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
guiduc said:
I think, what Nintendo did with their franchises on the Wii is barely more interesting than on the Gamecube. It's fun to say that there's more AAA titles on the GC, but the games are far better on the Wii.

Everyone has its own AAA titles. It's the way you appreciate them. I played Modern Warfare 2, graphics are impressive, but I got bored of the game after the mission in Russia. My AAA titles are on the Wii, cause I love Nintendo, I love Mario and Zelda. I have about 20 AAA titles on the Wii, and about 15 on GC. So, Nintendo already pleased me a lot. And 2010 has just begun! The Wii will still be there in 2011!

The WiiWare offers also the best downloadable games of this gen.

Go play Shadow Complex, Flower, Braid, Castle Crashers, PixleJunk ___, Trials HD and a ton of other DL games on PS360 ... I'm sure the wii has some great downloadable games but to say it has the best and disregard the all of those amazing games is just ..... lol



 

Around the Network
The Ghost of RubangB on 01 January 2010

Hey in every medium, when something is loved and gushed about by the majority of critics, we can call them critical darlings. It's not an insult. It's perfectly neutral. Now we have metacritic, which aggregates those reviews, so metadarlings is just a funnier way to say that. Godfather 2, Citizen Kane, and The Shawshank Redemption are metadarlings, and so is GTAIV with its Oscar-worthy dialogue.



twitter.com/evaneldeneller

Sunday Fundays

The Ghost of RubangB on 01 January 2010

If you want to talk downloadable games, then you gotta count the Virtual Console, which has more AAA titles than anything. And the Wii is the only system with 100% backwards compatibility, so I'd say it includes all the AAA games of the GC, Wii, WW, and VC put together. But hey, I'm just some guy.



twitter.com/evaneldeneller

Sunday Fundays

Seece on 01 January 2010
The Ghost of RubangB said:
Hey in every medium, when something is loved and gushed about by the majority of critics, we can call them critical darlings. It's not an insult. It's perfectly neutral. Now we have metacritic, which aggregates those reviews, so metadarlings is just a funnier way to say that. Godfather 2, Citizen Kane, and The Shawshank Redemption are metadarlings, and so is GTAIV with its Oscar-worthy dialogue.

No it comes across as derogative, though you're really shooting yourself in the back in the process, do you know how many wii games are highly rated here compared to metacritic? If we could get on Meta it would somewhat help the Wii's performance there. You and your wii friends have made it clear you don't care, mainly because it doesn't swing in your favour. That's fine, don't spoil it for the rest of us that do find metacritic to be a good measure on a games library. Because simply

Metacritic > your opinion (or any individuals come to that)



 

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

It doesn't stack up in terms of metacritic AAA. I can say that because I have eyes and can see that I'm not in the position to say Metacritic is correct or incorrect on that.

That it doesn't stack up in terms of metadarlings is clear, and I have nothing to argue on that point.

Just an FYI, quit this Metadarlings crap. VGChartz is trying to get on Metacritic.com and if they ever browse this site and see your anti attitude towards it it doesn't help our chances.

Now whether you would like us to be on there or not, is absoloutely none of your concern. Cut it out.

.....?

In the first place, I don't have an anti-Metacritic stance. That would be ridiculous. Metacritic is just a site that collects the opinions of different reviewers, and I have nothing against that. That I don't feel that Metacritic scores are absolute indicators of quality is hardly indicative of the quality of their service, it's a commentary on the relationship between reviews and the quality metrics of the consumer (and myself).

Second, "metadarlings" isn't derogatory, it's a term of affection. I actually enjoy using Metacritic from time to time, and I think metadarlings is both cute and fun as a word - not to mention that it's a perfect descriptor of the referred to games, which are critical darlings. "Critical darlings" is hardly derogatory, and neither is "metadarlings". Again: it's a term of affection.

