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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Wii U basically averages two "big" games a year.

Goodnightmoon said:
Pavolink said:

I'm not the one comparing games with different situations. I'm not the one desperate enough to defend the evident.

Oh and is also evident that Star Fox could be a million seller in 2 months and you would still calling it a little game just because. Is like pokemon, they are not very expensive so I guess all Pokemons are small games even selling +10 or +20 milions. Of course.


Oh, so we went from disrupting your previous arguments to a new goal post: sales. Good.

Let's see, the last Star Fox game sold on the massive DS installbase 0.53M, but somehow, on Wii U will be a million seller in 2 months. Oh, but that's not a real Star Fox, the last real one sold 4M on N64, and because it was soo succesful we got spin-offs or nor real SF games. Am I right?



Proud to be the first cool Nintendo fan ever

Number ONE Zelda fan in the Universe

DKCTF didn't move consoles

Prediction: No Zelda HD for Wii U, quietly moved to the succesor

Predictions for Nintendo NX and Mobile


Around the Network

yeah. it is suitable only for nintendo fans or multi console owners.
meanwhile, i can play in my 3ds and ps3.



Podings said:
midrange said:
Podings said:


Well yes, I definitely would not call one game "bigger" than another game that had cost more to make, simply because its marketing budget was larger.

I'm also assuming you then mean that those are the only big games yet to come out this year, as the marketing budget for Splatoon appears to also have been quite meaty.

Splatoons marketing was very extravagant, on the level of mario kart. But I hesitate to call splatoon "big" since that would assume it's development budget is on par to mario kart's (I highly doubt that). Splatoon is a tough call since it is a budget game with a big marketing budget, but I am leaning toward it not being 'big'

And while you may not agree, I would say marketing budget is a very an important factor in deciding if a game is big (not big enough to outweigh the low development budget for splatoon). Marketing budget allows for games like hearthstone to be bigger than games like dishonored, despite the development budget difference

 

Splatoon still more than likely cost more to plan, produce, test, market, and maintain than Mario Maker.

Concept design and visual design from scratch, oodles of prototyping, balancing, online testing, so on so forth. 

 

Again though, this is pure conjecture.


Again, splatoon is a tough call for me. I don't know everything. Mario maker probably has a lot more to it then you are probably giving it credit for. It may not be the most hardest thing to develop, but I also don't think that splatoon showed any difficult thing to make compared to other shooters. Both maintain an online feature, creative design, and most definitely oodles of prototyping (which is why I personally believe mario maker will have 100 starting levels). But In the end I see mario maker being pushed out ridiculously by marketing as the game to make the Wii u worthwhile in the face of lost AAA third party games. Of course I could be wrong.



Rustuv said:
UncleScrooge said:

But if you look at sales numbers and mass market appeal it actually makes sense. Starfox, Xenoblade and Yoshi will all sell in the 1-2 million units range, while Splatoon and Mario Maker will sell more than that. They'll also get more of a marketing push. 


Nintendo is going to push Starfox (they already were at E3) if anything I only worry they will over estimate starfox and push it less. But otherwise Nintendo clearly consider starfox big. And Japan is raving about xenoblade.


It doesn't matter how big Nintendo considers Star Fox, the series isn't very popular and Zero will be lucky to break two million in sales. Also, not many people are raving about Xenoblade Chronicles X in Japan because it has barely sold a hundred thousand copies there. It's a real pity considering the quality of these games.

@OP

I can kind of see what you're getting at but I disagree, especially when you have to count Pikmin 3 as a major title to justify your logic.

I find it difficult to understand why Nintendo has been so sparse with their support for the Wii U. Why didn't they release Zelda or Animal Crossing earlier in the its lifespan? I also can't wrap my head around the absence of Metroid Prime.



Pavolink said:
Goodnightmoon said:

Oh and is also evident that Star Fox could be a million seller in 2 months and you would still calling it a little game just because. Is like pokemon, they are not very expensive so I guess all Pokemons are small games even selling +10 or +20 milions. Of course.


Oh, so we went from disrupting your previous arguments to a new goal post: sales. Good.

Let's see, the last Star Fox game sold on the massive DS installbase 0.53M, but somehow, on Wii U will be a million seller in 2 months. Oh, but that's not a real Star Fox, the last real one sold 4M on N64, and because it was soo succesful we got spin-offs or nor real SF games. Am I right?

Disrupting my ass

A game could be big for different reasons, some of them are big because budget, but they are shit and they don´t sell fine (The Order) some of them are big because the quality even if they don´t sell or the budget is ot big, and some of them are simply iconic and selll like a beast even if they have little budgets (like pokemon)  ALL of them are big

And yes, spin offs don´t sell so well as the real one neither a handheld is a good place for SF, and this one is a real one on a homeconsole, it will sell fine, you can be sure about it.



Around the Network
Goodnightmoon said:
Pavolink said:


Oh, so we went from disrupting your previous arguments to a new goal post: sales. Good.

Let's see, the last Star Fox game sold on the massive DS installbase 0.53M, but somehow, on Wii U will be a million seller in 2 months. Oh, but that's not a real Star Fox, the last real one sold 4M on N64, and because it was soo succesful we got spin-offs or nor real SF games. Am I right?

Disrupting my ass

A game could be big for different reasons, some of them are big because budget, but they are shit and they don´t sell fine (The Order) some of them are big because the quality even if they don´t sell or the budget is ot big, and some of them are simply iconic and selll like a beast even if they have little budgets (like pokemon)  ALL of them are big

And yes, spin offs don´t sell so well as the real one neither a handheld is a good place for SF, and this one is a real one on a homeconsole, it will sell fine, you can be sure about it.

Excuses. Real big games like Mario Kart, Super Smash Bros and The Legend of Zelda sells good on handheld and homeconsole, even spin-offs.



Proud to be the first cool Nintendo fan ever

Number ONE Zelda fan in the Universe

DKCTF didn't move consoles

Prediction: No Zelda HD for Wii U, quietly moved to the succesor

Predictions for Nintendo NX and Mobile


Goodnightmoon said:
Pavolink said:


Oh, so we went from disrupting your previous arguments to a new goal post: sales. Good.

Let's see, the last Star Fox game sold on the massive DS installbase 0.53M, but somehow, on Wii U will be a million seller in 2 months. Oh, but that's not a real Star Fox, the last real one sold 4M on N64, and because it was soo succesful we got spin-offs or nor real SF games. Am I right?

Disrupting my ass

A game could be big for different reasons, some of them are big because budget, but they are shit and they don´t sell fine (The Order) some of them are big because the quality even if they don´t sell or the budget is ot big, and some of them are simply iconic and selll like a beast even if they have little budgets (like pokemon)  ALL of them are big

And yes, spin offs don´t sell so well as the real one neither a handheld is a good place for SF, and this one is a real one on a homeconsole, it will sell fine, you can be sure about it.

The only way star fox will be considered 'big' is if you define big by people's recognition of the game. Starfox is clearly not big in budget, or development time, or innovation, or graphics.

The sad thing however, is that star fox hasn't had a huge hit in years, so even having a known name attached to it doesn't make starfox zero big. People may know of starfox, but most people aren't exactly dying to get their hands on starfox zero. 



midrange said:

The only way star fox will be considered 'big' is if you define big by people's recognition of the game. Starfox is clearly not big in budget, or development time, or innovation, or graphics.

The sad thing however, is that star fox hasn't had a huge hit in years, so even having a known name attached to it doesn't make starfox zero big. People may know of starfox, but most people aren't exactly dying to get their hands on starfox zero. 

Well people complain about new Star Fox games not being 64 every time because all games after 64 tried new things with it's gameplay so there is innovation.

And about graphics, please the SNES game was impressive for it's time and have you looked at Adventures and Assault on the Gamecube those games look fantastic and still hold up well.



ARamdomGamer said:
midrange said:

The only way star fox will be considered 'big' is if you define big by people's recognition of the game. Starfox is clearly not big in budget, or development time, or innovation, or graphics.

The sad thing however, is that star fox hasn't had a huge hit in years, so even having a known name attached to it doesn't make starfox zero big. People may know of starfox, but most people aren't exactly dying to get their hands on starfox zero. 

Well people complain about new Star Fox games not being 64 every time because all games after 64 tried new things with it's gameplay so there is innovation.

And about graphics, please the SNES game was impressive for it's time and have you looked at Adventures and Assault on the Gamecube those games look fantastic and still hold up well.


Let me clarify, every single game innovates in varying degrees. No 2 games are exactly the same. I meant to say that starfo zero doesn't really innovate in any meaningful way. Doesn't mean the game cannot be big, just that you can't really call it big through innovation.

As for the graphics, I was referring to starfox zero, as that is the version that was being discussed (and no, star fox zero isn't breathtaking graphics wise)



I'd still say Star Fox is a big release for WiiU. 'Name' goes a long way as far as I'm concerned and Nintendo gives the game substantial exposure. I'd say production values are secondary to kind of light the end product is represented by the publisher, in this case Nintendo. Or sales too, tertiary even, because that's after the fact. If a new GTA flops, you can't really say "Oh, it was just a small game afterall".

They are making 'a big deal' about Star Fox, so it's presented as a "big game" (I would preferably call those 'primary releases instead though) to the world and that's what counts most in my book. Mario Maker is similar, the game probably costs next to nothing and the development team probably doesn't exceed a dozen people including Tezuka and Miyamoto, but they clearly are bringing it with huge fanfare and are trying to create huge hype.

Now there's where I would disagree with OP, because a lot more games than just two are brought as being 'big games' every year. There has also been Donkey Kong, ZombiU, Bayonetta and Xenoblade and Yoshi soon for example. They've been getting plenty of 'screentime' to justify calling them 'big releases'.