axumblade said:
appolose said:
For your first paragraph, I suppose that's more directed at Lord than me. Regardless, I would argue that of Capcom and Ubisoft, two of the three example companies you gave, the games they've released for the Wii, while good, would not be considered by many to be particularily high-caliber games (specifically, Capcom's rail-shooters (yes, those are fun, but you-know-what-mean)), save de Blob. Ubisoft's offerings have been rather meager (apart from No More Hereos, they've been absent since Red Steel). Anyways, not many other 3rd parties do anything on the Wii, and makes statements such as these. Also, I've also seen these "slightest references" many people have criticized Nintendo fans for overreacting on and found them to be considerably more than just not favorable.
Yes, this thread is based off of one person. But that person is the spokesman; I would think that position would carry a little more weight in word than just any employee in the company who talks. Additionally, it's not like this type of statement hasn't been made before, so, at this point, it would be a bit more safe to assume that, yes, the implications of of those statements do reflect what their companies think.
|
Okami wasn't a rail shooter...it was a port but it was a damn good port. Zack & Wiki was a great game as well. And Resident Evil Archives is a remake. Resident Evil 4 was a port. Dead Rising, was an ill-fated attempt at a game but it was opted for over a PS3 version of Dead Rising. Ubisoft might not have made many "core" games but their casual attempts weren't all imagine babiez. Rayman Raving Rabbids (1 and 3 at least) and Shaun White are both considered to be pretty fun games by almost everyone that I've talked to. Not to mention Ubisoft and Capcom have great offerings coming out (TMNT Smash Up, Red Steel 2, Capcom vs. *i can't remember the word*, and Resident Evil Darkside Chronicles.)
Perhaps I'm used to listening to PR (specifically sony) and taking it with a grain of salt but in a lot of cases 1 persons words do not reflect that of the whole company, "spokesman" or not.
@lord, I was speaking of you earlier but I checked your background on here before posting because I normally don't have issues with your opinion. And that's why I put that statement in the last comment I made.
|
Yes, there have been plenty of ports of games that have been out on systems for years, but ports of older games aren't usually held in as high regard as a new game being brought to the system, as they're older, and more likely to have already been played by prospective buyers. Getting old ports does not equal the value of getting new games. Also, I believe games like Zack and Wiki (while being in high quality) are fairly niche games. I don't know how good TMNT is going to be , but, yes, I acknowledge Ubisoft is making what looks to be a good game (although they're first attempt was glitchy, apparently). Rayman Raving Rabbids, while doubtlessly enjoyable, is another party-esque minigames collection (not that there's anything wrong with that, just that the Wii has a billion of those). Capcom is releasing yet another rail shooter, but a probably good fighter.
My point is, yes, a small handful of companies do occasionally release what would be considered a high quality game, but that is by far the exception.
And while I agree with you that PR statements aren't often honest, they do reflect the mindset of the company more. In addition to that, the fact that so many companies have issued similar statements about games they decided not to bring to the Wii would be al the more indicitive of a similar attitude.
