Worst console ever? Sega Master System. It was shit. I would also like to call the person who wrote the article a prick. Thank you!
The REAL Sonic games are on the Master System. I hate the Genesis/Mega Drive ones.
And the Master System had the REAL Mario competitor, Alex Kidd in Miracle World. No other platform game from sega is better than this.
That article is rather pointless since the console is under a month old. How could you even fathom to write such garbage? Maybe in two years if the Wii U never comes out with any games but we all know that we will at least see a Mario and Zelda title. Super smash bros, Pikmin 3, etc. I admit that the 3rd party support is limited but I have a feeling that it will pick up. I own all the systems by the way and have no bias. I think they all have their strong points but I think the Wii U is rather a cool system to be honest.
Worst systems.
Virtual Boy, Sega 32x, Sega CD, CD-i, 3D0, Jaguar...Saturn was weak but had some great titles and Gamecube had a ton of great games. Viewtiful Joe, RE 4, Star wars, Eternal Darkness, Mario Sunshine, Windwaker, etc etc. I think people need to stop hating and being a killjoy.
HappySqurriel said:
I would personally argue that it isn't that Nintendo doesn't understand the market but that "analysts" don't understand Nintendo. Between sales for the Wii, Nintendo DS, PSP and iPhone it should be clear that people want polished visuals and good gameplay not necessarily the most technically advanced graphics and gameplay. Nintendo believes that the market they alienate by producing systems like the Wii, Wii U, Nintendo DS, and 3DS is (relatively) small, expensive to keep happy, and is already aggressively targeted by Sony and Microsoft so they have ignored them; and I don't think anyone can say that this worked out poorly for the Wii, Nintendo DS or 3DS, and we will have to see how this works for the Wii U. Ultimately, I think Nintendo is right ... Nintendo could have put together a system that was 8 times as powerful as the HD consoles, it would (probably) cost more than $500 to manufacture and they would have to sell it for (less than) $400 to keep people happy, without the Wii U tablet the average person would ask how it was different in a meaningful way from the HD consoles, and the graphics whore who complains about the Wii U still wouldn't buy it. Trying to appeal to these gamers is why the N64 and Gamecube are Nintendo's least successful systems even though they were (relative to their competition) Nintendo's most powerful systems. |
A Nintendo system is Nintendo's play ground. They design their systems to suit themselves first and foremost and whilst they do let other people play there too it is an entirely different attitude to how Sony and especially Microsoft designed their systems. They have a completely different perspective and their relationship with other publishers is different to the other system manufacturers because they dominate their system software sales in a way which Microsoft and Sony don't do. This leads to a self fulfilling prophecy where other developers put their best efforts on other systems and leads to the phrase 'only Nintendo games sell well on Nintendo systems'.
The major problem with courting mainly general audiences is the way that it skews the distribution of game sales to only a few individual titles and makes success as much having the right title at the right time (luck) as it is quality game design whilst at the same time reducing the variety and the number of game studios which can survive. The hardcore gamer may be an annoying individual but he or she is the one who buys more than just the big titles and lets other titles at least recoup some or all of their costs. If you have a combination of only a few games selling big and Nintendo games with a natural advantage on the system designed specifically for those games with an audience already predisposed for them you have big problems for major 3rd party publishers.
Tease.
| spurgeonryan said: http://www.videogamedegrees.com/2012/12/04/the-wii-u-is-the-worst-gaming-console-ever-created/
Is the Wii U the worst console ever? Or does another console hold that spot for you?
For me it would have to be either the Saturn or the Gamecube. |
Whomever thinks Wii U is bad might be suffering from lack of family and friends that can actually visit them and play games with them. I would say the same for anybody that didn't like Gamecube which had some of the best local multiplayer games ever such as Smash Bros Melee and Sega Soccer Slam.
The Saturn I never owned but is a system many considered to be far ahead of its time and I honestly still don't know why such a feature rich console with such a strong launch lineup of software still failed. Gamers can be really disappointing as a consumer herd. I never got that because at that time I was in College and the only gaming I did was on my computer.
