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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - No matter what you think, IGN is right.

_honeybadger_ on 17 January 2010
ash3336 said:

No matter what you say about the editors at IGN, I think they are right. As much as I hate to say it but they are right. Nintendo, being a legendary developer is now playing it safe. Lately, they have done nothing in order to prove that they care for the audience.

Though with early Wii games such as SMG, MP3, SSBB, MKWii they have put in considerable amount of effort to make an amazing game. But the time that Wii Fit came and sold gazillion copies, they just started to focus away from quality and towards what casuals(people who buy games every ~6 months as opposed to hardcore gamers who buy games every month) want.

Online support is ignored from games like Punch-Out!! and NSMBWii and Wii Fit Plus and Wii Sports Resort. If Conduit, MWR and WaW can handle 12, 10 and 8 people online on huge maps, these games can definitely support up to 4 people. They have done nothing about the Friend-Code system at all. Though some of you may say that FCs are not bad, you know that not having them would be better and more faster. Voice Chat support in online games is a standard since 2007 yet Nintendo INTRODUCED their voice chat accessory at the end of 2008 with no encouragement for the 3rd party to use it (First third party dev to use it was Conduit). If you look at Microsoft, they are going all out for 3rd party support for Natal and they are receiving it. If Nintendo could do that for Wii Speak, Wii's online community would be much different. They should be setting the bar by including it in their games so devs could look at that and include it in their games.

They believe that they have Call of Duty and Final Fantasy on their console, but they do not realize that one is a 2-year old port releasing on the same day as its hyped sequel. They do not realize that Wii gets a spinoff of a spinoff of a major franchise with Crystal Bearers and Wii does not get the main Final Fantasy which BOTH of the other consoles do.

With other developers cancelling support of the Wii, Nintendo have done NOTHING to respond to these comments. They should at least come out and say something like "Wii owners do not want On-rails shooters but quality games that are popular in today's market".

Nintendo tell the public that Wii owners want gameplay over graphics, but like Eric Nofsinger of HVS said "We want gameplay but we also want good graphics." I do want amazing gameplay, but i also want good graphics to COMPLEMENT that awesome gameplay. It makes the whole gaming experience complete.

Look at Sony. They are trying so hard. Every single game they are releasing ( or most) are really good. Uncharted 2 is the GOTY 2009. KZ2 had supposedly the best console graphics when it released. GT5 is boasting to be the most realistic driving simulator and with those screens I agree. Uncharted 2 even had an online multiplayer, vs. and Co-op. Sony is releasing MAG, a 256-player online shooter. WOW. I do not want Nintendo to do all these things, but I want you guys to realize how original and quality-oriented Sony is trying to be right now with games like these.

Nintendo are too busy counting there money. If Nintendo invested the money they got from, lets say Wii Fit, in to a better online community with dedicated servers, the whole Wii online system would be much better. Nintendo has released the solution to Wii hard drive limitations, but they personally did nothing to utilize it. I want demos of games, DLC, FULL DLC and not hotfixes and full game downloads to my SD card.

Nintendo does have potential in overcoming these accuses by focusing on their upcoming gems such as Metroid: Other M, SMG2, and Legend of Zelda Wii. If they show more effort by incorporating new features or building upon the standards set by today's games, then it is a good sign of things to come.

No matter what you say, and even if it does sound bad (Trust me, being a proud owner of the Wii, it hurts me to say this a lot but I have accepted the truth) Nintendo have lost their quality of games in the past couple years. If they do not show pure effort soon enough, I don't know what will happen.

I agree with the concept of the article, but disagree with the way it was presented, the IGN editorial lacked professionalism, but the core of the article is something that I agree with.



Around the Network
theRepublic on 17 January 2010
WilliamWatts said:
Nintendo caters extremely well to the market of people who buy 1-6 games every year and live happy and sensible lives which are not dominated by gaming. Because this market buys so few games they have to make games which everyone will like and enjoy.

