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

Forums - Sales Discussion - 20 million sellers for the wii!

HappySqurriel on 08 March 2008
jimmay said:

What you wrote makes no sense, it's a simple fact you can't hold the wii to different a different lower standard than the x360 and ps3 in terms of games and at the same time compare it's sales. Either you compare everything or compare nothing at all. If a game is short, shallow, has limited options, no online, poor a.i., bad graphics, bad sound with hit and miss controls then it's a bad game. Just because their is a casual crowd of people with poor taste in games who like short, shallow and easy, who don't care that it has limited options, no online, poor a.i., bad graphics, bad sound and hit and miss controls doesn't change the fact that it is still bad game. A poor game which is aimed at casual people with poor taste doesn't suddenly turn into a good one just because it met it's goal of being a bad game.


So the Beatles were an awful band because their muscianship was far below the quality level you would expect from a muscian in a PhilHarmonic Orchestra?

This isn't about the Wii! The fact that you see it that way demonstrates how blinded you are by your fanboy bias. By your standard the AI in a chess program that can challenge a world champion would be 'Poor AI' because it is not a first person shooter; and graphics that are perfect for a puzzle game would be 'Bad Graphics' because it doesn't involve an immersive 3D world.

This has nothing to do with giving games that are low quality high scores; this is about different genres having different things that are important to gameplay. You have yet to make a single argument against this, every post of yours has boiled down to "Wii games suck! They don't deserve higher scores!"

Once again, this has nothing to do with the Wii ... What is so wrong about reviewing a game based on what is important within its genre? If a game has good graphics, AI, music and plays well why should it be doomed to get a 7/10 because it is a party game? You may think a party game is shallow, other people will differ, why shouldn't a party games score relate to how good of a party game it is rather than it being a reflection of deep of gameplay it offers by your standard? If it is the best party game on the market to date should its reviews reflect that?



Around the Network
jimmay on 08 March 2008
naznatips said:
Okay, so we compare everything now across platform jimmay? Allow me to set new standards for the PS3 and 360 then...

Graphics: Highest possible score for a PS3 and 360 game? 8. Why? Crysis.

Gameplay: Highest possible score for a PS3 and 360 FPS? 7. Why? No Keyboard and Mouse (Wii caps at 9, because Wiimote and Nunchuk are much closer).

Presentation: Highest possible score for a PS3 and 360 game? 7. Why? Limited online options available in comparison to those on the PC.

We're also going to take off everytime a PS3 or 360 game isn't at 60FPS, because all major Wii games run at 60FPS. If you're willing to accept all these new standards for PS3 and 360 games then I have no problems holding Wii games to the same standard (graphics cap at 6, presentation at 5).

Well for starters a console is different from a pc like it is different from a handheld but if you want to cherry pick things i'll just do the same. Their is not a huge difference between a mouse and keyboard vs a controllers but a controller is better than the wii remote for fps's anyway. Apart from dedicated servers (which some consoles games have) a console has all the options of the pc. Wii can't do 720p or 1080p so i guess it should be deducted points for that.....

So lets say we have 2 versions of a game. Lets say it is fifa 09, one is the wii version and the other is the 360 version. The two versions of the game are identical except for the 360 version has online. Although both use different types of contollers they both work equally well and they are both as good as each other in that respect. Now although graphically this hypothetical game looks the same on both consoles because the wii has a lower standard of graphics the wii version should score higher than the 360 version because the game is a good looking game for the wii and only an average looking one for the 360.....and at the same time because wii owners don't care about online it doesn't matter that the wii version doesnt have online and shouldn't be deducted any points? Well using this great logic, even tho this hypothetical game is identical accept for the wii having no online (which makes it worse) the wii version would score higher and not lower than the 360, which is completly backwards when the wii is the worst version.



jimmay on 08 March 2008
Gnizmo said:
jimmay said:
 

What you wrote makes no sense, it's a simple fact you can't hold the wii to different a different lower standard than the x360 and ps3 in terms of games and at the same time compare it's sales. Either you compare everything or compare nothing at all. If a game is short, shallow, has limited options, no online, poor a.i., bad graphics, bad sound with hit and miss controls then it's a bad game. Just because their is a casual crowd of people with poor taste in games who like short, shallow and easy, who don't care that it has limited options, no online, poor a.i., bad graphics, bad sound and hit and miss controls doesn't change the fact that it is still bad game. A poor game which is aimed at casual people with poor taste doesn't suddenly turn into a good one just because it met it's goal of being a bad game.