Starting with Gamecube and Xbox I have been a multi-console owner and have gotten it all as long as there is at least 2-3 games that interest me unique to that platform.
Anyway... I have not been disappointed by any of my consoles. The ones I was not interested in, I never purchased.
I don't really care for this silly sensationalistic journalism, but those comments on the article were hilarious fun. Also, if I had to pick my least favourite console I might go with the original Xbox.
| Squilliam said:
A Nintendo system is Nintendo's play ground. They design their systems to suit themselves first and foremost and whilst they do let other people play there too it is an entirely different attitude to how Sony and especially Microsoft designed their systems. They have a completely different perspective and their relationship with other publishers is different to the other system manufacturers because they dominate their system software sales in a way which Microsoft and Sony don't do. This leads to a self fulfilling prophecy where other developers put their best efforts on other systems and leads to the phrase 'only Nintendo games sell well on Nintendo systems'. The major problem with courting mainly general audiences is the way that it skews the distribution of game sales to only a few individual titles and makes success as much having the right title at the right time (luck) as it is quality game design whilst at the same time reducing the variety and the number of game studios which can survive. The hardcore gamer may be an annoying individual but he or she is the one who buys more than just the big titles and lets other titles at least recoup some or all of their costs. If you have a combination of only a few games selling big and Nintendo games with a natural advantage on the system designed specifically for those games with an audience already predisposed for them you have big problems for major 3rd party publishers. |
There is no magic to Nintendo's success on Nintendo's consoles, and third party publishers would be just as successful as Nintendo if they would just follow Nintendo's lead.
Years ago I saw an interview with Kayne West where he was talking about why he was such a successful rapper and (while his talent can be debated) one of the things he mentioned is actually very important here; essentially, he said that there were no "Throw away lines" (or something like that) and compared himself to rappers who wrote phrases simply to rhyme with something else they produced. This relates to Nintendo because there are no throw-away games being produced by Nintendo, and the same can not be said about third party publishers.
To put a number to it, around 66% of third party games released to Nintendo platforms are throw away games where the publisher assumes the game is going to fail so they starve it of support, resources, and marketing and then seems surprised that it fails. To use Activisions' 2012 releases on the Wii as an example:
Skylanders Giants (80% on Gamerankings)
The Amazing Spider Man (64.33% on Gamerankings)
Transformers Prime the Game (63% on Gamerankings)
Battleship (55% on Gamerankings)
Wreck-it-Ralph (45% on Gamerankings)
Men in Black: Alien Crisis (40% on Gamerankings)
Ice Age Continental Drift (30.5% on Gamerankings)
There is obviously no effort to make something that sells because it is high quality, there is only an effort to get something out to cash in on the popularity of a licensed property they hold at the moment. If Activision was run like Nintendo, Battleship, Wreck-it-Ralph, Men In Black, and Ice Age would (probably) have not been made, their budgets would have been re-allocated to the teams behind Skylanders Giants, The Amazing Spider Man, and Transformers prime.
Third party publishers repeatedly burn their customers by releasing shitty games and those same customers learn to choose Nintendo franchises in the future because they know they're good games.
| HappySqurriel said:
Years ago I saw an interview with Kayne West where he was talking about why he was such a successful rapper and (while his talent can be debated) one of the things he mentioned is actually very important here; essentially, he said that there were no "Throw away lines" (or something like that) and compared himself to rappers who wrote phrases simply to rhyme with something else they produced. This relates to Nintendo because there are no throw-away games being produced by Nintendo, and the same can not be said about third party publishers. To put a number to it, around 66% of third party games released to Nintendo platforms are throw away games where the publisher assumes the game is going to fail so they starve it of support, resources, and marketing and then seems surprised that it fails. To use Activisions' 2012 releases on the Wii as an example: Skylanders Giants (80% on Gamerankings) There is obviously no effort to make something that sells because it is high quality, there is only an effort to get something out to cash in on the popularity of a licensed property they hold at the moment. If Activision was run like Nintendo, Battleship, Wreck-it-Ralph, Men In Black, and Ice Age would (probably) have not been made, their budgets would have been re-allocated to the teams behind Skylanders Giants, The Amazing Spider Man, and Transformers prime. Third party publishers repeatedly burn their customers by releasing shitty games and those same customers learn to choose Nintendo franchises in the future because they know they're good games. |
Third parties are conflicted because on the one hand they want to only release top content whilst on the other hand they see the seemingly random success of various titles which are thrown out there and stick for one reason or another. Games like Just Dance or Guitar Hero for instance become fads which blow up for a while and then crash or on the mobile front games like Angry Birds become popular because everyone has heard about it and it is a simple and easy game to get into. How for instance was EA to know that a spinoff to Sim City would become 10* bigger and be the number 1 selling PC game of all time? It is the role of 3rd parties to take risks and throw random half hearted efforts around to see what sticks because otherwise there would be very little variety and change in the game market. Where Activision wouldn't dare change the formula of Call of Duty there has to be another lesser funded developer who would take that risk.
The difference between a Nintendo ecosystem and a Microsoft ecosystem is that whilst they both release very strong content it is a lot easier to be competitive on the same games the latter makes than the former. You can generally bet that the best selling platformers, RPG, arcade racer and brawlers will be Nintendo titles simply on name recognition alone. With the majority of the big traditional genres covered by a strong Nintendo staple you have less traditional and more risky types of games as niches to fill because without the kind of gamer who would buy more than one of a game/genre when you miss the mark you miss the mark by a huge distance. The reason why the core/hardcore market is so coveted is that they keep the 'not quite there' franchises alive long enough to either find their own niche or develop into something big.
Tease.
HappySqurriel said:
I would personally argue that it isn't that Nintendo doesn't understand the market but that "analysts" don't understand Nintendo. Between sales for the Wii, Nintendo DS, PSP and iPhone it should be clear that people want polished visuals and good gameplay not necessarily the most technically advanced graphics and gameplay. Nintendo believes that the market they alienate by producing systems like the Wii, Wii U, Nintendo DS, and 3DS is (relatively) small, expensive to keep happy, and is already aggressively targeted by Sony and Microsoft so they have ignored them; and I don't think anyone can say that this worked out poorly for the Wii, Nintendo DS or 3DS, and we will have to see how this works for the Wii U. Ultimately, I think Nintendo is right ... Nintendo could have put together a system that was 8 times as powerful as the HD consoles, it would (probably) cost more than $500 to manufacture and they would have to sell it for (less than) $400 to keep people happy, without the Wii U tablet the average person would ask how it was different in a meaningful way from the HD consoles, and the graphics whore who complains about the Wii U still wouldn't buy it. Trying to appeal to these gamers is why the N64 and Gamecube are Nintendo's least successful systems even though they were (relative to their competition) Nintendo's most powerful systems. |
Well said mate and i love your avatar pic!!
HappySqurriel said:
I would personally argue that it isn't that Nintendo doesn't understand the market but that "analysts" don't understand Nintendo. Between sales for the Wii, Nintendo DS, PSP and iPhone it should be clear that people want polished visuals and good gameplay not necessarily the most technically advanced graphics and gameplay. Nintendo believes that the market they alienate by producing systems like the Wii, Wii U, Nintendo DS, and 3DS is (relatively) small, expensive to keep happy, and is already aggressively targeted by Sony and Microsoft so they have ignored them; and I don't think anyone can say that this worked out poorly for the Wii, Nintendo DS or 3DS, and we will have to see how this works for the Wii U. Ultimately, I think Nintendo is right ... Nintendo could have put together a system that was 8 times as powerful as the HD consoles, it would (probably) cost more than $500 to manufacture and they would have to sell it for (less than) $400 to keep people happy, without the Wii U tablet the average person would ask how it was different in a meaningful way from the HD consoles, and the graphics whore who complains about the Wii U still wouldn't buy it. Trying to appeal to these gamers is why the N64 and Gamecube are Nintendo's least successful systems even though they were (relative to their competition) Nintendo's most powerful systems. |
You said it all man, you deserve a medal, it's not sarcasm.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
