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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Why Nintendo's software can no longer carry their home consoles...

DanneSandin on 21 December 2013
fatslob-:O said:
DanneSandin said:
fatslob-:O said:
DanneSandin said:
fatslob-:O said:
DanneSandin said:

So basically Wii Fit > tlou and bioshock infinite?

Easy as that.

So the Wii might be the best console ever since it has the best selling games of all times? Well, that one and the DS. Both consoles have more games that sold more than 20m than the PS2, so in a sense Wii/DS> PS2. Yeah, try telling that to people ;)

I'm pretty sure that the quality of the console is determined by it's sales just as how the quality of the game is determined by it's own sales. Nice try though. 

Well, I think we have to look at the context of the systems as well. Quite obviously, GameCube and the original Xbox were push overs for the PS2, while Wii faced stiffer competitions in PS3 and X360 (them being HD consoles and all). And isn't a console judged by its games? Well, yes it is. We are all always saying that software pushes hardware, so software is what matters, and since Wii has the best selling games (collectivelly) it must therefore be the best console in history.

Games are judged by it's game, definitely I agree with that but a console is judged by it's games in TOTAL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_Wii_video_games

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_PlayStation_2_video_games

The WII may have had the best games but the PS2 games in general presented a higher quality seeing as how it has more games that sold over 1+ million.

To truly understand the quality of a consoles game library, we also need to know how many games were made and released on it. Sahing that PS2 had 100 1m sellers isnt saying much if 1000 games were released on the system, where as the Wii had 80 1m sellers but only 500 games in total for the system. Then it becomes quite apparent that the Wii indeed did have better quality. ;)



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

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

Around the Network
Hedra42 on 21 December 2013

Again, sales does not determine quality. (see my previous post). A company can make the highest quality consoles and games in the world, but if they're not pitched and marketed properly, they won't sell.



DanneSandin on 21 December 2013
Captain_Tom said:
DanneSandin said:
Captain_Tom said:
DanneSandin said:
Soleron said:
DanneSandin said:
osed125 said:
DanneSandin said:
If this were true, then Fifa, Madden, NHL, Halo and God of War and Grand Turismo wouldn't sell consoles either. But clearly, they do.

Totally different because....because...I can't think of anything.

Well, if you think really, really hard you can come up with SOMETHING? Let's put BOTH our heads to good use and try to solve this conundrum!

Easy.

Those games still do the jobs consumers ask of them (be a football game, be a multiplayer shooter, be a realistic racer)

Newer Nintendo games don't do the jobs people want from them any more.


Do you understand the context here? According to the captain Nintendo games dont innovate or dont have (enough) new and fresh ideas any mpre, and thats why they dont sell any more. If that was true most sports games wouldnt push console sales,  but they do.

OMG you are in full on "Nintendo Defense Mode!" aren't you?  You really don't get what I am saying.   I am NOT saying that Nintendo's games aren't good anymore.  I am saying that Nintendo's games are not good enough to make up for their exceedingly sub par hardware anymore.  Calm down...

If that's true, then it's because of a poorly formulated OP. In your OP you quite clearly states, or at the very least hints at, that it's the lack of new IP and new ideas that's causing a drop in hardware for Nintendo, NOT that the games themselves aren't good enough any more. Moving goalposts again, I see.

I can agree with you that this past year haven't been Nintendo's finest; they've released way too few games for a new console, and many of them haven't been up to the quality needed to move Wii U's - but it's NOT because of the lack of new IP's/ideas. Nintendo has shown time and again that they can innovate themselves, AND the gaming media.

And speaking of innovation, I don't think you answered my response about innovation. Whether you like it or not, Wii and DS were innovative, more so to gaming than even the PS4/X1


It's both.  The hardware is bad, and the games aren't new enough to make up for it.  


Man, this site really really sucks on phones. Ive tried to reply and copy pasting another qoute made by you, but it just wont work. anyways, Ill just say that youre wrong, and leave at that until I can get home in front of my PC



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

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

DanneSandin on 21 December 2013
Hedra42 said:

Again, sales does not determine quality. (see my previous post). A company can make the highest quality consoles and games in the world, but if they're not pitched and marketed properly, they won't sell.


Oh, I know, Im just having a little fun with fatsoslob at this point :) 



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

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

fatslob-:O on 21 December 2013
DanneSandin said:
fatslob-:O said:
DanneSandin said:
fatslob-:O said:
DanneSandin said:
fatslob-:O said:
DanneSandin said:

So basically Wii Fit > tlou and bioshock infinite?