Nintendo does not cater to the nutso hardcore gamers who own 3-5 gaming systems, buys 7+ games per year and harps on about this and that and are incredibly fickle and hard to satisfy. These people also trade in games quickly, buy used, and have no loyalty to even a particular system.

The former earn them more money than the latter. So what should they try to cater to the nutso hardcore group when everyone else does as well? Why can't there be one console for people who aren't in that nutso hardcore group when the other two cater to them pretty well?

Then why do Wii owners buy more games than PS3 owners?



Switch Code: SW-7377-9189-3397 -- Nintendo Network ID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing
Switch - Super Mario Maker 2 (2019)
Switch - The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening (2019)
Switch - Bastion (2011/2018)
3DS - Star Fox 64 3D (2011)
3DS - Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney (Trilogy) (2005/2014)
Wii U - Darksiders: Warmastered Edition (2010/2017)
Mobile - The Simpson's Tapped Out and Yugioh Duel Links
PC - Deep Rock Galactic (2020)

Pyro as Bill on 17 January 2010

I wonder if Nintendo's laziness is proportional to sales.

The original SMB used a simple palette swap for Luigi and for clouds/bushes.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

WilliamWatts on 17 January 2010
theRepublic said:
WilliamWatts said:
Nintendo caters extremely well to the market of people who buy 1-6 games every year and live happy and sensible lives which are not dominated by gaming. Because this market buys so few games they have to make games which everyone will like and enjoy.

Nintendo does not cater to the nutso hardcore gamers who own 3-5 gaming systems, buys 7+ games per year and harps on about this and that and are incredibly fickle and hard to satisfy. These people also trade in games quickly, buy used, and have no loyalty to even a particular system.

The former earn them more money than the latter. So what should they try to cater to the nutso hardcore group when everyone else does as well? Why can't there be one console for people who aren't in that nutso hardcore group when the other two cater to them pretty well?

Then why do Wii owners buy more games than PS3 owners?

Because every game Nintendo makes is not some sub niche off a niche. Their games aren't 'third person shooter RPG hybrids' Or 'third person shooter action adventure' games. They can address a wider market, and im not talking about the audience of the consoles im talking about how the console is designed to address the audience. The PS3 is designed for people who buy more than x number of games per year and Sony releases a wide variety of small selling titles to keep their small rabid hardcore subset fanbase satiated. But this rabid talkative hardcore fanbase likes to think its all there is in regards to Sony but it isn't and the lower software sales in general reflect a userbase which isn't as satisfied as the Wiis.



theRepublic on 17 January 2010
WilliamWatts said:
theRepublic said:
WilliamWatts said:
Nintendo caters extremely well to the market of people who buy 1-6 games every year and live happy and sensible lives which are not dominated by gaming. Because this market buys so few games they have to make games which everyone will like and enjoy.

Nintendo does not cater to the nutso hardcore gamers who own 3-5 gaming systems, buys 7+ games per year and harps on about this and that and are incredibly fickle and hard to satisfy. These people also trade in games quickly, buy used, and have no loyalty to even a particular system.

The former earn them more money than the latter. So what should they try to cater to the nutso hardcore group when everyone else does as well? Why can't there be one console for people who aren't in that nutso hardcore group when the other two cater to them pretty well?

Then why do Wii owners buy more games than PS3 owners?

Because every game Nintendo makes is not some sub niche off a niche. Their games aren't 'third person shooter RPG hybrids' Or 'third person shooter action adventure' games. They can address a wider market, and im not talking about the audience of the consoles im talking about how the console is designed to address the audience. The PS3 is designed for people who buy more than x number of games per year and Sony releases a wide variety of small selling titles to keep their small rabid hardcore subset fanbase satiated. But this rabid talkative hardcore fanbase likes to think its all there is in regards to Sony but it isn't and the lower software sales in general reflect a userbase which isn't as satisfied as the Wiis.

I'm not talking total.  Take a look at the tie ratios.  They can be found on this site.

More Wii software is sold per Wii, than PS3 software is sold per PS3.