Thirdly, I'm not representative of this site, and have not been for a number of months. Even if the officials of Metacritic did care about the opinions of forum-goers (and I am sure my opinions are worth absolutely nothing as far as they are concerned), mine are not actually anti-Metacritic, but I'm sure that they don't: the primary thing they're concerned about is the number and content of our reviews. I don't really think I'm hurting our chances by coming up with a cute nickname for games rated 90+.

Lastly... look, if you think I'm breaking a rule, be unambiguous about it. Don't link me to the rule list on my wall. Just report me. A mod will slap the shit outo f me if I'm acting out of line. Hell, if you think I'm behaving badly but not in violation of the rules per se, then report me directly to one of the admins who have the authority to act in places he rules don't cover: if Naz takes offense to me using the phrase "metadarlings" (on that note I pray he does not and would do my best to have a reeasonable discussion with him about it if he does), or - God help me - if Brett thinks I'm out of line, then I assure you, "metadarlings" will be dead in a matter of minutes.

I don't think I'm in violation of the rules when I say this, but you can report me if you think I'm wrong: you're not a mod, and you're not an admin. If I'm not behaving in violation of the rules, it's not your place to tell me how to behave. To t he best of my knowledge I'm not. If you disagree, report me, and we'll find out right quick.



Around the Network
Khuutra on 01 January 2010
Carl2291 said:

Graphics don't always matter. They were all still compared sales-wise and games-wise, and were in the same generation. The difference with PS2 to GC + XB though, is PS2 had a ton of shovelware, but also had by far the most "AAA" and 90+ rated games of the generation. With the Wii to 360 +PS3, the 2 more powerful machines have by far the most "AAA" games and 90+ rated games.

Wii is in a different position than PS2. Mainly because of how much more powerful the other 2 consoles are in comparison. While last gen, the difference between the consoles wasn't too big, 3rd parties could make virtually the same game on all 3 consoles, the most powerful and the best selling. This gen, it is completely different. PS3 and 360 together are outselling the Wii, so there is a bigger marketshare for the more powerful consoles, which in turn... Moves dev's towards them for the big games. Assassin's Creed 2, Modern Warfare 2... Etc.

Another thing to blame, is how the Wii has been marketted. Nintendo are more to blame than anyone/anything else for the poor 3rd party support. The Wii, has been marketted as a party console played by the whole family. Thus, the majority of people who buy the console are the "expanded market"... It's hard to imagine that expanded market buying 5-6 Million+ copies of a game where you run around an Italian city assassinating random people

The majority of Wii owners, are in this "expanded market". That, coupled with the fact 360+PS3 > Wii in marketshare... Will move a lot of developers towards PS360 for the really big "AAA" games.

I know this is another conversation tree, Carl, but you saw what I said above, right? How it's hard to measure AAA games on a single system?

I have no idea how many the Wii has



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

It doesn't stack up in terms of metacritic AAA. I can say that because I have eyes and can see that I'm not in the position to say Metacritic is correct or incorrect on that.

That it doesn't stack up in terms of metadarlings is clear, and I have nothing to argue on that point.

Just an FYI, quit this Metadarlings crap. VGChartz is trying to get on Metacritic.com and if they ever browse this site and see your anti attitude towards it it doesn't help our chances.

Now whether you would like us to be on there or not, is absoloutely none of your concern. Cut it out.

.....?

In the first place, I don't have an anti-Metacritic stance. That would be ridiculous. Metacritic is just a site that collects the opinions of different reviewers, and I have nothing against that. That I don't feel that Metacritic scores are absolute indicators of quality is hardly indicative of the quality of their service, it's a commentary on the relationship between reviews and the quality metrics of the consumer (and myself).

Second, "metadarlings" isn't derogatory, it's a term of affection. I actually enjoy using Metacritic from time to time, and I think metadarlings is both cute and fun as a word - not to mention that it's a perfect descriptor of the referred to games, which are critical darlings. "Critical darlings" is hardly derogatory, and neither is "metadarlings". Again: it's a term of affection.

Thirdly, I'm not representative of this site, and have not been for a number of months. Even if the officials of Metacritic did care about the opinions of forum-goers (and I am sure my opinions are worth absolutely nothing as far as they are concerned), mine are not actually anti-Metacritic, but I'm sure that they don't: the primary thing they're concerned about is the number and content of our reviews. I don't really think I'm hurting our chances by coming up with a cute nickname for games rated 90+.

Lastly... look, if you think I'm breaking a rule, be unambiguous about it. Don't link me to the rule list on my wall. Just report me. A mod will slap the shit outo f me if I'm acting out of line. Hell, if you think I'm behaving badly but not in violation of the rules per se, then report me directly to one of the admins who have the authority to act in places he rules don't cover: if Naz takes offense to me using the phrase "metadarlings" (on that note I pray he does not and would do my best to have a reeasonable discussion with him about it if he does), or - God help me - if Brett thinks I'm out of line, then I assure you, "metadarlings" will be dead in a matter of minutes.

I don't think I'm in violation of the rules when I say this, but you can report me if you think I'm wrong: you're not a mod, and you're not an admin. If I'm not behaving in violation of the rules, it's not your place to tell me how to behave. To t he best of my knowledge I'm not. If you disagree, report me, and we'll find out right quick.

I have spoken to 2 mods, I don't know who you're trying to kid. You and Ghost have both made it clear you're not fans of Metacritic, so I'll leave that there.

I never suggested you broke a rule, you got the complete wrong end of the stick there, so that whole little paragraph you wrote me is wasted on me.



 

Seece on 01 January 2010
Khuutra said:
Carl2291 said:

Graphics don't always matter. They were all still compared sales-wise and games-wise, and were in the same generation. The difference with PS2 to GC + XB though, is PS2 had a ton of shovelware, but also had by far the most "AAA" and 90+ rated games of the generation. With the Wii to 360 +PS3, the 2 more powerful machines have by far the most "AAA" games and 90+ rated games.

Wii is in a different position than PS2. Mainly because of how much more powerful the other 2 consoles are in comparison. While last gen, the difference between the consoles wasn't too big, 3rd parties could make virtually the same game on all 3 consoles, the most powerful and the best selling. This gen, it is completely different. PS3 and 360 together are outselling the Wii, so there is a bigger marketshare for the more powerful consoles, which in turn... Moves dev's towards them for the big games. Assassin's Creed 2, Modern Warfare 2... Etc.

Another thing to blame, is how the Wii has been marketted. Nintendo are more to blame than anyone/anything else for the poor 3rd party support. The Wii, has been marketted as a party console played by the whole family. Thus, the majority of people who buy the console are the "expanded market"... It's hard to imagine that expanded market buying 5-6 Million+ copies of a game where you run around an Italian city assassinating random people

The majority of Wii owners, are in this "expanded market". That, coupled with the fact 360+PS3 > Wii in marketshare... Will move a lot of developers towards PS360 for the really big "AAA" games.

I know this is another conversation tree, Carl, but you saw what I said above, right? How it's hard to measure AAA games on a single system?

I have no idea how many the Wii has

9



 

Lolcislaw on 01 January 2010

I think Wii has better games then the GC, it has more games to choose from as well, so for me it superior at the moment. Metacritic is a useful website to get around reviews, but it is not a measure of quality.



Khuutra on 01 January 2010
Seece said:

I have spoken to 2 mods, I don't know who you're trying to kid. You and Ghost have both made it clear you're not fans of Metacritic, so I'll leave that there.

I never suggested you broke a rule, you got the complete wrong end of the stick there, so that whole little paragraph you wrote me is wasted on me.

Oy, that's not entirely fair. I actually like metacritic. I just don't take it as an absolute indicator of quality.

And, again, that has nothing to do with the phrase "metadarlings," which is a term of affection. It refrs to critical darlings, as measured by Metacritic. Would you prefers I use "UPs", for Universally Praised on the Metacritic scale? I just don't think it sounds as good.

If a mod thinks I'm trolling, report me! They will take care of it, though I hope they're reasonable enough to see I'm not trolling Metacritic.