You are either missing his point or (more likely) ignoring it so you can keep attacking the Wii. Why does online automatically make a game better? Would Twilight Princess be better with online play? It only really has one mode of plat too so I guess thats more points off for limited gameplay options. No loal multiplayer means even more points off. Doesn't have native 1080p at 60fps so that is more points off. It lacks 7.1 surrond sound as well so the sound sucks. I would give it a 3/10 over all by your standards. Do you see how ridiculous this is?

You can't come up with a list of absolutes that need to be in a game an expect it to be anything close to objective. Certain genres simply do not need certain aspects of gameplay that can exist. If you took out the single player portion of Wario Ware, and gave it even one more way to play multiplayer it would be twice as good easily. The epic story is meaningless and pointless. You could call the game shallow, but I can regularly beat people far less experienced than I am so there must be some skill involved somewhere. The game is only fun multiplayer, but online would not enhance it one bit. I know, you must think I am insane right now but it is the gods honest truth. It would just turn the multiplayer aspect into single player and make it pointless.

You are trying to project your requirements for a game onto everything released. Objective review does not work that way. Game reviews currently do work that way sadly, but hopefully that will work itself out. The games that get low review scores do not have glaring flaws. They are missing elements that would not enhance the gameplay experience. Wii Sports is a generation defining game and pushed an entire genre into the forefront of game development but is a mid 70s average review. It will be the game that defines this generation, but because it lacked elements that were arbitrarily decided to be necessary it got docked points. It is the driving force behind the success of the Wii and yet was viewed as some cheap cash-in tech demo that was barely worth playing by reviewers.

Not every game needs a huge list of features, or cutting edge graphics to be a good game. If it does not enhance the game play experience then what is the point? Would a epic story line about a bowling league tournament where you strive to beat out your lifelong rivals to win a big trophy enhance Wii Bowling? Would 1080p graphics make the game more enjoyable to play or simply make the game cost more to develop? If you want an objective review you have to ask these questions. You have to consider your audience or your review is meaningless. Any other method of trying to review a game puts in far too much personal bias and that ruins the point of the review.


I'm not missing anything, taking away features, having something that doesnt look as good as something else, not giving people the option to play online, not giving people the option to play against challenging a.i. as well as easy a.i. not giving people the option to play a well thought out single player game/season, how does taking away peoples options make games better? I'll answer it for you they don't. All the things i mentioned above enhance the gameplay experence. Just because some people who have bad taste in games who don't use all of those things or even know they are missing them because they don't know any better don't care about them, doesn't make the lack of these features turn a bad game into a good one.

Using your wii bowling example i'll show you why these features would make it better. As well as being able to play as mii's why can't you play as real life professional bowlers, how would having the option of playing as these people make the game any worse? As well as having an exibition mode to play one off games, how would the inclusion of bowling tournaments to win trophies that you can show off make the game worse? As well as playing your friends round your house how would the addition of adding online play make the game worse? If you wanted to look at it, how would the option of looking at your detailed bowling stats make the game worse, if you don't care about them then don't go to the stats page, if you're interested and wanted to see what type of shots you do the most and what type of shots you do best/worst at then why shouldn't you be able to? If you don't want to listen to music when you bowl then fine you don't have to, but why not include the option to have custom sound tracks if you want them? Why not add proper leaderboards that track your scores, how would that make the game worse? Also why not add more game modes, you don't have to play them, but if you want to they are their. Also why not make the game so you can create custom bowling balls, custom pins and custom bowling clothes to bowl in. None of those things make the game worse, they only make them better, just because their is a group of casual gamers with bad taste that may or may not use those things doesnt make the exclusion of them ok and the game a good one.



naznatips on 08 March 2008
jimmay said:

Well for starters a console is different from a pc like it is different from a handheld but if you want to cherry pick things i'll just do the same. Their is not a huge difference between a mouse and keyboard vs a controllers but a controller is better than the wii remote for fps's anyway. Apart from dedicated servers (which some consoles games have) a console has all the options of the pc. Wii can't do 720p or 1080p so i guess it should be deducted points for that.....

So lets say we have 2 versions of a game. Lets say it is fifa 09, one is the wii version and the other is the 360 version. The two versions of the game are identical except for the 360 version has online. Although both use different types of contollers they both work equally well and they are both as good as each other in that respect. Now although graphically this hypothetical game looks the same on both consoles because the wii has a lower standard of graphics the wii version should score higher than the 360 version because the game is a good looking game for the wii and only an average looking one for the 360.....and at the same time because wii owners don't care about online it doesn't matter that the wii version doesnt have online and shouldn't be deducted any points? Well using this great logic, even tho this hypothetical game is identical accept for the wii having no online (which makes it worse) the wii version would score higher and not lower than the 360, which is completly backwards when the wii is the worst version.

