By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - Are Nintendo gamers enlightened?

Lord Ciansworth on 31 January 2012
pezus said:
Lord Ciansworth said:
Mr Khan said:
Due to the distinct efforts of the gaming media and third parties to alienate us, we Nintendo Gamers have, i think, become a community somewhat separated from the gaming community at large

"enlightened" is not the term i would use. "Mutual alienation" is better. The clear bias of the gaming media against what we enjoy and their efforts to focus on everything except that which we enjoy makes it such that Nintendo Gamers can effectively get nothing out of mainstream gaming sites anymore, and must find their own communities

This is what makes the Nintendo-PC gamer alliance particularly strong, since those who have really stuck by PC gaming (and not migrated to HD-faux-PC gaming) also experience this alienation

I certainly agree with all of that. Whether or not you want to use the word "enlightened" depends on whether you believe one set of tastes can be "superior" to another. But of course they can.

Is Charles Dickens a better novelist than Lee Child, is Citizen Kane a better movie than Transformers 3, is Super Mario Galaxy 2 a richer experience than Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3? Real genius and art never needs explosions and shotguns to draw audiences. Perhaps the Nintendo gamer is, indeed, "enlightened".

Is Wii Fit a richer experience than Halo, Cod?

Oh I certainly wouldn't argue that. I was just arguing that there is a large class of Nintendo gamers who choose to play games, not because of their graphical fidelity, explosions, and guns, but because of their charm, genius and artistic quality, games that are appealing to young and old and will still be regarded as classics in years to come. You only have to look at each console's top selling games to see this is the case. Of course these kinds of gamers exist on PS3 and Xbox 360 too, there are just less of them.



Around the Network
happydolphin on 31 January 2012
Lord Ciansworth said:
pezus said:
Lord Ciansworth said:
Mr Khan said:
Due to the distinct efforts of the gaming media and third parties to alienate us, we Nintendo Gamers have, i think, become a community somewhat separated from the gaming community at large

"enlightened" is not the term i would use. "Mutual alienation" is better. The clear bias of the gaming media against what we enjoy and their efforts to focus on everything except that which we enjoy makes it such that Nintendo Gamers can effectively get nothing out of mainstream gaming sites anymore, and must find their own communities

This is what makes the Nintendo-PC gamer alliance particularly strong, since those who have really stuck by PC gaming (and not migrated to HD-faux-PC gaming) also experience this alienation

I certainly agree with all of that. Whether or not you want to use the word "enlightened" depends on whether you believe one set of tastes can be "superior" to another. But of course they can.

Is Charles Dickens a better novelist than Lee Child, is Citizen Kane a better movie than Transformers 3, is Super Mario Galaxy 2 a richer experience than Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3? Real genius and art never needs explosions and shotguns to draw audiences. Perhaps the Nintendo gamer is, indeed, "enlightened".

Is Wii Fit a richer experience than Halo, Cod?

Oh I certainly wouldn't argue that. I was just arguing that there is a large class of Nintendo gamers who choose to play games, not because of their graphical fidelity, explosions, and guns, but because of their charm, genius and artistic quality, games that are appealing to young and old and will still be regarded as classics in years to come. You only have to look at each console's top selling games to see this is the case. Of course these kinds of gamers exist on PS3 and Xbox 360 too, there are just less of them.

And the reason for this is simple, like Mr Khan so well explained. It's because Nintendo-only platform owners were left with no choice, since 3rd parties didn't port their pulp to the Wii for the most part. Who's to blame? Who cares. But the fact remains, no pulp, no taste for pulp ;)



DKHustlin on 31 January 2012

Of course they are enlightened nintendo gamers are enlightened to the fact that games are played for the gameplay and everything else is secondary



Everyday I'm hustlin'.

 

Wii and DS owner.

oniyide on 31 January 2012
RolStoppable said:
oniyide said:

oh man i love it, where you been?? One thing, I think GTA Advance holds the crown for worst selling GTA games.

But i agree with you on the last paragraph, too many times ive seen posters, just on this site complain about not getting the same thing. although its pretty evident that WIi is not the same as the others.

And this is why it's hard to respect you. You are always quick to agree with people who post fundamentally flawed arguments against the Wii and its owners.

