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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Nintendo gets a pass Just because they're Nintendo That Sony Isn't Allowed To Have

thetonestarr said:
EdHieron said:
WiiBox3 said:
Mnementh said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:


Someone gotta look up "jealousy" in an urban dictionary and link that page to this thread.


Nintendo played their cards right, allowing them to steal a great part of Sony's former casual userbase. It really is that simple.


Yes. And Sony allowed to do so, because they gave up on the PS1/2-formula for the PS3.


Yep. That is also why Wii got all the shovel ware this gen, which had been on the PS1/PS2 in the last two gens.


And in the last two gens, the PS1 and PS had many times the number of games with aggregate review scores in the 9 to 10 range than Wii; however, if either console had only had 14 like the Wii, I'm sure Sony fans would have talked about how horrible the games lineup on the two consoles were rather than acting as if its 7 and 8 review score games and lower were much better than they really were, so Nintendo gets a free pass from its fans in regard to the overall dearth of quality games on the console which is even quite low when compared to the N64 and Gamecube. 


Someone gotta look up "jealousy" in an urban dictionary and link that page to this post.

The vast majority of the 90+ games on Metacritic on the PS2 were multiplatform, while a rather small minority of them on the Wii are. None of those actually count. Critics were also score-happy for the first half of last decade. The greater percentage of games, as a whole, scored above 90. I don't think they were any better at all, though. Your argument, once again, is invalid.


My argument is based on the only proper yardstick(s) that the industry has for measuring the quality of games.  And, the 360 and PS3 didn't have difficult times getting their fair share of higlhy rated games this gen (which is probabl why when the gen s over they will have a combined market share that is far higher than the Wii's.  You don't run around saying that movies that most fillm critics give 3 stars to are equal to or better than movies that they give 5 stars to do you?



Around the Network

The funny thing is that Sony/MS fans gives the PS360 a pass - as much (if not even more so) as Nintendo fans. Nintendo were first with motion controls - and seeing the success they had, Sony and MS riped them off.
Kinect is a rip off that gets a pass from MS fans. MS really have gone after the casual since 2010 (or something) and got a pass for it.
Move is just like the Wiimote! It just looks more lika a dildo. And Sony fans gave it a pass.

You, Ed, really is a hipocrite if you won't bash MS/Sony for their sudden interest in casuals! And I would be a hypocrite to say that I don't want 3rd party on the Wii - of course I do, but that's the only mistake Nintendo made with the Wii: not having enough power in it so it could get ports. That and the fact Nintendo totally dropped the ball after 2010... But My point still stands: if Nintendo deserves a bash for going casual, then MS/Sony does so too - and even more so for mimmicking the Wii shamelessly, trying to get some casuals.



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.

WELCOME Traveller from the past bearing old news and grudges!

Thou hast arrived in the year 2012 now and thy message is irrelevant to us, but we mean you no harm!



“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

- George Orwell, ‘1984’

Porcupine_I said:
WELCOME Traveller from the past bearing old news and grudges!

Thou hast arrived in the year 2012 now and thy message is irrelevant to us, but we mean you no harm!

haha!

I'm looking, but I still can't find that "like"-button...



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.

EdHieron said:

My argument is based on the only proper yardstick(s) that the industry has for measuring the quality of games.  And, the 360 and PS3 didn't have difficult times getting their fair share of higlhy rated games this gen (which is probabl why when the gen s over they will have a combined market share that is far higher than the Wii's.  You don't run around saying that movies that most fillm critics give 3 stars to are equal to or better than movies that they give 5 stars to do you?

The one and only yardstick that the industry has for measuring the quality of games is sales. Game ratings, even Metacritic/Gamerankings, are often used nowadays by the industry for measuring the "value" of games from the publisher's perspective... but then, those same publishers also routinely pay off reviewers.

You know why Nintendo titles typically get lower review scores? (you're expecting me to say moneyhats by Sony/MS, aren't you? - admit it, that's what you thought on reading that question). It's because reviewers are highly superficial, and judge games based on what they like, rather than trying to be at least somewhat objective. And since a lot of "hardcore" tended to like PS3/360 over Wii, whenever they were tasked with reviewing a Wii title, they inevitably gave it a lower score than it deserved, often because "it's not HD" (although not usually worded that way, it was clear from the review text).

What I find utterly hilarious is that, in a thread about giving Nintendo a pass, one of the arguments in FAVOUR of having given Nintendo a pass is that review scores were LOWER on Wii. Reviewers refused to give the Wii a pass.