As the only person who actually uses Dual Analog, Keyboard and Mouse, and Wiimote and Nunchuk for FPS games of the two of us, let me present you with a simple fact: You're wrong. The Wiimote and Nunchuk is far more accurate andn precise than a dual analog control scheme, and the Keyboard and Mouse makes dual analog look like caveman tools.

See, I'm a PC gamer above all else. I play far more PC games than console games and am constantly faced with the massive inferiority of consoles.

Example? You play CoD4 online against a maximum of 16 people and 600P, but I play online against a maximum of 50 people at 1680X1050 resolution and in a far superior online system with far less lag, that is free, and with better graphics to top it off. By your standards, CoD4 on the consoles should be lucky to earn itself an 8, and shouldn't be rated anywhere near the PC version.

On the other hand, Resident Evil 4 on Wii offers a control scheme far superior to the dual analog scheme in RE4 on the Gamecube and PS2, and now Resident Evil 5 is going to use that same control scheme on the PS3 and 360. Because this control scheme is inherintly inferior to the Wii control scheme due to the technical limitations of the PS3 and 360, by your standards the 360 and PS3 versions should be marked down signifficantly in gameplay.

The fact is that if we don't rate games by their own merits on the console they are on, no game will ever be rated within reasonable standards. That said, if there is a game genre that is never fun on one console due to controls or online system or some other reason (Like the joke that is RTS games on analog sticks), then it's perfectly reasonable to subtract points from it, but it should not be a competition with the other console's games.

I love how you think PC is too different from 360 and PS3 for direct comparison but Wii is not. Your fanboyism is palpable.



jimmay on 08 March 2008
HappySqurriel said:
jimmay said:

What you wrote makes no sense, it's a simple fact you can't hold the wii to different a different lower standard than the x360 and ps3 in terms of games and at the same time compare it's sales. Either you compare everything or compare nothing at all. If a game is short, shallow, has limited options, no online, poor a.i., bad graphics, bad sound with hit and miss controls then it's a bad game. Just because their is a casual crowd of people with poor taste in games who like short, shallow and easy, who don't care that it has limited options, no online, poor a.i., bad graphics, bad sound and hit and miss controls doesn't change the fact that it is still bad game. A poor game which is aimed at casual people with poor taste doesn't suddenly turn into a good one just because it met it's goal of being a bad game.


So the Beatles were an awful band because their muscianship was far below the quality level you would expect from a muscian in a PhilHarmonic Orchestra?

This isn't about the Wii! The fact that you see it that way demonstrates how blinded you are by your fanboy bias. By your standard the AI in a chess program that can challenge a world champion would be 'Poor AI' because it is not a first person shooter; and graphics that are perfect for a puzzle game would be 'Bad Graphics' because it doesn't involve an immersive 3D world.

This has nothing to do with giving games that are low quality high scores; this is about different genres having different things that are important to gameplay. You have yet to make a single argument against this, every post of yours has boiled down to "Wii games suck! They don't deserve higher scores!"

Once again, this has nothing to do with the Wii ... What is so wrong about reviewing a game based on what is important within its genre? If a game has good graphics, AI, music and plays well why should it be doomed to get a 7/10 because it is a party game? You may think a party game is shallow, other people will differ, why shouldn't a party games score relate to how good of a party game it is rather than it being a reflection of deep of gameplay it offers by your standard? If it is the best party game on the market to date should its reviews reflect that?


We are talking about the wii's games so yes we are talking about the wii. This is what you don't seem to grasp, their are such things as good party games. Party games/mini games aren't automatically doomed to receive a low score just because they are a party game. If a party game got a low score then it's because it had bad gameplay not just because it was a party game and their for can never be good in the first place. I've been describing to you some of the tangible differences between games such as graphics, sound and online, however if the gameplay of game sucks, then it sucks, you seem to think these party games with bad gameplay are some how great and reviewers and myself are biased against them, when we are not. As well as gameplay being the problem these games have a lack of basic features. Taking away peoples options is a bad thing, full stop no debate. If some people don't use them then no harm done. How do know that all, most or some of casual gamers wouldn't like a game more if it had a decent set of features. This is a reply i gave in another post about wii bowling and i'll use to show what i mean:

'Using your wii bowling example i'll show you why these features would make it better. As well as being able to play as mii's why can't you play as real life professional bowlers, how would having the option of playing as these people make the game any worse? As well as having an exibition mode to play one off games, how would the inclusion of bowling tournaments to win trophies that you can show off make the game worse? As well as playing your friends round your house how would the addition of adding online play make the game worse? If you wanted to look at it, how would the option of looking at your detailed bowling stats make the game worse, if you don't care about them then don't go to the stats page, if you're interested and wanted to see what type of shots you do the most and what type of shots you do best/worst at then why shouldn't you be able to? If you don't want to listen to music when you bowl then fine you don't have to, but why not include the option to have custom sound tracks if you want them? Why not add proper leaderboards that track your scores, how would that make the game worse? Also why not add more game modes, you don't have to play them, but if you want to they are their. Also why not make the game so you can create custom bowling balls, custom pins and custom bowling clothes to bowl in. None of those things make the game worse, they only make them better.'

 



Around the Network
aceburg0413 on 08 March 2008


Why hate systems that bring you great games?

PSN: Aceburg0413

XBOX Live: Sheep of Doom13

Nintendo:  SheepofDoom13

3DS FC:  3222 - 5562 - 9867

Gnizmo on 08 March 2008
jimmay said:

 


I'm not missing anything, taking away features, having something that doesnt look as good as something else, not giving people the option to play online, not giving people the option to play against challenging a.i. as well as easy a.i. not giving people the option to play a well thought out single player game/season, how does taking away peoples options make games better? I'll answer it for you they don't. All the things i mentioned above enhance the gameplay experence. Just because some people who have bad taste in games who don't use all of those things or even know they are missing them because they don't know any better don't care about them, doesn't make the lack of these features turn a bad game into a good one.

Using your wii bowling example i'll show you why these features would make it better. As well as being able to play as mii's why can't you play as real life professional bowlers, how would having the option of playing as these people make the game any worse? As well as having an exibition mode to play one off games, how would the inclusion of bowling tournaments to win trophies that you can show off make the game worse? As well as playing your friends round your house how would the addition of adding online play make the game worse? If you wanted to look at it, how would the option of looking at your detailed bowling stats make the game worse, if you don't care about them then don't go to the stats page, if you're interested and wanted to see what type of shots you do the most and what type of shots you do best/worst at then why shouldn't you be able to? If you don't want to listen to music when you bowl then fine you don't have to, but why not include the option to have custom sound tracks if you want them? Why not add proper leaderboards that track your scores, how would that make the game worse? Also why not add more game modes, you don't have to play them, but if you want to they are their. Also why not make the game so you can create custom bowling balls, custom pins and custom bowling clothes to bowl in. None of those things make the game worse, they only make them better, just because their is a group of casual gamers with bad taste that may or may not use those things doesnt make the exclusion of them ok and the game a good one.


 

Disclaimer: I am trying to adress everyone of your points but that huge wall of text is nearly unreadable. It looks like you are repeating the same arguement with different examples but if I miss an important part please tell me.

Lacking a feature can, in some ways, make a game better. I would rather have no story rather than a shitty one I have to suffer through to get to the good parts of the game. You still miss my point though, or are side-stepping it. I am not saying the game is better without online, robust single player, top notch graphics, wonderfully orchestrated music, etc. I am saying that those games do not necessarily make the game better. Wii Sports would be no better with online than it is right now without it. Wii Sports would be no better with a story mode than it is right now without it (and could get worse depending).

Adding real life bowlers to Wii Bowling would make the game worse, hands down. Have you ever heard anyone complain about how absolutely retarded Miis look in Wii Sports? They are horribly done and look amazingly stupid. The world was created for them though and they really look like they fit. Most of what you list wouldn't hurt the game, but it wouldn't help it really either. The purpose of Wii Sports is to get 3 of your friends around and do something retarded. Having online play would only be as fun as really amazing AI and that is kinda boring. This applies to many things you have listed.

You have a nice list of features there that the hardcore love and I admit most of them are nothing but positive. The reason we have this disagreement is because they are not essential. You are looking at the games backwards. Rather than asking why not have those options when you should be asking why have those options. Why would a Zelda game have online multiplayer? Well there really isn't a very good reason to and thus it never materializes. Only the worst game reviewers will complain about that though.

I use Nintendo a lot here but I think the trend universalizes quite well. Why should Warhawk have a single player? Why shouldn't MMOs have an off-line mode? These kinds of questions are as endless as they are pointless. Unless a feature actually enriches the gameplay experience the designer intends then it should be forgotten as extraneous. A game with those extraneous features should be praised, but one lacking them should not be faulted.



Starcraft 2 ID: Gnizmo 229

aceburg0413 on 08 March 2008

So, jimmay I really wonder what you are really saying? 

Are all games that sell well great games?

Are all games that are rated poorly bad games?

Do you honestly feel that EVERY critic is correct in their OPINION (last i checked all ratings are based on the opinions of the rater)?