If the Wii and DS were only about new things, then nobody would have championed sequels to established Nintendo IPs as well as the Virtual Console (which includes third party games). It was about the old and the new. Third parties virtually only gave the new on the Wii and they did a crappy job at it, so it shouldn't be hard to understand why people were pissed. It's pretty evident that the Wii is capable of running the same genres as the HD consoles, because the PS2, a weaker console, could it too.

thats why its kind of hard to take some of the things you say seriously, There ar some games that are on HD that CANNOT run on WIi, GTA, Assassins Creed, Mvs.C3, Elder Scrolls, Fallout 3, RE5 etc. These are games that would have  hard time running on the Wii and if they could get it to run, it would still be worse than the HD counterparts, and would still sell less, look at COD, hell look at just about any multiplat that isnt a dance or exercise game.  Its not about just running genres, which Wii cant run them all anyway (looking at you WRPGS). Its about quality of games, people are not going to want to play the inferior version of a game, which going by the sales they are not.

Im not saying that some games could not have worked, like an original actual RE, but it seems some Ninty fans forget or ignore that WIi hardware is much lower than the HD consoles, more powerful your hardware is, the more you can do, its not rocket science



oniyide on 31 January 2012
RolStoppable said:
oniyide said:

thats why its kind of hard to take some of the things you say seriously, There ar some games that are on HD that CANNOT run on WIi, GTA, Assassins Creed, Mvs.C3, Elder Scrolls, Fallout 3, RE5 etc. These are games that would have  hard time running on the Wii and if they could get it to run, it would still be worse than the HD counterparts, and would still sell less, look at COD, hell look at just about any multiplat that isnt a dance or exercise game.  Its not about just running genres, which Wii cant run them all anyway (looking at you WRPGS). Its about quality of games, people are not going to want to play the inferior version of a game, which going by the sales they are not.

Im not saying that some games could not have worked, like an original actual RE, but it seems some Ninty fans forget or ignore that WIi hardware is much lower than the HD consoles, more powerful your hardware is, the more you can do, its not rocket science

Your perspective is limited and you basically counter your own argument. First you talk mistakingly about porting existing HD games (which I didn't talk about), later on you realize that developers could very well build specific games for the Wii, like an original actual Resident Evil. If the Wii game is the only version, then there's no comparison with other consoles.

As for rocket science, I am going to use that against you. The Wii is a more capable machine than the PS2, so logically Wii third party games should be better than PS2 third party games. We both know they aren't, so why are you making excuses for third parties? We both know that third parties could have done better. Much better.

Its not about PS2, the PS2 ride ended years ago, around the time 360 came out when most devs started using that as its lead console. Wii is on the market with PS360 and we both know that it isnt anywhere near capable as those two. Why do people continue to ignore how underpowered it is for TODAY'S console market??

And really, Rol. You have never complained about why game A or B come to the WIi? Come on,



Around the Network
oniyide on 31 January 2012
RolStoppable said:
oniyide said:

Its not about PS2, the PS2 ride ended years ago, around the time 360 came out when most devs started using that as its lead console. Wii is on the market with PS360 and we both know that it isnt anywhere near capable as those two. Why do people continue to ignore how underpowered it is for TODAY'S console market??

And really, Rol. You have never complained about why game A or B come to the WIi? Come on,

So you go straight back to the porting argument. Why do you ignore the possibility of building games from the ground up for the Wii? A possibility that even you mentioned in your previous post. You come up with an "it's not rocket science" argument and then proceed to throw common sense out of the window in the following post. Do you despise Nintendo fans really so much that you would do anything to defend third parties? I can't help but think so.

And your last sentence, where did that come from? I didn't claim otherwise in this thread nor anywhere else. I complained a lot about certain games not coming to the Wii. This really looks like a desperate attempt on your part to redirect the discussion.

These devs and publishers dont have unlimited resources. PS2, GC, XBOX were close enough to each other that they could port games between the three. Not the case with Wii and PS360.  Im not saying that they couldnt, im just saying that they were not. Are you that in love with Ninty that you really believe that they are not in the least bit at fault? They released a system seriously underpowered a YEAR after the 360. 3rd parties didnt tell them to do that. And its not like they didnt get games made for it from the groundup, they got plenty, they just were not very good. Which goes back to resources, there AAA and AA teams are on the PS360 and why wouldnt they be??? THey are harder to develop for and they need people with experience. Everyone else goes to Wii because its not that hard to develop for and they need to get their feet wet anyway.



happydolphin on 31 January 2012

oniyide said:

 Are you that in love with Ninty that you really believe that they are not in the least bit at fault? They released a system seriously underpowered a YEAR after the 360. 3rd parties didnt tell them to do that.