Try having a look at the pattern of review scores on Wii titles. Let's try an example - Monster Hunter Tri. The game got two 100% reviews, 31 more 90%+ reviews, and another 27 that were greater than 80% (and one that was 77%, and one that was 75%). And then there were eight that were 70% or lower. How can a game get such a layout? Well, let's look at one of the two reviews that gave it 60% - the Gamestyle one. "The graphics and sound are decent if unspectacular for the Wii". "So it’s easy to get the impression that the game’s pretty worthless". "It’s also interesting to note that this is only the second Wii game that supports the WiiSpeak add-on" (not true).

Oh, but that's some niche review site, right? OK, Game Informer rated it 70%. "Environments and human characters are bland". Really? They're bland? As opposed to about 99% of all FPS titles nowadays, that you happily describe as having great graphics? You know what the best description for most modern FPSes is? "Brown and Grey".

But I'm sure that's just the case of Monster Hunter. It couldn't possible have happened with other games. Except it does. Oftentimes, you'll see phrases like "the graphics are good... for the Wii" or "It's a good game... for the Wii". The Telegraph reviewed Goldeneye 007 for the Wii (6/10), and said this: "... while it may be one of the better shooters on the Wii, that's not saying a lot". But here's the key description that makes my point: "... but without any of the polish or draw of the majority of FPS titles". Eurogamer gave it a 7/10, with phrases like "...but they are as muted as the game's environments" and "... the same can't be said of the Wii hardware itself, which at times struggles to keep up with the developer's vision". It's usually very slightly obscured, but not all that much so. And even as the Eurogamer (and the Telegraph) review keeps reiterating its similarity to Modern Warfare, almost as though it's a negative.

So let's look at what Eurogamer said about Modern Warfare on the Wii. "There's no denying that Modern Warfare remains one of the best shooters available, both in single and multiplayer, but releasing a technically crippled version two years later on Wii is a curious decision", and "... the game just doesn't feel at home on Nintendo's platform". Yeah, nice and objective, right?

So next time you want to claim that Nintendo was given a pass, try stopping and actually thinking about it. The fact is, people who didn't have a problem with the Wii not being a powerhouse are actually wondering why it never got a single pass from the gaming media.

EDIT: Even when discussing one of the highest-rated games of all time, Mario Galaxy, when talking about the graphics, IGN, for instance, feels it must describe them as "cutting edge (for the Wii)". This is the attitude that the entire gaming media took to it. They couldn't possibly call a Wii game good-looking, they had to describe it as "good-looking for the Wii". And it was the same with other elements, too - "good controls, for a Wii game", etc.



Around the Network
Khuutra said:
EdHieron said:


I have to take issue with the "Family Console" thing what Nintendo fans wanted was a console that was chock full of as many core games as the NES and SNES for the past two gens, they wanted Final Fantasy back as an exclusive on their console, and I really doubt the fanbase that made the original "Conker's Bad Fur Day" and "Perfect Dark" two of the biggest games of their time were really that concerned with having a family console.  I would say there would only be a handful of Nintendo fans saying after the success of the Super Nintendo and  prior to the success of the Wii as a family console that what they most wanted in Wii was a family console.

Neither Conker's Bad Fur Day nor Perfect Dark ranked particularly high among the "biggest games of their time", your exaggeration is egregious in this case.

I was going to say this...both games (though popular with critics and fans and looked back on fondly) were actually released close to the n64's final days and didn't actually sell that well, comparitively speaking.



How in the world did this thread get over 100 replies..



 

mM
mushroomboy5 said:
I was going to say this...both games (though popular with critics and fans and looked back on fondly) were actually released close to the n64's final days and didn't actually sell that well, comparitively speaking.

This site is all about game sales, and has a record of them all. How the hell did you not actually look up the sales numbers to check the claim?

Perfect Dark on N64 sold 2.5 million copies. It was the 19th best selling N64 title. 2.5 million isn't massive, but it's certainly "selling well". To put it into perspective, it nearly outsold Mass Effect on the Xbox 360, despite Mass Effect being on a better-selling system, released quite early in its lifetime, and Mass Effect being considered a MAJOR new IP. For its time, 2.5 million was a big number.

Conker's Bad Fur Day, I agree, though - it wasn't a big-seller, and critics mostly look back on it fondly because of toilet humour, rather than any real quality - it wasn't nearly as good as the similar Banjo-Kazooie titles.



leo-j said:
How in the world did this thread get over 100 replies..

handed them an excuse on a silver platter, from a Sony fan no less, so they're totally justified



logic56 said:
ughh OP you gave Nintendo fans a reason to troll Sony section even harder than they were already doing, your OP is bad this thread is bad and you should feel bad


This was in the Sony section? This is a nintendo-trolling-thread, so it should've been posted in the Nintendo-section.

Why do you think it is Sony-trolling? if I compare the Wii with the PS2 (saying Nintendo copied the PS2-formula), then not for trolling Sony, but to make clear that the OP uses different measures here.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]