Easy as that.

So the Wii might be the best console ever since it has the best selling games of all times? Well, that one and the DS. Both consoles have more games that sold more than 20m than the PS2, so in a sense Wii/DS> PS2. Yeah, try telling that to people ;)

I'm pretty sure that the quality of the console is determined by it's sales just as how the quality of the game is determined by it's own sales. Nice try though. 

Well, I think we have to look at the context of the systems as well. Quite obviously, GameCube and the original Xbox were push overs for the PS2, while Wii faced stiffer competitions in PS3 and X360 (them being HD consoles and all). And isn't a console judged by its games? Well, yes it is. We are all always saying that software pushes hardware, so software is what matters, and since Wii has the best selling games (collectivelly) it must therefore be the best console in history.

Games are judged by it's game, definitely I agree with that but a console is judged by it's games in TOTAL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_Wii_video_games

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_PlayStation_2_video_games

The WII may have had the best games but the PS2 games in general presented a higher quality seeing as how it has more games that sold over 1+ million.

To truly understand the quality of a consoles game library, we also need to know how many games were made and released on it. Sahing that PS2 had 100 1m sellers isnt saying much if 1000 games were released on the system, where as the Wii had 80 1m sellers but only 500 games in total for the system. Then it becomes quite apparent that the Wii indeed did have better quality. ;)

It doesn't matter how many flops were released on a system. All that mattered was the amount of games that remained successful on it. Last time I remebered, the WII only had around 50 or so games that went over 1+ million. You sound extremely insecure about that last remark LOL. It sounds like denial to me that you don't acknowledge that one system had the better games on it. 



Around the Network
DanneSandin on 21 December 2013
fatslob-:O said:
DanneSandin said:
fatslob-:O said:
DanneSandin said:
fatslob-:O said:
DanneSandin said:
fatslob-:O said:
DanneSandin said:

So basically Wii Fit > tlou and bioshock infinite?

Easy as that.

So the Wii might be the best console ever since it has the best selling games of all times? Well, that one and the DS. Both consoles have more games that sold more than 20m than the PS2, so in a sense Wii/DS> PS2. Yeah, try telling that to people ;)

I'm pretty sure that the quality of the console is determined by it's sales just as how the quality of the game is determined by it's own sales. Nice try though. 

Well, I think we have to look at the context of the systems as well. Quite obviously, GameCube and the original Xbox were push overs for the PS2, while Wii faced stiffer competitions in PS3 and X360 (them being HD consoles and all). And isn't a console judged by its games? Well, yes it is. We are all always saying that software pushes hardware, so software is what matters, and since Wii has the best selling games (collectivelly) it must therefore be the best console in history.

Games are judged by it's game, definitely I agree with that but a console is judged by it's games in TOTAL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_Wii_video_games

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_PlayStation_2_video_games

The WII may have had the best games but the PS2 games in general presented a higher quality seeing as how it has more games that sold over 1+ million.

To truly understand the quality of a consoles game library, we also need to know how many games were made and released on it. Sahing that PS2 had 100 1m sellers isnt saying much if 1000 games were released on the system, where as the Wii had 80 1m sellers but only 500 games in total for the system. Then it becomes quite apparent that the Wii indeed did have better quality. ;)

It doesn't matter how many flops were released on a system. All that mattered was the amount of games that remained successful on it. Last time I remebered, the WII only had around 50 or so games that went over 1+ million. You sound extremely insecure about that last remark LOL. It sounds like denial to me that you don't acknowledge that one system had the better games on it. 

I actually dont acknowledge your argument to begin with, this is just me not giving a damn and having fun on your expense :)



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

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

Viktor on 21 December 2013

Some of the Sony gamers in this thread are some of the most hypocritical bunch you can met on this forum. Just look at PS4s top selling games. Assassins Creed followed by Call of Duty and Battlefield 4.

The whole excuse of new IPs is beeing made because most of Sonys new IPs are major flops, like Pupeteer, Tearaway, Playstation Allstars and regardless of how many fans would love sequels to some of those games, Sony just doesn´t care to do so because they simply flopped.