I don't mean to agro you, so take this lightly. But consider this, can't this argument be turned around to say...

For Sony:

"Are you that in love with Sony that you really believe that they are not in the least bit at fault? They released a system seriously overpriced a YEAR after the 360. 3rd parties didnt tell them to do that."

Yet you still saw a plethora of games on it, even massive exclusives like MGS.

For Microsoft:

"Are you that in love with Microsoft that you really believe that they are not in the least bit at fault? They released a system seriously underperforming when it comes to sales and exclusives a YEAR before the two major manufacturers. 3rd parties didnt tell them to do that."

Yet you still saw a plethora of games on it, even massive exclusives like GOW and ME.

Ultimately:

Goes to show how, even when Nintendo had the best console out there in terms of market appeal and popularity, the 3rd party devs didn't back it up with AAA content. That's all we're tryin' to say. Instead, they helped push the HD twins, which were considerably lagging behind for the 4 first years of the generation 2005 (360 launch) to 2009 (Just before Wii domination of HW sales started to decline in 2010).

I can guarantee you that would never have happened had Sony been in Nintendo's shoes, Microsoft or even SEGA.



oniyide on 31 January 2012
RolStoppable said:
oniyide said:

These devs and publishers dont have unlimited resources. PS2, GC, XBOX were close enough to each other that they could port games between the three. Not the case with Wii and PS360.  Im not saying that they couldnt, im just saying that they were not. Are you that in love with Ninty that you really believe that they are not in the least bit at fault? They released a system seriously underpowered a YEAR after the 360. 3rd parties didnt tell them to do that. And its not like they didnt get games made for it from the groundup, they got plenty, they just were not very good. Which goes back to resources, there AAA and AA teams are on the PS360 and why wouldnt they be??? THey are harder to develop for and they need people with experience. Everyone else goes to Wii because its not that hard to develop for and they need to get their feet wet anyway.

It's perfectly clear that resources aren't unlimited, but when you have the choice between a new IP (where you have to start from scratch) or bringing an established IP to all platforms (like the already mentioned Resident Evil as an original game for the Wii), which one is the safer bet? The latter, because it's pretty much guaranteed that the game will be profitable. What did third parties do? They went with the former and made an HD game. In some cases it worked, but more often than not the game flopped. With limited resources, you have to ask why third parties were so often opting for the riskier approach. If your argument is that third parties needed to do what is best for their business, then I am afraid that most financial reports don't back you up.

Going into this generation, Nintendo could only do wrong. Third parties wanted Nintendo to get out of the hardware business, just like Sega. So no, I don't put any blame on Nintendo. The game makers take full responsibility and they failed the Wii, not vice versa.

RE is a bad example, it is an established IP and they did make a RE for the HDs, with two more coming. And RE5 was quite profitable, highest selling in the series, without the help of the market leading console. So maybe Capcom, figured; "hell we dont need RE on Wii, it does fine without it" I dont agree with that train of thought, but i do understand it. I dont think its risky at all, a lot of these engines that run these PS360 games were being created even before Wii was announced. What would have been risky is to throw all that RnD and work away and start from scratch running the games on WIi. IMHO I think (some) of them made the right call. Like Ubi, make Just Dance for WIi, type of game that appeals to the Wii audience and make AC type of game that appeals to HD twins/PC. They give something for everyone. Only people really complaining are the fanboys who dont wanna buy a non Ninty machine, tightwads who dont wanna buy a non Ninty machine and people who cant afford another (I feel for you guys). But they are the minority of Wii owners



oniyide on 31 January 2012
happydolphin said:

oniyide said:

 Are you that in love with Ninty that you really believe that they are not in the least bit at fault? They released a system seriously underpowered a YEAR after the 360. 3rd parties didnt tell them to do that.

I don't mean to agro you, so take this lightly. But consider this, can't this argument be turned around to say...

For Sony:

"Are you that in love with Sony that you really believe that they are not in the least bit at fault? They released a system seriously overpriced a YEAR after the 360. 3rd parties didnt tell them to do that."

Yet you still saw a plethora of games on it, even massive exclusives like MGS.

For Microsoft:

"Are you that in love with Microsoft that you really believe that they are not in the least bit at fault? They released a system seriously underperforming when it comes to sales and exclusives a YEAR before the two major manufacturers. 3rd parties didnt tell them to do that."

