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
Seece on 01 January 2010
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
Seece said:
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
Carl2291 said:

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.

Didn't say that, Don't twist my words again. It's an obvious fact that the level of support for Wii is nowhere near what the PS2 had, and you come back with that pathetic quip? try again.



 

Around the Network
Xen on 01 January 2010

Lol, no way. Unless this generation is stretched out for another 5 years.



Khuutra on 01 January 2010
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?

That's a pretty good question, and it varies from company to company. The thing is that it's hard to quantify, since there are developer expectations to take ito consideration here. I guess No More Heroes 2 would be a AAA property for Grasshopper, though I don't know if the original was? Neither would be for Ubisoft.

Like I said

Really hard to say.

Counting AAA titles would be impossible unless developers and publishers put out their own lists.



Khuutra on 01 January 2010
Seece said:
Carl2291 said:

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.

Touchy about metadarlings, huh.

All right

Do you mean it doesn't stack up in the number of metadarlings, or it does't stack up according to som other standard?



Seece on 01 January 2010
Khuutra said:
Seece said:
Carl2291 said:

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.

Touchy about metadarlings, huh.

All right

Do you mean it doesn't stack up in the number of metadarlings, or it does't stack up according to som other standard?

What the heck does metadarlings mean?



 

Around the Network
Khuutra on 01 January 2010
Seece said:
Khuutra said:

Touchy about metadarlings, huh.

All right

Do you mean it doesn't stack up in the number of metadarlings, or it does't stack up according to som other standard?

What the heck does metadarlings mean?

It is my word (Rubang's too, now). I like it because it's unambiguous. I think it's a bit catchy!

It's short for the darlings of metacritic - the elite games that get 90+

Edit: Wait, this is the topic where I coined the phrase. Read up a bit



Kenryoku_Maxis on 01 January 2010
Seece said:
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
Seece said:
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
Carl2291 said:

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.

Didn't say that, Don't twist my words again. It's an obvious fact that the level of support for Wii is nowhere near what the PS2 had, and you come back with that pathetic quip? try again.

I can say the same thing.  You didn't make any kind of answer to my points at all.  In fact, you completely dodged the topic just saying 'well, the Wii just has weak support'.  Why should I give you a full reponse to your points when you didn't to mine?

It can be argued that for the first 2 years of its life, the PS3 had even weaker support than the Wii.  It still doesn't account for why, overall, reviewer scores for the HD consoles, including the PS3, are favored higher than the Wii.  Or that games that actually TRIED to produce good games, such as Madworld, Little Kings Story or heck, Muramasa, which seemed to be enoyed by reviewers and even praised, still seemed to be purposefully downgraded.  I mean, look at Muramasa on IGN.  Is a score of 8.9 really necessary...  They could have easily given it a 9.0.

There, now I answered your point and we've been brought full circle back to my point.



Six upcoming games you should look into:

 

  

noname2200 on 01 January 2010

+1 more for metadarlings. I must now go and spread the word!



Seece on 01 January 2010
Khuutra said:
Seece said:
Khuutra said:

Touchy about metadarlings, huh.

All right

Do you mean it doesn't stack up in the number of metadarlings, or it does't stack up according to som other standard?

What the heck does metadarlings mean?

It is my word (Rubang's too, now). I like it because it's unambiguous. I think it's a bit catchy!

It's short for the darlings of metacritic - the elite games that get 90+

Edit: Wait, this is the topic where I coined the phrase. Read up a bit

Riiiight ...

I honestly don't want to get into another debate with you, you're far to condescending to have a decent conversation with.



 

Seece on 01 January 2010
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
Seece said:
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
Seece said:
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
Carl2291 said:

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.

Didn't say that, Don't twist my words again. It's an obvious fact that the level of support for Wii is nowhere near what the PS2 had, and you come back with that pathetic quip? try again.

I can say the same thing.  You didn't make any kind of answer to my points at all.  In fact, you completely dodged the topic just saying 'well, the Wii just has weak support'.  Why should I give you a full reponse to your points when you didn't to mine?

It can be argued that for the first 2 years of its life, the PS3 had even weaker support than the Wii.  It still doesn't account for why, overall, reviewer scores for the HD consoles, including the PS3, are favored higher than the Wii.  Or that games that actually TRIED to produce good games, such as Madworld, Little Kings Story or heck, Muramasa, which seemed to be enoyed by reviewers and even praised, still seemed to be purposefully downgraded.  I mean, look at Muramasa on IGN.  Is a score of 8.9 really necessary...  They could have easily given it a 9.0.

There, now I answered your point and we've been brought full circle back to my point.

didn't ask you to give me a full response, but twisting what I say is just stupid. I couldn't be bothered to read through all that drivel, sorry.