Oh and I did a small bit of research, last generation the best sellers were Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (PS2); Halo 2 (XBOX) and Smash Brothers Melee (GC), just make a guess at which one was the highest rated?

 



Why hate systems that bring you great games?

PSN: Aceburg0413

XBOX Live: Sheep of Doom13

Nintendo:  SheepofDoom13

3DS FC:  3222 - 5562 - 9867

__XBrawlX__ on 08 March 2008

A good many of those Wii games are third party! That's a good sign!

EDIT: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=19907&start=0#end

Third Party games are selling much better then we all think. 



 

 

 

Guitar Hero 3/ Smash Hits
HappySqurriel on 08 March 2008
jimmay said:
HappySqurriel said:
jimmay said:

What you wrote makes no sense, it's a simple fact you can't hold the wii to different a different lower standard than the x360 and ps3 in terms of games and at the same time compare it's sales. Either you compare everything or compare nothing at all. If a game is short, shallow, has limited options, no online, poor a.i., bad graphics, bad sound with hit and miss controls then it's a bad game. Just because their is a casual crowd of people with poor taste in games who like short, shallow and easy, who don't care that it has limited options, no online, poor a.i., bad graphics, bad sound and hit and miss controls doesn't change the fact that it is still bad game. A poor game which is aimed at casual people with poor taste doesn't suddenly turn into a good one just because it met it's goal of being a bad game.


So the Beatles were an awful band because their muscianship was far below the quality level you would expect from a muscian in a PhilHarmonic Orchestra?

This isn't about the Wii! The fact that you see it that way demonstrates how blinded you are by your fanboy bias. By your standard the AI in a chess program that can challenge a world champion would be 'Poor AI' because it is not a first person shooter; and graphics that are perfect for a puzzle game would be 'Bad Graphics' because it doesn't involve an immersive 3D world.

This has nothing to do with giving games that are low quality high scores; this is about different genres having different things that are important to gameplay. You have yet to make a single argument against this, every post of yours has boiled down to "Wii games suck! They don't deserve higher scores!"

Once again, this has nothing to do with the Wii ... What is so wrong about reviewing a game based on what is important within its genre? If a game has good graphics, AI, music and plays well why should it be doomed to get a 7/10 because it is a party game? You may think a party game is shallow, other people will differ, why shouldn't a party games score relate to how good of a party game it is rather than it being a reflection of deep of gameplay it offers by your standard? If it is the best party game on the market to date should its reviews reflect that?


We are talking about the wii's games so yes we are talking about the wii. This is what you don't seem to grasp, their are such things as good party games. Party games/mini games aren't automatically doomed to receive a low score just because they are a party game. If a party game got a low score then it's because it had bad gameplay not just because it was a party game and their for can never be good in the first place. I've been describing to you some of the tangible differences between games such as graphics, sound and online, however if the gameplay of game sucks, then it sucks, you seem to think these party games with bad gameplay are some how great and reviewers and myself are biased against them, when we are not. As well as gameplay being the problem these games have a lack of basic features. Taking away peoples options is a bad thing, full stop no debate. If some people don't use them then no harm done. How do know that all, most or some of casual gamers wouldn't like a game more if it had a decent set of features. This is a reply i gave in another post about wii bowling and i'll use to show what i mean:

'Using your wii bowling example i'll show you why these features would make it better. As well as being able to play as mii's why can't you play as real life professional bowlers, how would having the option of playing as these people make the game any worse? As well as having an exibition mode to play one off games, how would the inclusion of bowling tournaments to win trophies that you can show off make the game worse? As well as playing your friends round your house how would the addition of adding online play make the game worse? If you wanted to look at it, how would the option of looking at your detailed bowling stats make the game worse, if you don't care about them then don't go to the stats page, if you're interested and wanted to see what type of shots you do the most and what type of shots you do best/worst at then why shouldn't you be able to? If you don't want to listen to music when you bowl then fine you don't have to, but why not include the option to have custom sound tracks if you want them? Why not add proper leaderboards that track your scores, how would that make the game worse? Also why not add more game modes, you don't have to play them, but if you want to they are their. Also why not make the game so you can create custom bowling balls, custom pins and custom bowling clothes to bowl in. None of those things make the game worse, they only make them better.'

 


Certainly, there are good party games but (on the whole) their reviews do not demonstrate this; there are only 4 party games to ever receive a score over 80% on Gamerankings.com and 3 of them probably do not belong in the genre (Super Monkey Ball, Super Monkey Ball 2, and Super Monkey Ball Deluxe). Mario Party for the N64 defined the genre, revolutionized how people think of local multiplayer gaming, and was one of the definitive games of the generation and yet only averaged 76% ...