Yet you still saw a plethora of games on it, even massive exclusives like GOW and ME.

Ultimately:

Goes to show how, even when Nintendo had the best console out there in terms of market appeal and popularity, the 3rd party devs didn't back it up with AAA content. That's all we're tryin' to say. Instead, they helped push the HD twins, which were considerably lagging behind for the 4 first years of the generation 2005 (360 launch) to 2009 (Just before Wii domination of HW sales started to decline in 2010).

I can guarantee you that would never have happened had Sony been in Nintendo's shoes, Microsoft or even SEGA.

For Sony, i never patted them on the back, ever. I have said many times that they have done stupid crap this gen, no rumble in controllers, overpriced, PSN was lacking. But you know they difference?? Those things were addressed. All of them. Hell i didnt get PS3 until MGS4 came out thats when PS3 stopped sucking. Im not in love with any company to just toss them my money. If i think their product is good, ill support it, that simply. I think PS3 is the best on the market for me. IT got a plethora of games because 360 was getting them and its much easier to port a 360 game to PS3 than it is to WIi, you know that already, plus the moneyhattign and favors, something that Ninty wasnt doing, you know that too.

MS, was doing alright, especially compared to PS3 and I find the sales part a bit, funny, its too black and white. Fact is the 360 versions of games were outselling there Wii counterparts, its been like that from day one, so why would 3rd parties NOT continue to support it?? It doesnt matter how much better Wii sells, if third party games are not selling on it it means nothing, they dont see any money from hardware sales. As ive explained before 360 was the first out, that means they probably had dev kits available for it before the others, what were they supposed to do, throw all that work away and start fresh for Wii? That would have been more money and work wasted. For all intents purposes, the 360 was the lead design console. ANd they moneyhatted hard, since day1 and they are still doing it, thats how you get third party support, you dont sit on your ass and wait for them to come, not gonna happen

As for your last point refer to my last paragraph and you're right it wouldnt happen to Sony or MS because they wouldnt sit around and LET it happen, they would again moneyhat, do whatever they got to do to get that game. Something Ninty wasnt doing, maybe they thought it wasnt honorable, maybe they thought they were to "good" to resort to such tactics, for whatever reason. But im happy to say they learned their lesson now. Seeing the actual decent 3rd party content going to 3ds and Wii U



oniyide on 31 January 2012
RolStoppable said:
oniyide said:

RE is a bad example, it is an established IP and they did make a RE for the HDs, with two more coming. And RE5 was quite profitable, highest selling in the series, without the help of the market leading console. So maybe Capcom, figured; "hell we dont need RE on Wii, it does fine without it" I dont agree with that train of thought, but i do understand it. I dont think its risky at all, a lot of these engines that run these PS360 games were being created even before Wii was announced. What would have been risky is to throw all that RnD and work away and start from scratch running the games on WIi. IMHO I think (some) of them made the right call. Like Ubi, make Just Dance for WIi, type of game that appeals to the Wii audience and make AC type of game that appeals to HD twins/PC. They give something for everyone. Only people really complaining are the fanboys who dont wanna buy a non Ninty machine, tightwads who dont wanna buy a non Ninty machine and people who cant afford another (I feel for you guys). But they are the minority of Wii owners

That's not how I meant it. I said "bring an established IP to all platforms". In the case of Resident Evil, RE5 would have remained the 360/PS3 game that it is (which sold millions) and the Wii would have gotten its own full fledged RE title that would have sold two million copies minimum (because the RE4 Wii port was already very successful). Capcom should have figured: "Hey, we are successful on the 360 and PS3, why shouldn't we also try to be successful on the Wii?"

Of course something has to give, so some other Capcom game would not have been made. Capcom had a good range of HD flops (like Bionic Commando and Dark Void) and these developers might have been able to make a good game on a machine that is less demanding. You know, like Free Radical used to be top notch with the Timesplitters series last generation and then wasn't able to handle the new development environment of this generation with the mediocre Haze.

ok that makes sense, i guess they figured that people like that light gun game, so why not give them another?  Again I dont agree with this train of thought but I understand it. I think its just laziness on their part, not so much as anything against Ninty, its just cheaper to make one or two light gun games, than to make another full fledged RE game and its not like every thing is a bed of roses on the HD side when it comes to Capcom either.