway. And would likely have made a healthy profit considering even a high budget Wii game could make a profit on that.
Which shows that aside from Extraction, EA is actually making money on their Wii games, which shows where they are losing it.
A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.
Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs
the problem is they have to redo the art on the wii version and obviously not going to spend a lot of time on it. Still you got a wii NFS.
| Carl2291 said: The main thing I see you lot complaining about with this NFS game is that it looks like a PS1 game. If the Wii was in HD... It would have had a very similar looking game to PS3/360. You lot complain about the EA Sports games. If the Wii was HD it wouldn't have to have different art styles like All Play or whatever to try appeal to the stereotypical kiddy userbase that Wii has. Instead it would have the REALISTIC look, and thus... Appeal to more people who actually follow Football or whatever. I'm sick of the same old people crying about the same crap over and over again. Nintendo are as much to blame for the Wii's 3rd party support as the 3rd parties themselves. Yet if you start a thread complaining about how Nintendo are making games that look like trash compared to games on the HD systems... It's trolling. Double standards ftw, eh? |
When did Nintendo make a game that looks as bad as this piece of trash? You said it yourself, it looks like a PS1 game. Are we really supposed to believe that that is acceptable? Yeah, the Wii isn't a graphical powerhouse, but the PS1 was two generations ago FFS. An acceptable level would be PS2/GC at a minimum...
You like to say that 3rd parties are just following Nintendo's lead (and thus to blame) and copying Wii Sports et al when releasing party games, so which Nintendo game is being followed here? The only comparable game is Mario Kart. You'd have to be mad to assume they're following Nintendo's lead with Mario Kart here.
The funny thing is, they could just be even lazier than they have been here and port the PS2 NFS games, tack on some waggle, and they'd probably be a hell of a lot more appealing...
The point about EA Sports is utter BS as well, given that Konami are handing their asses to them with Pro Evo on the Wii, in both looks and gameplay...
VGChartz
what's all the fuss about,
it looks like alot of fun my 9 yr old nephew will love this racing game on his wii for chrimbo judging by the video above
i'll buy it next week for him
Above & Beyond
| freebs2 said: Oh, poor EA, how can blame them, after all hardcore games don't sell on Wii. Btw, it's even more embarassing considering how Criterion made racing games look on Ps2. |
omg that game looks INFINITELY better!!
| RolStoppable said: In conclusion: Why is NfS: HP atrocious? Because EA sucks. Why does EA fail to establish their franchises on the Wii? Because EA sucks. Can you blame Nintendo for the decisions EA made? I don't think so, Carl. |
You got me there. EA this gen really have sucked.
My whole point really though, without my huge sidetracked (and a bit wrong, I admit) rant about how it's all Nintendo's fault, is that the 3rd parties don't feel the need to put as much effort into Wii versions when they can make something like this that can go on to sell a few 100k units for an easy profit. Why bother making really high quality games when you can make PS1-like games that earn you easy profits? If the Wii was a HD console it wouldn't be getting milk jobs like this, and we wouldn't have a bunch of people crying about the same old thing Monthly.
RolStoppable said:
Issues I have with this post: The Wii didn't get big third party games, so there were no sales of big third party games. Because there were no sales of big third party games, companies decided that big games should not be made for the Wii. That's brilliant logic. The Wii wasn't marketed the way you describe. The commercials showed people of both genders and all ages (and still do), so it's hard to argue that Nintendo targeted specific demographics. The PS3 and 360 haven't proven to be able to sell near enough of any genre in the millions. Did you already forget all the layoffs, mergers and closings? Even today, many third party publishers are still losing money or barely profiting. Most games for the HD consoles weren't greenlid based on good financial results, but rather hope that they bring in some money. Third parties get the hate they deserve. That's why EA is constantly under attack while the other giant (Activision) barely attracts any haters anymore. |
I was thinking the same thing while reading that dude's post. I see him every now and then strolling around Nintendo forums, always seems to have something to say >_>
| RolStoppable said: Issues I have with this post: The Wii didn't get big third party games, so there were no sales of big third party games. Because there were no sales of big third party games, companies decided that big games should not be made for the Wii. That's brilliant logic. The Wii wasn't marketed the way you describe. The commercials showed people of both genders and all ages (and still do), so it's hard to argue that Nintendo targeted specific demographics. The PS3 and 360 haven't proven to be able to sell near enough of any genre in the millions. Did you already forget all the layoffs, mergers and closings? Even today, many third party publishers are still losing money or barely profiting. Most games for the HD consoles weren't greenlid based on good financial results, but rather hope that they bring in some money. Third parties get the hate they deserve. That's why EA is constantly under attack while the other giant (Activision) barely attracts any haters anymore. |
First... True I suppose. While it does kinda go with my point that they haven't been proven on Wii. But it doesn't matter as we can see they don't need to. They make fair profits from games like this.
Second... It was marketed that way, not just that way. The majority of adverts I do see NOW for the Wii though are for mums, parties and families. I can only speak for the UK though...
Third... We don't actually have proof of what games are and aren't making profits, and it's not only been developers making HD games that have layoffs, mergers and closings. And I actually find Activision getting more hate lately than any other developer. Especially from the HD crowd. It's all mainly down to Kottick though.
Carl2291 said:
The difference is they also bought the big 3rd party games in Millions, not just the 3rd party shovelware. The PS2 was the following console to the PS1, a Generation leader and 3rd party "dream" console. The PS2 was very similar in specs to the Xbox and Gamecube. The PS2 dominated marketshare-wise. The PS2 wasn't marketed as a system for Children, parties and old people from day 1. The PS1 had excellent support from the 3rd parties due to Nintendo's fuck up, and Sony kept those deals with PS2 games like MGS2 and Final Fantasy. These games selling well, early on, proved that the audience for these types of games was on the PS2. If we want to go with Racing games, the PS console was huge in Europe... Europe LOVES racing. The PS consoles also had Gran Turismo early on... Which is a 10 Million selling franchise that uses realistic vehicles, not go-karts. The Wii is a console that launched off of a generation loser. It has far inferior specs to the 2 competing consoles. Put these 2 together and you have a console that will have terrible support on launch. It's common sense. Especially when one of the competing consoles is the follow up to the then best selling system of all time and BOTH of them are very similar in specs. Your typical AAA Game takes 2/3 Years to complete. This is after the game engine has been created. The majority of developers created HD game engines for the PS3 and 360. They spent a LOT of money on these engines. They WILL use them, especially when both PS3 AND 360 have proven to be able to sell near enough any genre in Millions. It's literally obvious why the Wii gets the support it does. If people can't see why then they need to either take there goggles off and see facts or stop complaining about the same thing and trolling a game/developer every Month for another Wii game that doesn't meet YOUR expectations. |
So your point is basically:
Third parties betting it all on HD engines and ignoring the fact that they have perfectly fine Gamecube engines for free from last gen is Nintendo's fault, even though Iwata recommended developers to use their Gamecube dev kits to make their first Wii games.
Third parties didn't have to react when the Wii was massivley outselling the other consoles a couple of years ago. The logical thing was to just keep doing what they were doing, even though some, like Eidos or Midway went bankrupt becasue of it. And even though CoD 3 outsold the PS3 version, "the engine wasn't ready" is a valid excuse to not have a CoD 4 or something similar made for Wii.
Games like the one in the OP are completely justified because their counterparts on the HD consoles sell millions and the market for games with effort put in them is relatively unproven on Wii. This apparantly excludes third parties from the responsibility of putting any kind of effort into the games that they make even though decent quality games can easily and cheaply be made on Wii without being pieces of trash.
I don't agree with you.
I LOVE ICELAND!
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
