The game will be around 7 months old by the time the NX comes out. I'm not surprised one bit they haven't considered it.

You're misunderstanding my point about splatoon. I said that I did trust the makers of splatoon because there is no game on 3DS that does the same thing as splatoon. If there was a game that was idential to splatoon on the 3DS then I wouldn't trust the developers.

Which ties in with my Goldenye example. And the game was a remake but kind of not really. It didn't play anything like the N64 game. In fact, it was pretty much a CoD on the Wii. Which is why it illustrates my point so wll.

Just a question, the way you formulated your text made it seem like you think the Wii was the easiest to port to. I'm assuming you meant the opposite?

Here's what I would do if I were activision. I would take a gamecube engine or any last gen engine that supported online and split screen, and then I'd build the port around that. I don't deny that it was hard, and lots of things needed to be recoded, but I don't buy that features had to be cut for any other reason than time. The hardware could do it, and I suspect time became what killed split screen tbh, but they should have coded it into the next version.

And as for the CoD series, My beef is more with infinity ward than it is with Activision. It was those douches who left to create titanfall that refused to make Wii versions when IW made the games. Treyarch did Wii versions just fine.

And that ties in to my first point. The Wii market for CoD was just fine. But missing features AND missing games made people go to other platforms for the series. Had all games been there on time, the market wouldn't have been poisoned like it was.

Some of your examples are pretty curious. Muramasa blew it's predecerror Odin Sphere away on Wii. Suda 51 held a party to celebrate No more Heroes sales. Some Guitar Heroes sold the best on Wii (5 I think?). I think Sin and Punishment outsold the N64 game. Some of those did respectably for what they were. And some were very niche.

Why did it take so many years for a solid FPS effort to come to the system? If third parties were flocking to the system, surely a solid multiplayer FPS would have been made early, because there was no competition for it on Wii.

Basically I translated this as:

"Opinions? What are those? A game's quality is determined objectively by its review scores and sales, and there's no room for dissenters, so anyone who disagrees must have just not played it enough."

Not liking the game is fine. Saying its a shit game is not. Thats just hating on it. Its a quality game in every way. Just because you dont like it doesnt mean its bad.

A game's quality is entirely an almost entirely subjective assessment. It all depends on what you, the player, think of it. You may think GTAV is a quality game, and others can disagree. Saying that something is a "bad" game is just a quicker way of saying "in my opinion, it is a bad game," because any measure of quality (with the exception of a few things like glitches and perhaps graphics quality) is entirely subjective and depends on both what the user is looking for in a game and how they evaluate things.

Maybe if you have no idea what a quality game is. Sure some can say that Wii Music is the best game ever made, but youre not really being very objective then. Some can say that Super Mario Bros. 3 is shit and badly made if you have no idea what makes a game good.

My bad on splatoon, but even then it's foolish logic. Even if there was a game made that was similar to splatoon, that doesn't mean that splatoon can be ported so easily. Just because one game does one thing one way, doesn't mean all games can. Assuming such a game exists, porting Splatoon still could could require rewriting most of the game from scratch and completely reworking how certain gameplay features work, meaning that the games would only be similar in name alone. You really can't know how easy it is to port without intimate knowledge of the hardware and the game itself, even if you have intimate knowledge of how other similar games work.

I disagree that Goldeneye was "like COD on the Wii".

And yes, I made a typo. It should read " It wasn't made by Nintendo"

So you'd take a gamecube engine and build a port around that? Why do you think that's a good idea? You'd still have to put in a serious amount of work to re-optimize update the engine to take advantage of the additional performance along with all of the additional work to make it compatible with the Wii OS, the Wii control system, and the Wii networking system. But let's say they do that. How simiar is that engine you developed to the engine that runs on the PS3 or Xbox 360? I bet it's incredibly different. Do you know what that means? It means you probably have to re-do every feature in the game to not only be compatible with how this new engine works, but also to deal with the new hardware constraints. It's pretty interesting that you bring up split screen. That's actually one of the most taxing features you can do in a game because it involves rendering two completely different scenes simultaneously. Split screen is often cut from most games because they game just runs way too poorly when you just add it in, and opmtizing it normally means lowering the quality to a point that most users find it unacceptable. But you're right, the hardware could do it, but it probably looked absolutely terrible or ran at a terrible frame rate.

I also disagree that the wii market was just fine for Call of Duty. Barring the first year when the PS3 was selling horrifically and the PS2 was still a major player, Call of Duty games never sold well on the Wii. The following year, the Wii version of Call of Duty: World at War (A Treyarch game) accounted for just 11% of Call of Duty sales. Taking the next Treyarch game,  Call of Duty: Black Ops, the Wii version accounted for just 5%. In fact, while sales from World at War to Black Ops exploded, over doubling on the PS3 and X360, except for the Wii where it decreased even though the Wii had far more consoles sold. So, maybe your beef should be with Treyarch as well.

As for my examples being curious - none of those games sold a million copies. When it comes to Muramasa. It only sold 600K copies, that's only 40,000 copies more than Odin Sphere. How exactly is that blowing Odin Sphere out of the water? As for parties, I've been to many lavish release parties for games I worked on that we already knew missed sales objectives. Release parties are pretty much a thank you to the people that worked on it, it has little to do with all the games sales. As for sin and punishment, it's really easy to outsell a game that only sold 130K copies. Most AAA games sell more than that in pre-orders today. And sure, some of these sales are respectable. That's true, but that wasn't my point was it. These are AAA third party games that didn't sell well relative to their first party counterparts. Nintendo had no trouble putting out million+ seller after million+ seller on the Wii. Pretty much everyone else did.

As for Guitar Hero, totally wrong there. That game sold very competitively on the Wii. I don't know what I was thinking of (Rock Revolution, maybe?) My bad.

Again, it all depends on what you think makes a good game. If you enjoy...whatever the heck it is that Wii Music does...then Wii Music may very well be the best game to you. Maybe some person who enjoys music but hasn't played video games much before enjoys it for its (I'm assuming a bit here) simplicity, and as a result, considers it the best video game ever made.

The point is, everything we assess a game on is subjective. Even attempts to be "objective" about things are, in and of themselves, based on what the video game community has subjectively decided is good or bad in the past. We praise Dark Souls for its exploration and lack of hand holding because the majority of us in the community think that is good. We degrade Skyward Sword for its hand holding because the (rather large) majority of us in the community think that is bad. Any attempt at objectively invetiably finds itself based in a subjective assessment that someone or some people made in the past. You can call that "having no idea what a quality game is," but that's based on your notions of what a quality game is (which, in turn, may be based on the larger community's notions of what a quality game is). Or to bring this back down to a more practical level; the original Halo was, by and large, considered a mediocre game at best in Japan. And yet, in the West, it was praised universally. The very notion of what does and doesn't make a good game shifts drastically if we simply cross an ocean; trying to make an objective assessment for games is a futile notion at best.

No, the quality of a game isnt just in the eye of the beholder. It comes down to the talent of the developer. Games like GTAV, The Last Of Us, Super Mario Galaxy etc...are quality games because they are made by talented people who knows what makes a fun game. Halo may not be popular in Japan, but that can be said about most FPS games. Just because they are not popular there, doesnt mean they are of bad quality.

Quality comes down to great gameplay, design and how well the game runs.

Sure you can argue how fun a game is, but you cant really argue quality.

And what exactly determines what makes gameplay, design, story, and whatever else "great?" It's entirely based on subjective notions (with the possible exception of how well it runs). Granted, these are subjective notions held by the majority of the gaming community, but they're subjective all the same. There isn't a single thing you can point to in gameplay that you can find a purely "objective" foundation for; everything comes back to a set of presuppositions that most people agree are "good."

If you disagree with me, then I'd invite you to come up with a definition of what makes a good game without referring to any subjective qualities. That means that your definition needs to be something that everyone could apply equally across all games and come to the exact same conclusion of which games are good and which games are not. In other words, you can't use something like "it is a fun game," because what people find "fun" will vary from person to person.

(Here's a hint: It's not possible)