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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Why Do U Hate Wii U (or Nintendo)??

Tagged games:

DRAE_nmhar said:
Lol people always find something to hate about Nintendo. Now that Nintendo is finally in HD, a Mario game at launch, and has great third party support, etc, people still manage to find something wrong about those.


yep, pretty much this.

 

Offtopic: Nice videos!!



Menx64

3DS code: 1289-8222-7215

NNid: Menx064

Around the Network
Stefan.De.Machtige said:
selnor said:
Stefan.De.Machtige said:
selnor said:
Stefan.De.Machtige said:
selnor said:
I loved their games. But Nintendo began down a different path after GC. Somewhere I couldn't follow. They used push the envelop of control and graphics. Now they don't. They let Rare get destroyed. A developer which was better than Ninty from my point of view.

So unless Ninty have top level visuals again, I'm not theirs anymore.

I was an old school ninty fan. Someone who was wowed as much by their graphics as I was by their gameplay.

Nintendo was always about control in the first place. In the second place, it was style, not graphics. To them they are not the same thing.

Oh, yeah, they were forced to sell their Rare stock. By Rare itself. They wanted to go with microsoft. Their mistake and their downfall.


No Nintendo also built the Nes, Snes and N64. Snes and N64 were very powerful in graphics and at te front of their respective generations. Nintendo were the ones to decide not to make Wii a powerhouse. A path I coould not follow.

As far as I remember the stamper Bros. at Rare didnt want Rare to be sold. Which is the real reason they left.

1. That was a decision made by the market. The GC was most likely the most powerfull of the generaton and it sold the least of any Nintendo console. Nintendo recognised this and chose a different path with the WII. Ironicly it was the market which could not follow Nintendo's path, and forced a change for the company.

2. The brothers left Rare five years after microsoft took them over. They obvious didn't leave on principle upon the sale. And even if it got sold without their consent, it was still a choice by the company Rare. Their chosen downfall.

1. Show me  1 site that claims the GC was more powerful than Xbox. Ironically I think the market are calling for more power, and the decision with Wii U will be a mistake. I think Nintendo should have stuck to their guns in that case.

2. I'm sure  Nintendo ad the ability to keep a company that sold as many copies of  games as they did. 

1. How about this thread on this very site : http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=146580&page=1

In this thread i read a lot people saying and showing screens to prove that the GC was a bit more powerfull then the xbox.

2. Apparantly the brothers offered their 51 % to Nintendo (49%), but at that time many great talents had left Rare already. So Nintendo said no. You can't blame Nintendo for the fact that Rare was no longer worth buying. Blame Rare.

Check out this about it thread on VGChartz itself: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=3094

Thats not proof. Usiing a forum full of fanboys. I want an article or hard figures to back up those claims. Not selected high res screensots. I owned a GC and later got an Xbox. Xbox clearly had more power. But GC was a powerful console certainly beating out pS2.

Forums are not facts and figures and certainly arent developer proof or hardcore articles.



selnor said:
Stefan.De.Machtige said:

1. How about this thread on this very site : http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=146580&page=1

In this thread i read a lot people saying and showing screens to prove that the GC was a bit more powerfull then the xbox.

2. Apparantly the brothers offered their 51 % to Nintendo (49%), but at that time many great talents had left Rare already. So Nintendo said no. You can't blame Nintendo for the fact that Rare was no longer worth buying. Blame Rare.

Check out this about it thread on VGChartz itself: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=3094

Thats not proof. Usiing a forum full of fanboys. I want an article or hard figures to back up those claims. Not selected high res screensots. I owned a GC and later got an Xbox. Xbox clearly had more power. But GC was a powerful console certainly beating out pS2.

Forums are not facts and figures and certainly arent developer proof or hardcore articles.

The only thing the Xbox was really ahead in was that the GPU had a more advanced feature-set (more than GC or even Wii can do), and had a quicker fill-rate making it capable of doing HD (again, GC and Wii can't do that), but in other terms, who's to say? Some numbers can support GC doing other certain things Xbox couldn't do.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Mr Khan said:
selnor said:
Stefan.De.Machtige said:
 

1. How about this thread on this very site : http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=146580&page=1

In this thread i read a lot people saying and showing screens to prove that the GC was a bit more powerfull then the xbox.

2. Apparantly the brothers offered their 51 % to Nintendo (49%), but at that time many great talents had left Rare already. So Nintendo said no. You can't blame Nintendo for the fact that Rare was no longer worth buying. Blame Rare.

Check out this about it thread on VGChartz itself: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=3094

Thats not proof. Usiing a forum full of fanboys. I want an article or hard figures to back up those claims. Not selected high res screensots. I owned a GC and later got an Xbox. Xbox clearly had more power. But GC was a powerful console certainly beating out pS2.

Forums are not facts and figures and certainly arent developer proof or hardcore articles.

The only thing the Xbox was really ahead in was that the GPU had a more advanced feature-set (more than GC or even Wii can do), and had a quicker fill-rate making it capable of doing HD (again, GC and Wii can't do that), but in other terms, who's to say? Some numbers can support GC doing other certain things Xbox couldn't do.

