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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Will the Wii pass the GCN in # of AAA titles?

 

Will the Wii pass the GCN in # of AAA titles?

Yes 97 50.52%
 
No 95 49.48%
 
Total:192
Carl on 01 January 2010
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
Carl2291 said:
Khuutra said:
Some people have missed my point

Quality itself is not an indicator of AAA status. Budget and marketing emphasis is.

Yes, Lair and Haze were AAA titles

That is how meaningless it is in reference to quality.

In that case, how many AAA games does the Wii actually have?

According to many people, only a handful made by Nintendo itself.  Since only Nintendo has been making games that would be considered on the level of games that could compete with the HD games.

But I think, since Wii isn't competing with the HD systems and is in its own category, it should be more of a measure of what constitutes a 'high quality' game for that system.  Is Tales of Symphonia 2 AAA? Madworld?

Personally, I'd definitely count Monster Hunter Tri.  Along with the recent Resident Evil outings, eventhough they're rail shooters.  Heck, for a Wii title, Muramasa is even bordering on the high quality level.  But most people won't count that simply because its a 2D game that was made by a small studio and didn't cost tons of money to make.  Its a question of what you think consists of 'AAA'.  'Quality' or 'Costs to develop'.

Red - Since when? They get sales compared, so games should also be compared.



                            

Around the Network
Seece on 01 January 2010
Carl2291 said:
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
Carl2291 said:
Khuutra said:
Some people have missed my point

Quality itself is not an indicator of AAA status. Budget and marketing emphasis is.

Yes, Lair and Haze were AAA titles

That is how meaningless it is in reference to quality.

In that case, how many AAA games does the Wii actually have?

According to many people, only a handful made by Nintendo itself.  Since only Nintendo has been making games that would be considered on the level of games that could compete with the HD games.

But I think, since Wii isn't competing with the HD systems and is in its own category, it should be more of a measure of what constitutes a 'high quality' game for that system.  Is Tales of Symphonia 2 AAA? Madworld?

Personally, I'd definitely count Monster Hunter Tri.  Along with the recent Resident Evil outings, eventhough they're rail shooters.  Heck, for a Wii title, Muramasa is even bordering on the high quality level.  But most people won't count that simply because its a 2D game that was made by a small studio and didn't cost tons of money to make.  Its a question of what you think consists of 'AAA'.  'Quality' or 'Costs to develop'.

Red - Since when? They get sales compared, so games should also be compared.

Wait for it, he'll tell you it's out fault and HD fans are the ones spouting that it's not competition.

Fact of the matter is wii fans are touchy about metacritic because it just doesn't stack up ... thus they come out with a host of reasons why metacritic sucks.



 

I like Bacon on 01 January 2010

looking at my collection, it did a long long time ago.



Majin-Tenshinhan on 01 January 2010

AAA, yeah.

90+ on Metacritic, highly unlikely.



KungKras on 01 January 2010

To me, it already has surpassed the gamecube.

I find it funny that these revewers are supposed to be "traditional" yet they don't consider NSMBW to be AAA. Metacritic has no credibility to me.



I LOVE ICELAND!

Around the Network
Kenryoku_Maxis on 01 January 2010
Carl2291 said:
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
Carl2291 said:
Khuutra said:
Some people have missed my point

Quality itself is not an indicator of AAA status. Budget and marketing emphasis is.

Yes, Lair and Haze were AAA titles

That is how meaningless it is in reference to quality.

In that case, how many AAA games does the Wii actually have?

According to many people, only a handful made by Nintendo itself.  Since only Nintendo has been making games that would be considered on the level of games that could compete with the HD games.

But I think, since Wii isn't competing with the HD systems and is in its own category, it should be more of a measure of what constitutes a 'high quality' game for that system.  Is Tales of Symphonia 2 AAA? Madworld?

Personally, I'd definitely count Monster Hunter Tri.  Along with the recent Resident Evil outings, eventhough they're rail shooters.  Heck, for a Wii title, Muramasa is even bordering on the high quality level.  But most people won't count that simply because its a 2D game that was made by a small studio and didn't cost tons of money to make.  Its a question of what you think consists of 'AAA'.  'Quality' or 'Costs to develop'.

Red - Since when? They get sales compared, so games should also be compared.
Seece said:

Wait for it, he'll tell you it's out fault and HD fans are the ones spouting that it's not competition.

Fact of the matter is wii fans are touchy about metacritic because it just doesn't stack up ... thus they come out with a host of reasons why metacritic sucks.

Last gen did PS2 compare to GameCube or XBOX in graphics?  No, everyone will agree the PS2 had the weaker graphics.  And did PS2 have a TON of shovelware games compared to the other systems just like WII?  Yes, people often complained about it, with games like Mary Kate & Ashley go Shopping or Ponez alive!  But overall, their games that were deemed 'good' were often ranked equal or even better to that of the other two consoles.  The PS2 had over 70 games above a 90 score on Metacritic.  More than a few of them being of the puzzle, mini game or casual game variety.

This gen, Wii is in the same position, but its games are consistently downscored not only in graphics, but for things like 'lacks innovation' or for hidden metrics or BLATANT metrics in comparison to HD games (such as reviewers blatantly comparing them to games like GTAIV or Halo in their reviews).

So Sony gets a free ride last gen and Nintendo gets the microscope this gen?  Or is it because of something else?  Do enlighten me to why the Wii is in this predicament.  I find most people like to blame the Wii or defend reviewers or point the finger back at people who bring up this topic..anything to keep from thinking there could be any truth in this scenario.



