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

Forums - Nintendo - Why didn't Nintendo make more realistic, violent games for the Wii just to prove 3rd parties wrong?

 

Because....

Nintendo is stupid. 40 17.47%
 
The game would have been bad. 8 3.49%
 
The game would have flopp... 27 11.79%
 
Third parties still wouldn't care. 81 35.37%
 
It would damage the Nintendo name. 26 11.35%
 
Other 47 20.52%
 
Total:229
MrT-Tar on 17 June 2012
Jay520 said:


2. You should check your numbers. CoD3 sold only 0.3m on the Wii & over 1m on the PS3 & over 2m on the X360.



Something's up with the numbers on this site as of late, the Wii version actually outsold the PS3 version.  It also happened with Red Steel sales (which was addressed earlier in the thread)




Around the Network
Jay520 on 17 June 2012

To all the geniuses that feel the need to tell me what 'core' means,

The point of this thread is not to argue definitions. The word 'core' isn't defined anywhere pertaining to gaming, so I'm just using the word as it relates to 3rd parties, since this thread is about 3rd parties. If you don't like that word, then ignore it & imagine a new one.



Jay520 on 17 June 2012
MrT-Tar said:
Jay520 said:


2. You should check your numbers. CoD3 sold only 0.3m on the Wii & over 1m on the PS3 & over 2m on the X360.



Something's up with the numbers on this site as of late, the Wii version actually outsold the PS3 version.  It also happened with Red Steel sales (which was addressed earlier in the thread)



Not that I think you're lying or anything, but if you're going to prove me wrong, you better have some proof.

Lostplanet22 on 17 June 2012

They had Rare to do that job :s



 

sergiodaly on 17 June 2012

@ OP... why would they need to do a call of duty game for the wii if the wii have the real call of duty... we all know how that worked out.

Proudest Platinums - BF: Bad Company, Killzone 2 , Battlefield 3 and GTA4

Around the Network
Jay520 on 17 June 2012

I'm curious about what the people who vote 'other' think. If you disagreed with my idea, then I gave you the option of saying '3rd parties still wouldn't care'. What do you people think?



MrT-Tar on 17 June 2012
Jay520 said:
MrT-Tar said:
Jay520 said:


2. You should check your numbers. CoD3 sold only 0.3m on the Wii & over 1m on the PS3 & over 2m on the X360.



Something's up with the numbers on this site as of late, the Wii version actually outsold the PS3 version.  It also happened with Red Steel sales (which was addressed earlier in the thread)


Not that I think you're lying or anything, but if you're going to prove me wrong, you better have some proof.


I assumed you checked this site, so I assumed this site was wrong.  However, here are the sales:

Wii: 2.15m - http://www.vgchartz.com/game/4935/call-of-duty-3/

PS3: 1.35m - http://www.vgchartz.com/game/4934/call-of-duty-3/




Jay520 on 17 June 2012
sergiodaly said:
@ OP... why would they need to do a call of duty game for the wii if the wii have the real call of duty... we all know how that worked out.


People say CoD Wii's lack of features was the main reason for it's low sales. Maybe Nintendo could make a military shooters with all the features it needs. Thus convincing Activision to pack CoD Wii with loads of content. Thus much higher sales.

Jay520 on 17 June 2012
MrT-Tar said:
Jay520 said:
MrT-Tar said:
Jay520 said:


2. You should check your numbers. CoD3 sold only 0.3m on the Wii & over 1m on the PS3 & over 2m on the X360.



Something's up with the numbers on this site as of late, the Wii version actually outsold the PS3 version.  It also happened with Red Steel sales (which was addressed earlier in the thread)


Not that I think you're lying or anything, but if you're going to prove me wrong, you better have some proof.


I assumed you checked this site, so I assumed this site was wrong.  However, here are the sales:

Wii: 2.15m - 

PS3: 1.35m - 



Okay, I'll give you that. I was on the gamReview site.

Jumpin on 17 June 2012
Jay520 said:
To all the geniuses that feel the need to tell me what 'core' means,

The point of this thread is not to argue definitions. The word 'core' isn't defined anywhere pertaining to gaming, so I'm just using the word as it relates to 3rd parties, since this thread is about 3rd parties. If you don't like that word, then ignore it & imagine a new one.


You asked "Why didn't Nintendo make any 'core' games for the Wii just to prove 3rd parties wrong?"

And you received an answer saying that Nintendo did make "core" games. Yet it seemed to be that what you were refering to were violent games. I didn't mean any offense, just that there are better words that could have been used to describe your meaning.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.