The only thing I ever read was that GC could theoretically put more Polys onscreen. But Xbox like you say could do more lightsources, better textures, bumpmapping etc etc. Also that Xbox could do better AI and have bigger more expansive levels due to developers loading onto the HDD and drawing from there not just the disk. Also xbox having more memory allowed alot of this to happen.

Overall Xbox could pull of a better technically looking game. Part of the reason why HL2 was possible with all its physics with Gravity plus great visuals.



oniyide said:

So Ninty's own games dont use top of the line? I know Mario and P-1000 isnt but not even Pikmin3? Thats sad if thats the case.

Resistance was made by top end graphics? Really cause the sequels look better. Hell KZ2 and 3 look better. and the Uncharted sequels, so if it was already top out by that one launch how do you explain those games? Hell id say even Crysis2 looked better that wasnt even 1st party (although it did glitch out,360 version at least)

What I mean is it was designed as top of the line in terms of graphics, whether it was later surpassed or not is a different story right?

Yeah, Ninty's own games don't use top of the line anymore, not in terms of graphics that is. They focus on family value and accessibility now, so it's a change of focus since the gamecube days. There are exceptions to this but these are mainly from Ninty's external studios or for specific IPs such as Zelda. Other than that, most of Nintendo's IPs no longer focus on being top of the line.

It sucks for some (for me I'll admit), but for many others that's exactly how they want it to be. I advocate balance.



Around the Network

specs and technicalities dont matter
it all comes to actual games
never saw a game that looked better than RE4 and SW: Rebel strike on the xBox



happydolphin said:
oniyide said:

So Ninty's own games dont use top of the line? I know Mario and P-1000 isnt but not even Pikmin3? Thats sad if thats the case.

Resistance was made by top end graphics? Really cause the sequels look better. Hell KZ2 and 3 look better. and the Uncharted sequels, so if it was already top out by that one launch how do you explain those games? Hell id say even Crysis2 looked better that wasnt even 1st party (although it did glitch out,360 version at least)

What I mean is it was designed as top of the line in terms of graphics, whether it was later surpassed or not is a different story right?

Yeah, Ninty's own games don't use top of the line anymore, not in terms of graphics that is. They focus on family value and accessibility now, so it's a change of focus since the gamecube days. There are exceptions to this but these are mainly from Ninty's external studios or for specific IPs such as Zelda. Other than that, most of Nintendo's IPs no longer focus on being top of the line.

It sucks for some (for me I'll admit), but for many others that's exactly how they want it to be. I advocate balance.


Im also talking about graphics, but wouldnt top of the line imply that thats the best it could do?? I mean, thats what Top of the Line means, the top.



oniyide said:

Im also talking about graphics, but wouldnt top of the line imply that thats the best it could do?? I mean, thats what Top of the Line means, the top.

No, there are different aspects of a game a company can choose to optimize, graphics being just one of them, not necessarily the most important one.

Think of it like a set of attributes that can be optimized or not, depending on the choices of the dev.



cyberninja45 said:
Gamerace said:

Despite what some may think, I've never been a big Nintendo fan. Don't care much for the major Nintendo series (3D Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Starfox, Donkey Kong). 

 I am a big Wii fan though.

I'm not a WiiU fan.

If WiiU had been an improvement and enhance of everything that made Wii great - HD, better online, enhanced motion controls (no more calibrating...), improved Miis, an innovative Wii ____ title, I'd be thrilled. I fell in love with how Wii made you feel more immersed in the game. Like you were playing tennis in Wii Sports or golf in Tiger Woods or beating the snot out of people in Godfather or actually aiming and shooting in Goldeneye, or slicing them to bits in Red Steel 2.

If you told me I could play AC3 or ME3 with enhanced WM+ and IR aiming and Nintendo made a bold new Wii___ title (I dunno, Wii Racing with places, boats, cars, horses etc for example) I'd buy WiiU day one and those titles (and Batman and ZombiiU and maybe Lego City) day one. I'd be it's biggest fan.


But WM+ is been cast aside for the gamepad. I hate dual analog aiming, and all the buttons. It's a idelogical course reversal from Wii and if you look at the success Apple has had with simplicity (ipads/pods/phones have one, count it one, button) they are going in the wrong direction. WiiU should have been the essence of the Wii realized in it's full potential. Similar, better, more elegant. Instead WiiU looks like a horrid compromise (between casual/core) no one wanted.

 Thats exactly  how I feel about wiiu, nintendo took everything that made the wii popular, fun and unique and threw it down the drain.  @ bolded I was hoping the succesor to the wii would have offered that, nintendo needs to pull a rabbit out of a hat to convince me about the wiiu.


Glad to see I'm not the only one.   Actually I fear despite how things might appear on forums like this, most Wii owners are not Nintendo fanboys (you don't have to be a Nintendo fan to love Mario Kart/NSMB), they just love the Wii controls/games and with WiiU Nintendo might lose that entire market to the next Xbox with a refined Kinect or even just to iOS/Android.



 

I HATE WII U... Because I can't preorder it yet.