Whenever they have a successful new IP they milk it to hell, like Uncharted, 3 games on a single console.



fatslob-:O on 21 December 2013
DanneSandin said:
fatslob-:O said:
DanneSandin said:
fatslob-:O said:
DanneSandin said:
fatslob-:O said:
DanneSandin said:
fatslob-:O said:
DanneSandin said:

So basically Wii Fit > tlou and bioshock infinite?

Easy as that.

So the Wii might be the best console ever since it has the best selling games of all times? Well, that one and the DS. Both consoles have more games that sold more than 20m than the PS2, so in a sense Wii/DS> PS2. Yeah, try telling that to people ;)

I'm pretty sure that the quality of the console is determined by it's sales just as how the quality of the game is determined by it's own sales. Nice try though. 

Well, I think we have to look at the context of the systems as well. Quite obviously, GameCube and the original Xbox were push overs for the PS2, while Wii faced stiffer competitions in PS3 and X360 (them being HD consoles and all). And isn't a console judged by its games? Well, yes it is. We are all always saying that software pushes hardware, so software is what matters, and since Wii has the best selling games (collectivelly) it must therefore be the best console in history.

Games are judged by it's game, definitely I agree with that but a console is judged by it's games in TOTAL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_Wii_video_games

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_PlayStation_2_video_games

The WII may have had the best games but the PS2 games in general presented a higher quality seeing as how it has more games that sold over 1+ million.

To truly understand the quality of a consoles game library, we also need to know how many games were made and released on it. Sahing that PS2 had 100 1m sellers isnt saying much if 1000 games were released on the system, where as the Wii had 80 1m sellers but only 500 games in total for the system. Then it becomes quite apparent that the Wii indeed did have better quality. ;)

It doesn't matter how many flops were released on a system. All that mattered was the amount of games that remained successful on it. Last time I remebered, the WII only had around 50 or so games that went over 1+ million. You sound extremely insecure about that last remark LOL. It sounds like denial to me that you don't acknowledge that one system had the better games on it. 

I actually dont acknowledge your argument to begin with, this is just me not giving a damn and having fun on your expense :)

Insecurity much ? LOL



AZWification on 21 December 2013

 Nintendo's software will easily carry the Wii U. Trust me.. We  simply  have to wait and see how games like Mario Kart 8 do.



                
       ---Member of the official Squeezol Fanclub---

Captain_Tom on 22 December 2013
fatslob-:O said:
DanneSandin said:
fatslob-:O said:
DanneSandin said:
fatslob-:O said:
DanneSandin said:
fatslob-:O said:
DanneSandin said:
fatslob-:O said:
DanneSandin said:

So basically Wii Fit > tlou and bioshock infinite?

Easy as that.

So the Wii might be the best console ever since it has the best selling games of all times? Well, that one and the DS. Both consoles have more games that sold more than 20m than the PS2, so in a sense Wii/DS> PS2. Yeah, try telling that to people ;)

I'm pretty sure that the quality of the console is determined by it's sales just as how the quality of the game is determined by it's own sales. Nice try though. 

Well, I think we have to look at the context of the systems as well. Quite obviously, GameCube and the original Xbox were push overs for the PS2, while Wii faced stiffer competitions in PS3 and X360 (them being HD consoles and all). And isn't a console judged by its games? Well, yes it is. We are all always saying that software pushes hardware, so software is what matters, and since Wii has the best selling games (collectivelly) it must therefore be the best console in history.

Games are judged by it's game, definitely I agree with that but a console is judged by it's games in TOTAL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_Wii_video_games

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_PlayStation_2_video_games

The WII may have had the best games but the PS2 games in general presented a higher quality seeing as how it has more games that sold over 1+ million.

To truly understand the quality of a consoles game library, we also need to know how many games were made and released on it. Sahing that PS2 had 100 1m sellers isnt saying much if 1000 games were released on the system, where as the Wii had 80 1m sellers but only 500 games in total for the system. Then it becomes quite apparent that the Wii indeed did have better quality. ;)

It doesn't matter how many flops were released on a system. All that mattered was the amount of games that remained successful on it. Last time I remebered, the WII only had around 50 or so games that went over 1+ million. You sound extremely insecure about that last remark LOL. It sounds like denial to me that you don't acknowledge that one system had the better games on it. 

I actually dont acknowledge your argument to begin with, this is just me not giving a damn and having fun on your expense :)

Insecurity much ? LOL


Just don't try.  Apparently if the Wii U doesn't do well his dad will die of cancer...