nintendo_fanboy said:
jimmay said:
nintendo_fanboy said:
1) Alright you've just taken the one example that works here. I completely agree with you, Wii Play is a terribly bad game, I have only played it once and after that I put it away. But let's look at the other party games in the Wii's million seller list:
Wii Sports is just a blast, it is still fun to play and it is the game that people want to play first when they come to me. This is easily an 85% + game in my opinion, its only lack is that there are no tournament modes in my opinion.
Mario Party 8, to be honest, I haven't played yet. I own Mario Party 1 to 6 though and I liked them all, they are just great to play when you have three friends around. I also played those a lot with my family, and I think those games have a concept that works great and where not much should be changed.
Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games is very challenging when you play it alone because there is a ton to unlock, and it is fun with friends. The controls are easy, but they work, the game has different modes and quite a lot of diversity. I don't know anything that it makes wrong actually.
Wario Ware: Smooth Moves is probably more of a handheld franchise, so there are some things to complain. The single player mode is done a little too fast, and trying to make new records is sometimes not enough for me to turn the console on again. Still, the microgames are very funny and the concept of the franchise is great, and with friends and a bottle of booze, this is still the best party game.
Rayman Raving Rabbids is very funny, but also very bad structured. The single player mode is quite repetitive and therefore boring, the multiplayer mode lacks a structure that gives the minigames some "deeper sense", i.e. something like the board of Mario Party. But the minigames itself are some of the funniest I've seen in a while, and I had some afternoons spent with this game and friends although it lacks structure.
Carnival Games may be flawed, it may be not. I don't own it, I can't judge it. You see, all those party games warrant a 80% + score in my books. I can understand when some reviewers score Wario Ware and RRR lower, but the others should clearly have higher scores. 2) Those people you are talking about are hardcore gamers, because only these post on forums. And hundreds are still an incredibly low amount if you look at the total sales a console has. Anyways, I don't know what this point has to do with the original discussion anyway, and this is also the reason why I won't write about people that buy consoles because of other functions than games. 3) I was talking about million sellers only since that was the number you gave earlier. That really absolute number actually shocks me. I won't talk about the 360, because I actually agree that the 360 has more good games than the Wii at the moment. The PS3 on the other hand doesn't have more good software in my eyes. I didn't know about the actual scores on Gamerankings before I checked them now, and as stupid as it sounds, it really seems reviewers are biased against the Wii. I mean, how can it be that Tiger Woods PGA 07, that arguably offers quite a bit more on the Wii with the motion control, is scored over 80 % on the PS3 while it is lower on the Wii? The same goes for most of the EA Sports games as they make up quite a big part of the PS3's list while on the Wii, only Madden 07 scores above 80 %.
I know I am a bit on a lost post here because this is actually the fact I want to prove, that you can't just trust reviewers, but I still want to say another thing: Actually, you should only compare reviews for games on the same console, and even better, in the same genre, because you just can't compare Final Fantasy XII to Tetris imo for example. 4) Why shouldn't the Wii be around for 6 years? Do you think after three years, the tech advantages of the PS3 will immediately start to matter? Exactly at that time when the PS3 will also be outdated compared to new PC's? I tell you something: The console that sells the most is around the longest, no matter how good or bad its tech specs are. That said, if third parties are only somehow intelligent, they will start putting their high profile games on the Wii (and the smart ones already have started with this). You are right that it is at the moment also a good choice to make a game for the PC/360/PS3 combo. I doubt however that this brings more money than making a Wii only game, because development costs are much higher for those consoles and porting a game twice isn't exactly cheap either. With every Wii sold, it becomes more attractive for third parties to concentrate on it and that is exactly what they are going to do. You won't see much Japanese high profile games on the PS3/360 anymore because in Japan, the Wii already has an advantage because of the bad 360 sales. It may take another year until the high profile western games completely change ship, but I promise you, at the end of this gen, the Wii will have more good games than the other two consoles. |
1). Wii sports didn't score any higher then what it did because at the end of the day it's little more than a tech demo. It only has 5 mini games which again can be completed in less than 30 minutes. It has no proper leaderboards and no online. It has poor graphics, basic gameplay, no options to change the game types, alot of the games are broken and can be exploited which makes them no fun. Mii's can only be used in some of the games which is lazy development and the game is far to easy. Not to mention the a.i. isn't great so the single player game is poor. Mario party 8 is a series that has gone on for to long and the ideas of that game just aren't fresh anymore. More importantly the game is broken by unfairly awarding and removing stars, this is well documented in most reviews of the game. It also suffers from most of the problems i listed about wii sports. Mario and sonic at the olympics, rayman and carnival games again all suffer from most of the problems i listed about wii sports and scored accordingly. warioware is the only game to actually do mini games right and fixes most of the problems of the above games and scored over 80%. 2). I posted that as somebody else was responding to a point i made. 3). Tiger woods 07 scored worse on the wii than the 360 and ps3 version because it's graphics are worse, it had no online and it's putting controls with the wii were too fiddly. 4). Developers don't enjoy making dumbed down games, they want to make the best games they can, with the wii they cant do that. The combined userbase of the 360/ps3/pc will always be higher then that of the wii and developers will continue to make the majority of top rated games for the 360/ps3/pc combo and not the wii. Also it's worth noteing that users of the 360/ps3/pc buy far more third party games than wii owners do. So don't hold your breath about wii getting all the big exclusives, you'll be holding it for a long time. |
Oh dear god and I thought we had finished this here... Now I see you actually dared to come back after about five people have told you to stop... Alright, I'll also do these arguments you bring here: 1) It really gets funny now, because it seems to me that you haven't played at least half of the games I mentioned, yet you are judging them. But let's talk every game seperately. Wii Sports: You're really showing that your approach is completely wrong here. You say that the minigames can be "finished" in about half an hour. How do you finish Wii Sports? There is nothing to finish in this game, and that is why reviewers can't judge it properly. It's like Tetris, and I don't think you can argue that Tetris is a bad game, can you?
Your other points: No leaderboards and no online? I still prefer this over a game that can only played online, yet Warhawk scored 80 % +. Poor Graphics? Do they affect gameplay? NO. Point valid? NO. Basic gameplay? Has Tetris basic gameplay? Yes. Is it still a great game? Yes. No options to change the game types? I said that too, this is a valid point. Games are broken and can be exploited? Simply wrong. Mii's are not in all games? Even more wrong, with what do you play then when not with Mii's? Mario Party: I think the concept of this game is not less fresh than that of FPS, yet they are scored way higher. As I said, I haven't played it, so I can't talk about those unfair things, but I guess you haven't played it either. And you have to list the points that are wrong with it, simply saying it has the same flaws as Wii Sports is very cheap. The others: List the points so I can prove you wrong. Wario Ware: Funny that I said here that I could understand a lower rating, but you say different just because you believe in your review scores. It is a funny game, but there are quite some things it does wrong. 3) Graphics have to be worse, that's why you pay less for the Wii. That is no point in scoring. The controls were praised by a lot and are said to be better than with a controller, though fiddy. Online is just no reason to lower a score, it is like saying Mario Galaxy should have a lower score because it has no multiplayer. 4) The combined sales of 360/PS3/PC will always be higher, but if you take the PC away, it will change soon. Also, most sold PC's are not used for gaming. The attach ratio may be a bit lower especially because the best selling console usually has the lowest attach rate, but absolute sales will soon be higher anyway. And developers don't enjoy making dumbed down games? Common, that's silly. Do you really believe the people at EAD Tokio had no fun creating Galaxy? Case Closed. |