Switch Code: SW-7377-9189-3397 -- Nintendo Network ID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing
Switch - Super Mario Maker 2 (2019)
Switch - The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening (2019)
Switch - Bastion (2011/2018)
3DS - Star Fox 64 3D (2011)
3DS - Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney (Trilogy) (2005/2014)
Wii U - Darksiders: Warmastered Edition (2010/2017)
Mobile - The Simpson's Tapped Out and Yugioh Duel Links
PC - Deep Rock Galactic (2020)

Around the Network
Wyrdness on 17 January 2010

Remember that multiple consoles can be a factor as the so called hardcore group would have numerous people who own both 360s and PS3s and the way this gen has gone the 360 versions have often faired better in development, look at Bayonetta for example.



irstupid on 17 January 2010

i love how its no matter what I think, I'm wrong and IGN is right, because YOU think IGN is right.



Haste262 on 17 January 2010

Its not like sony actually makes tons of good games.



 

 

Naum on 17 January 2010
theRepublic said:
WilliamWatts said:
theRepublic said:
WilliamWatts said:
Nintendo caters extremely well to the market of people who buy 1-6 games every year and live happy and sensible lives which are not dominated by gaming. Because this market buys so few games they have to make games which everyone will like and enjoy.

Nintendo does not cater to the nutso hardcore gamers who own 3-5 gaming systems, buys 7+ games per year and harps on about this and that and are incredibly fickle and hard to satisfy. These people also trade in games quickly, buy used, and have no loyalty to even a particular system.

The former earn them more money than the latter. So what should they try to cater to the nutso hardcore group when everyone else does as well? Why can't there be one console for people who aren't in that nutso hardcore group when the other two cater to them pretty well?

Then why do Wii owners buy more games than PS3 owners?

Because every game Nintendo makes is not some sub niche off a niche. Their games aren't 'third person shooter RPG hybrids' Or 'third person shooter action adventure' games. They can address a wider market, and im not talking about the audience of the consoles im talking about how the console is designed to address the audience. The PS3 is designed for people who buy more than x number of games per year and Sony releases a wide variety of small selling titles to keep their small rabid hardcore subset fanbase satiated. But this rabid talkative hardcore fanbase likes to think its all there is in regards to Sony but it isn't and the lower software sales in general reflect a userbase which isn't as satisfied as the Wiis.

I'm not talking total.  Take a look at the tie ratios.  They can be found on this site.

More Wii software is sold per Wii, than PS3 software is sold per PS3.

Don't forget that it's a heavily pirated console aswell.



If it isn't turnbased it isn't worth playing   (mostly)

And shepherds we shall be,

For Thee, my Lord, for Thee. Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, That our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command. So we shall flow a river forth to Thee And teeming with souls shall it ever be. In Nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritūs Sancti. -----The Boondock Saints

WilliamWatts on 17 January 2010
theRepublic said:
WilliamWatts said:
theRepublic said:

Then why do Wii owners buy more games than PS3 owners?

Because every game Nintendo makes is not some sub niche off a niche. Their games aren't 'third person shooter RPG hybrids' Or 'third person shooter action adventure' games. They can address a wider market, and im not talking about the audience of the consoles im talking about how the console is designed to address the audience. The PS3 is designed for people who buy more than x number of games per year and Sony releases a wide variety of small selling titles to keep their small rabid hardcore subset fanbase satiated. But this rabid talkative hardcore fanbase likes to think its all there is in regards to Sony but it isn't and the lower software sales in general reflect a userbase which isn't as satisfied as the Wiis.

I'm not talking total.  Take a look at the tie ratios.  They can be found on this site.

More Wii software is sold per Wii, than PS3 software is sold per PS3.

Which is what I was talking about. More satisfied audience = > total reach per title. Since they make games which most can at least enjoy they earn greater effectiveness from their 1st party efforts. This is reflected in the tie ratio, but what I was getting at is that Sony caters to a small niche which is why their games reach a much smaller proportion of their userbase. The fact that Sony caters to the smaller hardcore/core audience doesn't mean that their entire audience is that group, nor does it mean that these people are satisfied with their 1st/3rd party efforts either.