By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Smash_Brother said:
Onyxmeth said: The PS2 library is not 98% utter garbage. You mentioned it has over 2000 titles. 2% of 2,000 is 40 titles. If it has 3,000 that's 60 titles. Most everyone would not agree with this statement that PS2 has between 40 and 60 titles that are not "utter garbage" The percentage isn't even close.

 


That's your opinion. It's also your opinion that the 3rd party support the Wii has received thus far, some of which has been excellent, is somehow irrelevant for the sake of your argument.

It is and will continue to be my opinion that I was an idiot for buying a PS2 because of how bad 98% of the library was.

 

It wasn't my opinion. I never stated my opinion in regards to the Wii's third party support. Everything I found and stated and posted in regards to that part of my argument came straight from metacritic.com. Regardless of what you think of my argument personally, I at least had the respect to formulate one partially based on well-rounded research. What you put down in response makes no sense and is not even a plausible argument.

 



Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.



Around the Network
Dodece said:
I have a gut instinct that the original post was plagiarized from somewhere, or it was a previous work that was recycled. I am seriously recalling reading this exact same post at some previous point. I would ask is anyone else getting this strange sensation?

I would like to think I have a good recollection of previous discussions on these forums. Decent enough to recognize a post I have read before.
You're gut instinct is wrong. It's not plagiarized. I didn't post this previously either. Considering how popular a topic like this would have been a year ago, I'm not surprised you're getting a bit of deja vu.

 



Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.



Imthelegend said:
I remember the N64. Nintendo said they would raise the quality of 3rd party releases and i don't think 3rd party developers liked being told what could and couldn't be released. Which is why the PS did so well with 3rd party software.

hehe saved me the effort of typing it out.

 

Exactly what happend ever since the NES days Nintendo had very STRICT RULES on quality. Then along come SONY and its bring everything game to us attitude good or not good. This destroyed Nintendo.

MY guess is they eased up on developers for two reasons.

1) cause they despiretly needed games on Wii to make it sell abit since EVERYONE thought Nintendo console woudl fial this gen.

2) if they stayed strict some developers would jsut plan old simple not bother developing 

 



 

 

The problem is Ninty 1st party is so well polished. If I was a developer for a great new platformer I wouldn't want to put my game up against Galaxy, I would put it on the 360 where it would be praised and appreciated.



eab said:
The problem is Ninty 1st party is so well polished. If I was a developer for a great new platformer I wouldn't want to put my game up against Galaxy, I would put it on the 360 where it would be praised and appreciated.



What a bullshit line. A truly polished 3rd-party game on the Wii gets recognition. You're just trying to justify fanboy delusions against the Wii.

A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Around the Network

Imthelegend said:
I remember the N64. Nintendo said they would raise the quality of 3rd party releases and i don't think 3rd party developers liked being told what could and couldn't be released. Which is why the PS did so well with 3rd party software.

 


Well, that's part right, but there are many reasons why the psx did so well with 3rd party support. The psx had a year and a half start, games where easier/quicker to design for the psx, the disks allowed for improved sound/cg. The psx reflected the future and the n64 reflected the past.

 



Honestly, why can't Nintendo have some sort of quality control? Why can't they stop publishers that only bring down Nintendo's good name for a quick buck? Look at the following two publishers:

Conspiracy Entertainment:
Anubis II
Billy the Wizard: Rocket Broomstick Racing
Myth Makers: Super Kart GP
Myth Makers: Orbs of Doom
Ninjabread Man
Octopuzzle
Winter Sports: The Ultimate Challenge

Destination Software:
Arctic Tale
Balls of Fury
Chicken Shoot
Garfield Gets Real
M&M's Kart Racing
Monster Trucks Mayhem
Sea Monsters: A Prehistoric Adventure
Showtime Championship Boxing
Yamaha Supercross

If you're looking at the same thing I am, you'll notice that most of the worst shovelware on the Wii is being created by two publishers. Neither one has any respect for quality gaming. Why can't Nintendo pull them aside and tell them to cut the shit? Do you really think Capcom, Konami and Square-Enix, among others, are going to care because Nintendo is cracking down on Conspiracy and Destination? Not only are the games awful, but they're insanely buggy most of the time. Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony all have the right to sit a third party down and say this needs more time from your team. Frame rate drops, glitches, sound issues, awful texturing, PS1 quality graphics, unfinished games, etc. etc. I heard that Anubis II, Ninjabread Man, and Billy the Wizard were actually the same exact game with different character models and slightly tweaked environments. Why should THAT be tolerated? I never said Nintendo should pull a monopoly and demand exclusive rights for two years, I'm merely talking about sitting down with publishers and saying "fix your game, it doesn't run correct". Why can't Nintendo tell Midway that Cruis'n is broken and needs more time? I'm not talking about boring games here. I'm talking about broken games. With Nintendo as the market leader, they have a reputation to upkeep. There's a lot of people that don't want to walk into a store and see that much garbage so early on. It clogs shelf space. With the PS2 it doesn't matter, because most of it came after there was a healthy assortment of titles that could hold that shelf space and show quality. People that buy that crap can lose faith in buying titles for the Wii.

Also what is a third party to do? Conspiracy Entertainment had a 333% increase in profit in three months after Ninjabread Man, Counter Force, Power Play Pool and Cocoto Kart Racing were released. Another third party looks at that and sees what they should see, a gold mine. Why reallocate resources for the Wii when you can just purchase some low quality shovelware for dirt cheap and release it? Or just port an oldie but goodie? It only took 30 people at the most to port Okami to the Wii. Imagine how many more it would have taken were it a sequel instead. Capcom may have not been able to use Ready At Dawn, who were already tied up with God of War for the PSP.

For those of you that think Capcom is REALLY behind the Wii, here's a quote from Christian Svensson, Capcom's Vice-President of Strategic Planning & Business Development:

Christian Svensson asks to "spread the Okami gospel across the net, my sons and daughters." and we have complied. He also said in regard to the good sales from the Resident Evil games that "all of you Wii fanatics better have Okami pre-ordered by now because that's the next test (and it's waaay better with Wii controls, than it was on PS2... it's very different, in a good way)." We'll keep you posted.

That's right. If Capcom is really on board with the Wii, why are they testing us? They don't seem to be testing 360 and PS3 owners. This quote is like a week old too, so obviously this is the current mindset they're on regarding Wii. It sounds very cautious and unsure, like they'll revert back to not supporting Wii if Okami fails. Not only that but they've decided they couldn't allocate enough budget to release any commercials, so don't expect anything but some game magazine ads for Okami.

I think Nintendo's market approach regarding this console, the incompatibility graphically to the competition and their inability to stop even the worst offenders of shovelware that clog up tons of shelf space is all Nintendo's fault. If Capcom can't get on board fully with a console that is the obvious winner this gen saleswise, after supporting Nintendo through all of the bad years, then I think something is wrong, and Nintendo needs to play hardball like Sony and Microsoft do and get the damn games on their system already. They are not some startup console like Sony, the comparisons do not match. Nintendo is a former market leader and got that way by showing balls, kicking ass, taking names and showing third parties why the best chance they had to make a blockbuster was to come over to Nintendo.



Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.



tastyshovelware said:

Imthelegend said:
I remember the N64. Nintendo said they would raise the quality of 3rd party releases and i don't think 3rd party developers liked being told what could and couldn't be released. Which is why the PS did so well with 3rd party software.

 


Well, that's part right, but there are many reasons why the psx did so well with 3rd party support. The psx had a year and a half start, games where easier/quicker to design for the psx, the disks allowed for improved sound/cg. The psx reflected the future and the n64 reflected the past.

 


And it would take dozens of discs to cost as much as one cart. That was likely the biggest factor. 



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

^^ true enough



"For those of you that think Capcom is REALLY behind the Wii, here's a quote from Christian Svensson, Capcom's Vice-President of Strategic Planning & Business Development:

Christian Svensson asks to "spread the Okami gospel across the net, my sons and daughters." and we have complied. He also said in regard to the good sales from the Resident Evil games that "all of you Wii fanatics better have Okami pre-ordered by now because that's the next test (and it's waaay better with Wii controls, than it was on PS2... it's very different, in a good way)." We'll keep you posted."
**
If they weren't behind the Wii (despite you using the vague term "REALLY behind"), there would be no testing that he indicated. They would just throw shovelware and throw up their hands when it doesn't sell, the way Konami seems to be.
---------------------
"Honestly, why can't Nintendo have some sort of quality control?"
**
Did you not pay attention the DOZEN TIMES this thread brought up Nintendo's past quality control, and how it BACKFIRED?

You are either stupid or trolling, for not putting two an two together.

Quality control requires telling developers how to make their games. If you think developers will stand for that, you are DELUSIONAL.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs