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

Forums - Gaming - Nintendo is to blame for bad third party games on the Wii

Pristine20 said:
HappySqurriel said:

 


But what if it isn't working and the companies are going banrkupt because they're producing the same game at a higher development cost to lower and lower sales because people are getting bored of the formula? What if the games are becomming lower in quality because their focus is entirely on things which don't improve the fun of their games?

Can you really argue that the Medal of Honor and Need For Speed strategy is working for EA?

How about Take 2, is the couple of decent games they're producing a year really making up for the mountain of expensive crap they produce?

Did Unreal Tournament 3, Stranglehold, Blacksite: Area 51, and Hour of Victory save Midway from going bankrupt?

 

The fact is that (while the strategy may be working for some of Nintendo's games) third party publishers will continue to go bankrupt unless they break this pattern.

 

 

The thing is, there's a difference between a bad game and an uninnovative game. Many would say cod4 is uninnovative and generic but I think most would agree that it's a great game nonetheless. The problem with those midway games you mentioned except UT3 (was this by midway?) is that they're generally seen as bad games. Area 51 was a glitchfest. They sold poorly because they were bad not because they were uninnovative.

UT3 is published by midway.  CoD4 does innovate on the console FPS adding a lot of gameplay elements as well as changing wartime shooters as they're not all set in World War II.  As for Nintendo games they innovate their own formulas quite often as SMG had platforms you could walk on all sides, play with the gravity, puzzles that were based around the elements of the game. 

The real risk with Hd titles is spending a lot of money to make a bad game. Granted there are a few good games that don't perform very well but most of these titles sales can be predicted in advance based on the popularity of the genre like Valkyria Chronicles. if sega lost money on that game, then their planning was very poor because SRPGs never pushed huge numbers.

SRPGs can sell well enough to make a profit, just VC was a new IP and had few ads and no one outside of the internet users talking about it.

How have nintendo innovated with  the super smash bros and mario kart series aside form graphics? Why are they still selling so many copies? The sales have even increased due to wthe wii's higher userbase. On the other hand, most agree that Ubisoft innovated with the new Prince of Persia and what happened to the sales?

Bikes are new for the Kart series, as well as the 12 player multiplayer, and what made me mad is the increase of cheap items appearing but it's a big change as well.  Smash brothers also had huge changes from melee with a lot of the techs people used in melee being taken out and more balancing of the characters with more techs being put in as well as online being added (despite people talking about it being bad it's pretty seemless for me heh...)

If you ask me, with some series, it's when they tried to change the working formula that sales started to dwindle. Case in point: Need for Speed. The Hot pursuit series were loved by many but they retooled the whole thing and tried to copy Gran Turismo instead. I'm pretty sure if they just polished the graphics and added more options, cars and tracks, the series won't be where it is now. Just look at COD and gears: the same thing retooled over for even less money and the sequels are thus looking to be even more profitable.

Gears is a new IP for this gen that did a lot of things differently so your point there is fairly moot.

I even forgot Dragon quest which is the most obvious case of the same exact thing over and over yet people can wait to pay their money. Many nintendo fans are excited for DQIX and X

Most people buy RPGs for story not gameplay and pretty graphics though lots of RPG makers have forgotten but series like Dragon Quest and Disgaea keep to that very well and are popular because you get a new creative story in each game.

HappySqurriel was trying to make the point that a lot of developers are trying the old strategy from last gen which was copy everything everyone else does and make profit cause they look like a popular title but it's no longer working as a whole and putting some companies out of business, when it costs an exceptional amount to make a game no matter if it's good or bad you have to sell at lot more then you did last gen which is hard to do, plus the higher costs also make developers push games out faster because they need the revenue to continue work, and glitchy games usually get updated to actually work ala Lair.

 



MaxwellGT2000 - "Does the amount of times you beat it count towards how hardcore you are?"

Wii Friend Code - 5882 9717 7391 0918 (PM me if you add me), PSN - MaxwellGT2000, XBL - BlkKniteCecil, MaxwellGT2000

Around the Network

Oh well, I support anything Nintendo does (I think).



Mummelmann said:
I think there'a a little truth in both sentiments (it is partly 3rd parties and partly Nintendo's own fault). I can certainly attest to the fact that there are a great many crap games coming out today and I find myself never finishing most of them out of boredom or frustration.
But Nintendo did make a choice; they did choose to make the one platform that used a different recipe and implemented older hardware and they knew full well that the only other similar platform this gen woulr be their very own DS and this placed 3rd parties in a difficult postition.
They were/are forced to leap in one of two directions, possibly with the risk of a tough recovery either way.
It is always hard on publishers and producers or manufacturers when markets diverge, as well as the predicament some consumers may find themselves in.
As long as Nintendo opt to be headed in a different direction, there will be, for most dev's, incentive to build their games around the possibility of publishing on three platforms rather than one and the eventual decline and halt of PS2 sales is not aiding Nintendo's cause either.

We'll see how it pans out, nothing is dead certain in regards to 3rd parties but like I've said quite a few times now; any 3rd party who hasn't spun around by now probably won't this gen, not in a big way at any rate and this goes both ways of course (allthough, in my mind there is no doubt who drew the shortest straw so far). Nintendo's sole task from here on out should be shedding that weighty and somewhat unfortunate image they developed, intentionally or otherwise, in the previous two gens in order to gain back the favour of 3rd parties.
But, let us not forget, after all, that Nintendo once dominated the industry like no one else ever had and still haven't.

To an extent I agree with this, Mummel, I'd just change the terminology.


By this logic, any platform designer who does anything creative with their hardware is to "blame." As long as there are 3-4 major competitors in the home gaming department (in this case, those are the PC, 360, PS3 and Wii) and 2-3 are virtually identical in approach and philosophy, then the last competitor will always suffer by being different and trying a different type of hardware with a different controller or general approach.

Again, just to emphasize: this basically "blames" any manufacturer who tries something different and/or creative, which hardly seems fair. Again, I'd just change the wording: not "blame," but "consequence."

That is, Nintendo isn't to blame for poor third party support (again, "blaming" them for it is effectively blaming them for trying a different, creative approach), but certainly Nintendo must accept that a consequence of trying something new is that other companies will have trouble adjusting to that new thing and justifying the cost when making games for that new, different system effectively requires exclusive development for the platform.

 

 



http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/Arkives/Disccopy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D">http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/Arkives/Disccopy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D">

appolose said:
Pristine20 said:

 

 

[what was added in] the super smash bros and mario kart series aside form graphics? Why are they still selling so many copies? The sales have even increased due to wthe wii's higher userbase. On the other hand, most agree that Ubisoft innovated with the new Prince of Persia and what happened to the sales?

 

 

 Well, Mario Kart had the Wii wheel and motorcycles (and online, though not all together innoative (although it is for the series).  Brawl, while it had a much improved single player (and online (which doesn't work too well, albeit)), probably was less innovative, but the series is much loved, has only had two titles of it before in the past 9 years, and has had a much hjigher install base to work with, so the sales are expected (although, I imagine another SSB game released, at least, soon, probably would not see such great sales unless it change something big).   Comparing these games to the Wii-whatever series, however, shows how far innovation can go.  Also, yes, perhaps an innovative game flopped, but that's just one case you provide.

 

If install base is the only difference between the sales GC and Wii versions of Smash Bros and Mario Kart, why has Mario Kart doubled its sales this gen while Smash Bros is only up 20% or so?

The answer is that Mario Kart Wii did a much better job of differentiating itself from Double Dash than Brawl did from Melee, and did a much better job of adopting Wii values, including tilt control and superior online multiplayer. Nintendo cared so much about online for MK Wii that it compromised local multiplayer and battle mode to do it. The 12 player limit was chosen so that people dropping out of an online match wouldn't kill the race. This choice affected level design, necessitated bots in 4-player local matches and required that free-for-all battle mode get ditched in favour of team battle mode.

Despite these compromises, Mario Kart Wii is destroying Double Dash while Brawl is only edging out Melee. Don't underestimate the importance of successfully taking a classic local multiplayer game online. It's trickier than you think, and very rewarding if you pull it off right.



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.

Bobbuffalo said:
Balme Nintendo because THIRD PARTIES DOESN'T MAKE GOOD GAMES is just plain retarded.

What do you want? That Nintendo goes to 3d parties and gives them money to make games?
do you think that Sony and Microsoft do that?

Of course not.

If 3d parties can't make good games because they need super duper graphics and visuals then said companies deserve to fail.

 

That, you can't be certain of.... some exclusivities can be arranged in a competitive industry



Around the Network
appolose said:
Pristine20 said:

 

 

[what was added in] the super smash bros and mario kart series aside form graphics? Why are they still selling so many copies? The sales have even increased due to wthe wii's higher userbase. On the other hand, most agree that Ubisoft innovated with the new Prince of Persia and what happened to the sales?

 

 

 Well, Mario Kart had the Wii wheel and motorcycles (and online, though not all together innoative (although it is for the series).  Brawl, while it had a much improved single player (and online (which doesn't work too well, albeit)), probably was less innovative, but the series is much loved, has only had two titles of it before in the past 9 years, and has had a much hjigher install base to work with, so the sales are expected (although, I imagine another SSB game released, at least, soon, probably would not see such great sales unless it change something big).   Comparing these games to the Wii-whatever series, however, shows how far innovation can go.  Also, yes, perhaps an innovative game flopped, but that's just one case you provide.

Judging by the games Happysquirrel mentioned, I don't think minor tweaks were his idea of innovation. Online is pretty much expected with games of those genres. Street fighter Iv added online, a revenge bar and a focus attack to the same old formula...is it innovative too?

 



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

MaxwellGT2000 said:
Pristine20 said:
HappySqurriel said:

 


But what if it isn't working and the companies are going banrkupt because they're producing the same game at a higher development cost to lower and lower sales because people are getting bored of the formula? What if the games are becomming lower in quality because their focus is entirely on things which don't improve the fun of their games?

Can you really argue that the Medal of Honor and Need For Speed strategy is working for EA?

How about Take 2, is the couple of decent games they're producing a year really making up for the mountain of expensive crap they produce?

Did Unreal Tournament 3, Stranglehold, Blacksite: Area 51, and Hour of Victory save Midway from going bankrupt?

 

The fact is that (while the strategy may be working for some of Nintendo's games) third party publishers will continue to go bankrupt unless they break this pattern.

 

 

The thing is, there's a difference between a bad game and an uninnovative game. Many would say cod4 is uninnovative and generic but I think most would agree that it's a great game nonetheless. The problem with those midway games you mentioned except UT3 (was this by midway?) is that they're generally seen as bad games. Area 51 was a glitchfest. They sold poorly because they were bad not because they were uninnovative.

UT3 is published by midway.  CoD4 does innovate on the console FPS adding a lot of gameplay elements as well as changing wartime shooters as they're not all set in World War II.  As for Nintendo games they innovate their own formulas quite often as SMG had platforms you could walk on all sides, play with the gravity, puzzles that were based around the elements of the game. 

The real risk with Hd titles is spending a lot of money to make a bad game. Granted there are a few good games that don't perform very well but most of these titles sales can be predicted in advance based on the popularity of the genre like Valkyria Chronicles. if sega lost money on that game, then their planning was very poor because SRPGs never pushed huge numbers.

SRPGs can sell well enough to make a profit, just VC was a new IP and had few ads and no one outside of the internet users talking about it.

How have nintendo innovated with  the super smash bros and mario kart series aside form graphics? Why are they still selling so many copies? The sales have even increased due to wthe wii's higher userbase. On the other hand, most agree that Ubisoft innovated with the new Prince of Persia and what happened to the sales?

Bikes are new for the Kart series, as well as the 12 player multiplayer, and what made me mad is the increase of cheap items appearing but it's a big change as well.  Smash brothers also had huge changes from melee with a lot of the techs people used in melee being taken out and more balancing of the characters with more techs being put in as well as online being added (despite people talking about it being bad it's pretty seemless for me heh...)

If you ask me, with some series, it's when they tried to change the working formula that sales started to dwindle. Case in point: Need for Speed. The Hot pursuit series were loved by many but they retooled the whole thing and tried to copy Gran Turismo instead. I'm pretty sure if they just polished the graphics and added more options, cars and tracks, the series won't be where it is now. Just look at COD and gears: the same thing retooled over for even less money and the sequels are thus looking to be even more profitable.

Gears is a new IP for this gen that did a lot of things differently so your point there is fairly moot.

I even forgot Dragon quest which is the most obvious case of the same exact thing over and over yet people can wait to pay their money. Many nintendo fans are excited for DQIX and X

Most people buy RPGs for story not gameplay and pretty graphics though lots of RPG makers have forgotten but series like Dragon Quest and Disgaea keep to that very well and are popular because you get a new creative story in each game.

HappySqurriel was trying to make the point that a lot of developers are trying the old strategy from last gen which was copy everything everyone else does and make profit cause they look like a popular title but it's no longer working as a whole and putting some companies out of business, when it costs an exceptional amount to make a game no matter if it's good or bad you have to sell at lot more then you did last gen which is hard to do, plus the higher costs also make developers push games out faster because they need the revenue to continue work, and glitchy games usually get updated to actually work ala Lair.

 

I usually don't classify minor tweaks to the same old, same old as "innovation".  I do see SMG as innovative but definitely not MKwii,SSBB and cod4.

I do think VC made a profit. It would be really retarded on Sega's part if it didn't.

Those things you point out still strike me as minor tweaks. It's like saying R2 is innovative because it brought  some weird guns and 60 player online games to the R1 formula.

I actually meant gears 2 relative to gears 1. In other words, the same formula all over again sells bananas.

I'll concede on DQ. I thought people would expect the gameplay to change in the least.

Note that I never complained of the lack of innovation in the industry, HappySquirrel did. My point to him was that it's common practice to do the same thing over and over in the industry because most simply stick to working formula. He seemed intent on proving that nintendo was innovative as opposed to others thats why I tried to prove that they were just the same and innovation wasn't the difference between bankruptcy and profitability.

 



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

Pristine20 said:
appolose said:
Pristine20 said:

 

 

[what was added in] the super smash bros and mario kart series aside form graphics? Why are they still selling so many copies? The sales have even increased due to wthe wii's higher userbase. On the other hand, most agree that Ubisoft innovated with the new Prince of Persia and what happened to the sales?

 

 

Well, Mario Kart had the Wii wheel and motorcycles (and online, though not all together innoative (although it is for the series). Brawl, while it had a much improved single player (and online (which doesn't work too well, albeit)), probably was less innovative, but the series is much loved, has only had two titles of it before in the past 9 years, and has had a much hjigher install base to work with, so the sales are expected (although, I imagine another SSB game released, at least, soon, probably would not see such great sales unless it change something big). Comparing these games to the Wii-whatever series, however, shows how far innovation can go. Also, yes, perhaps an innovative game flopped, but that's just one case you provide.

Judging by the games Happysquirrel mentioned, I don't think minor tweaks were his idea of innovation. Online is pretty much expected with games of those genres. Street fighter Iv added online, a revenge bar and a focus attack to the same old formula...is it innovative too?

 

Being that I'm pretty sure you still don't understand what I was initially saying, I'm not too sure you should be making assumptions about my opinions ...

You seem to be under the assumption that I am being critical of the small number of very high quality sequels that repeat a very successful formula for great results. I am (and have been) talking about the much (much) higher number of amazingly mediocre games that offer absolutely nothing new to the genre or series except for better graphics and higher production values. Seriously, if id focused on producing the same kinds of games they have produced in the past several years (Doom 3 and beyond) without the advanced graphics would anyone have cared about these games?



HappySqurriel said:
Pristine20 said:
appolose said:
Pristine20 said:

 

 

[what was added in] the super smash bros and mario kart series aside form graphics? Why are they still selling so many copies? The sales have even increased due to wthe wii's higher userbase. On the other hand, most agree that Ubisoft innovated with the new Prince of Persia and what happened to the sales?

 

 

Well, Mario Kart had the Wii wheel and motorcycles (and online, though not all together innoative (although it is for the series). Brawl, while it had a much improved single player (and online (which doesn't work too well, albeit)), probably was less innovative, but the series is much loved, has only had two titles of it before in the past 9 years, and has had a much hjigher install base to work with, so the sales are expected (although, I imagine another SSB game released, at least, soon, probably would not see such great sales unless it change something big). Comparing these games to the Wii-whatever series, however, shows how far innovation can go. Also, yes, perhaps an innovative game flopped, but that's just one case you provide.

Judging by the games Happysquirrel mentioned, I don't think minor tweaks were his idea of innovation. Online is pretty much expected with games of those genres. Street fighter Iv added online, a revenge bar and a focus attack to the same old formula...is it innovative too?

 

Being that I'm pretty sure you still don't understand what I was initially saying, I'm not too sure you should be making assumptions about my opinions ...

You seem to be under the assumption that I am being critical of the small number of very high quality sequels that repeat a very successful formula for great results. I am (and have been) talking about the much (much) higher number of amazingly mediocre games that offer absolutely nothing new to the genre or series except for better graphics and higher production values. Seriously, if id focused on producing the same kinds of games they have produced in the past several years (Doom 3 and beyond) without the advanced graphics would anyone have cared about these games?

I'm not familiar with ID's track record because I don't know much about PC gaming. The idea I got from your post is that innovation = success and most devs who don't innovate (save for graphics) are the ones losing money. Perhaps I misunderstood but if I didn't, this means that sequels have to innovate too...no? If you don't think so, it would seem like you're cherry picking now.

Innovation itself poses more risk of failure than copying a working formula and tweaking it. If you still see doom as the #1 fps then I think you'd agree that games like cod4 didn't innovate but sold well nonetheless

 

 



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

If Nintendo is to blame for anything, its in forcing third parties to choose. This isn't like last gen when ports were relatively easy. Third parties have to choose between PS360 or Wii, and Nintendo should have forseen, given what happend with the GameCube, that many would gamble on PS360.

That said, its been well over 2 years since launch, and it has been blindingly obvious to all impartial observers which console will win this generation, hands down. There is no reason for the third parties to continue putting out crap product for Nintendo.