Six upcoming games you should look into:

 

  

Seece on 01 January 2010
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
Carl2291 said:
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
Carl2291 said:
Khuutra said:
Some people have missed my point

Quality itself is not an indicator of AAA status. Budget and marketing emphasis is.

Yes, Lair and Haze were AAA titles

That is how meaningless it is in reference to quality.

In that case, how many AAA games does the Wii actually have?

According to many people, only a handful made by Nintendo itself.  Since only Nintendo has been making games that would be considered on the level of games that could compete with the HD games.

But I think, since Wii isn't competing with the HD systems and is in its own category, it should be more of a measure of what constitutes a 'high quality' game for that system.  Is Tales of Symphonia 2 AAA? Madworld?

Personally, I'd definitely count Monster Hunter Tri.  Along with the recent Resident Evil outings, eventhough they're rail shooters.  Heck, for a Wii title, Muramasa is even bordering on the high quality level.  But most people won't count that simply because its a 2D game that was made by a small studio and didn't cost tons of money to make.  Its a question of what you think consists of 'AAA'.  'Quality' or 'Costs to develop'.

Red - Since when? They get sales compared, so games should also be compared.
Seece said:

Wait for it, he'll tell you it's out fault and HD fans are the ones spouting that it's not competition.

Fact of the matter is wii fans are touchy about metacritic because it just doesn't stack up ... thus they come out with a host of reasons why metacritic sucks.

Last gen did PS2 compare to GameCube or XBOX in graphics?  No, everyone will agree the PS2 had the weaker graphics.  And did PS2 have a TON of shovelware games compared to the other systems just like WII?  Yes, people often complained about it, with games like Mary Kate & Ashley go Shopping or Ponez alive!  But overall, their games that were deemed 'good' were often ranked equal or even better to that of the other two consoles.  The PS2 had over 70 games above a 90 score on Metacritic.  More than a few of them being of the puzzle, mini game or casual game variety.

This gen, Wii is in the same position, but its games are consistently downscored not only in graphics, but for things like 'lacks innovation' or for hidden metrics or BLATANT metrics in comparison to HD games (such as reviewers blatantly comparing them to games like GTAIV or Halo in their reviews).

So Sony gets a free ride last gen and Nintendo gets the microscope this gen?  Or is it because of something else?  Do enlighten me to why the Wii is in this predicament.  I find most people like to blame the Wii or defend reviewers or point the finger back at people who bring up this topic..anything to keep from thinking there could be any truth in this scenario.

Wii is not in the same position, PS2 got massive dev support, Wii does not.



 

AnthonyW86 on 01 January 2010

It might pass the Gamecube one day, but never the N64. The number of great Rare titles alone might already be more than everything AAA worthy on Wii.



N.Genckel on 01 January 2010

Look at how the gaming "journalists" acts, and I think you got your answer.

A better question would maybe be, will it end up having more great games?



Check out my DS site.

Kenryoku_Maxis on 01 January 2010
Seece said:
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
Carl2291 said:
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
Carl2291 said:
Khuutra said:
Some people have missed my point

Quality itself is not an indicator of AAA status. Budget and marketing emphasis is.

Yes, Lair and Haze were AAA titles

That is how meaningless it is in reference to quality.

In that case, how many AAA games does the Wii actually have?

According to many people, only a handful made by Nintendo itself.  Since only Nintendo has been making games that would be considered on the level of games that could compete with the HD games.

But I think, since Wii isn't competing with the HD systems and is in its own category, it should be more of a measure of what constitutes a 'high quality' game for that system.  Is Tales of Symphonia 2 AAA? Madworld?

Personally, I'd definitely count Monster Hunter Tri.  Along with the recent Resident Evil outings, eventhough they're rail shooters.  Heck, for a Wii title, Muramasa is even bordering on the high quality level.  But most people won't count that simply because its a 2D game that was made by a small studio and didn't cost tons of money to make.  Its a question of what you think consists of 'AAA'.  'Quality' or 'Costs to develop'.

Red - Since when? They get sales compared, so games should also be compared.
Seece said:

Wait for it, he'll tell you it's out fault and HD fans are the ones spouting that it's not competition.

Fact of the matter is wii fans are touchy about metacritic because it just doesn't stack up ... thus they come out with a host of reasons why metacritic sucks.

Last gen did PS2 compare to GameCube or XBOX in graphics?  No, everyone will agree the PS2 had the weaker graphics.  And did PS2 have a TON of shovelware games compared to the other systems just like WII?  Yes, people often complained about it, with games like Mary Kate & Ashley go Shopping or Ponez alive!  But overall, their games that were deemed 'good' were often ranked equal or even better to that of the other two consoles.  The PS2 had over 70 games above a 90 score on Metacritic.  More than a few of them being of the puzzle, mini game or casual game variety.

This gen, Wii is in the same position, but its games are consistently downscored not only in graphics, but for things like 'lacks innovation' or for hidden metrics or BLATANT metrics in comparison to HD games (such as reviewers blatantly comparing them to games like GTAIV or Halo in their reviews).

So Sony gets a free ride last gen and Nintendo gets the microscope this gen?  Or is it because of something else?  Do enlighten me to why the Wii is in this predicament.  I find most people like to blame the Wii or defend reviewers or point the finger back at people who bring up this topic..anything to keep from thinking there could be any truth in this scenario.

Wii is not in the same position, PS2 got massive dev support, Wii does not.

Ah yes, Wii has no games.  Good comeback.  Reminds me of a year ago and the standard comebacks for the PS3.



Six upcoming games you should look into: