Support NeoGAF

Skiptastic · Sep 16, 2009

Vinci said:
The Wii's 'chief differentiator' is Nintendo, not motion controls. At least where it matters.

I'd say the difference is a combination of the two. I can't say it was only the Nintendo brand that made the Wii big, because otherwise the GameCube would have been big. But I'm not willing to say it was only motion controls either because I think a lot of companies couldn't pull off the Wii's success just by being first with motion controls.

It was the success of a strategy to develop motion control games with Nintendo branding. The combination of the two differentiated the Wii from previous consoles and from their competitors.

Vinci · Sep 16, 2009

Skiptastic said:
I'd say the difference is a combination of the two. I can't say it was only the Nintendo brand that made the Wii big, because otherwise the GameCube would have been big. But I'm not willing to say it was only motion controls either because I think a lot of companies couldn't pull off the Wii's success just by being first with motion controls.

It was the success of a strategy to develop motion control games with Nintendo branding. The combination of the two differentiated the Wii from previous consoles and from their competitors.

I bolded that because I'm not arguing it was their brand either; I think that played very little role with the console outside of Nintendo's inherent fanbase. I'm talking about the fact that their games - the new IPs they introduced for the Wii - are the reason they are where they are today. It's not a matter of technology, it's not because 'lol motion controls' are the new hotness. Nintendo created games for the controller, and without those games the controls would mean absolutely nothing. You could not have repeated the Wii's success without Wii Sports or Wii Fit. No 3rd party offering would have done it.

And it's not that Nintendo's games are the greatest games ever designed or that they're pulling out all the stops, it's because their games are the result of the company really understanding what people wanted. Some of their extensions from this core 'want' have failed to work in the same way, but they clearly get what the initial 'want' is and how it works.

Kittonwy · Sep 16, 2009

Vinci said:
I bolded that because I'm not arguing it was their brand either; I think that played very little role with the console outside of Nintendo's inherent fanbase. I'm talking about the fact that their games - the new IPs they introduced for the Wii - are the reason they are where they are today. It's not a matter of technology, it's not because 'lol motion controls' are the new hotness. Nintendo created games for the controller, and without those games the controls would mean absolutely nothing. You could not have repeated the Wii's success without Wii Sports or Wii Fit. No 3rd party offering would have done it.

And it's not that Nintendo's games are the greatest games ever designed or that they're pulling out all the stops, it's because their games are the result of the company really understanding what people wanted. Some of their extensions from this core 'want' have failed to work in the same way, but they clearly get what the initial 'want' is and how it works.

Yep. I think Nintendo as a publisher established their brand in terms of motion-controlled games way ahead of everyone else and their brand is synonymous with wii and other publishers simply aren't which is why they're having much more success with the audience that are interested in motion control, they found the market and they've basically cornered that market. It would explain why third-party publishers are having problems on the platform, it's really not the quality of the software but the brand recognition.

Version 3.0 · Sep 16, 2009

SamBishop said:
That said, when people do get HDTVs, they will almost certainly wonder why not only TV (which will look at least decent) but their classic games they've been playing off and on for a while now look like crap. If they've been playing them daily, the difference will be both drastic and possibly confusingly bad.

That really depends on the new TV. I had a gorgeous Sony WEGA CRT that produced the godliest picture in the world for any SD device, but was 4:3 and only did 1080i (which was pretty small, letterboxed). So when I decided to get a widescreen TV that could do 720p and 1080p, I did all my research and took a couple of consoles out and tested SD signals on the TVs I was interested in, and spent the money necessary to get what I wanted. Now I have a TV that looks excellent in SD as well as HD.

People who don't care enough to get a good TV often don't care about the picture either. I know a couple of people who bought what the salesman told them to buy, have pretty poor picture quality, and can't tell. They marvel at their new TVs because the screen is bigger. They somehow don't see compression, artifacts, aliasing, or any other problems that catch my eye. And I kind of envy them, a bit.

dialmydrive · Sep 16, 2009

Kittonwy said:
It would explain why third-party publishers are having problems on the platform

No, it wouldn't.

Kittonwy said:
it's really not the quality of the software but the brand recognition.

I would argue that it's a combination of both.

Vinci · Sep 16, 2009

Kittonwy said:
Yep. I think Nintendo as a publisher established their brand in terms of motion-controlled games way ahead of everyone else and their brand is synonymous with wii and other publishers simply aren't which is why they're having much more success with the audience that are interested in motion control, they found the market and they've basically cornered that market. It would explain why third-party publishers are having problems on the platform, it's really not the quality of the software but the brand recognition.

I'm going to agree with dialmydrive and say it's both. The quality had to be there for people to promote the system through word-of-mouth, the biggest instigator for Wii sales.

ShockingAlberto · Sep 16, 2009

Kittonwy said:
Yep. I think Nintendo as a publisher established their brand in terms of motion-controlled games way ahead of everyone else and their brand is synonymous with wii and other publishers simply aren't which is why they're having much more success with the audience that are interested in motion control, they found the market and they've basically cornered that market. It would explain why third-party publishers are having problems on the platform, it's really not the quality of the software but the brand recognition.

Huh.

So is there a reason EA is doing well with real efforts despite not being Nintendo?

Kittonwy · Sep 16, 2009

Leondexter said:
That really depends on the new TV. I had a gorgeous Sony WEGA CRT that produced the godliest picture in the world for any SD device, but was 4:3 and only did 1080i (which was pretty small, letterboxed). So when I decided to get a widescreen TV that could do 720p and 1080p, I did all my research and took a couple of consoles out and tested SD signals on the TVs I was interested in, and spent the money necessary to get what I wanted. Now I have a TV that looks excellent in SD as well as HD.

People who don't care enough to get a good TV often don't care about the picture either. I know a couple of people who bought what the salesman told them to buy, have pretty poor picture quality, and can't tell. They marvel at their new TVs because the screen is bigger. They somehow don't see compression, artifacts, aliasing, or any other problems that catch my eye. And I kind of envy them, a bit.

Again not every wii owner own a PS3 or an xbox360 and probably hasn't seen what an HD game actually look like, they're satisfied with wii graphics because that's the only thing they've been exposed to, if someone is watching regular cable at 720p, he might think it looks fine, some people don't even know they have such things as HD channels.

Going from 480p to 720p is a pretty significant difference but going from wii to PS3/xbox360 is even bigger because there are many graphical features that wii games lack, on the other hand the user can only notice when the user has the opportunity to compare the two and not everybody does. When one does "get it" though, it might be hard to go back.

Flachmatuch · Sep 16, 2009

Kittonwy said:
Yep. I think Nintendo as a publisher established their brand in terms of motion-controlled games way ahead of everyone else and their brand is synonymous with wii and other publishers simply aren't which is why they're having much more success with the audience that are interested in motion control, they found the market and they've basically cornered that market. It would explain why third-party publishers are having problems on the platform, it's really not the quality of the software but the brand recognition.

Well in theory you build brand recognition through quality. It's also possible to build brands that can become successful on Nintendo platforms, like Guitar Hero, and of course publishers use brands on every platform for more success (and they do the same on Wii, look at TW for example). I'm not saying it's easy to compete with Nintendo, but it's not (mainly) because of their brand name (just look at how much Sony's brand name was worth for people while their stuff cost too much :-/) but because of the quality of Nintendo's software. It's quite obvious that software quality (mainly third party) is a huge issue on the Wii...or rather, not "quality" in itself, but the effort invested. Brand name is a much less significant issue, compared to amount and quality of effort invested.

Kittonwy · Sep 16, 2009

ShockingAlberto said:
Huh.

So is there a reason EA is doing well with real efforts despite not being Nintendo?

They're certainly not pulling Nintendo wii sports-type numbers.

Flachmatuch · Sep 16, 2009

That isn't a measure of success. They're also not pulling WoW like numbers or MW like numbers, and they still make their best effort to compete.

Vinci · Sep 16, 2009

Kittonwy said:
They're certainly not pulling Nintendo wii sports-type numbers.

Oh, there's certainly some early-mover advantage to Nintendo's games - but the quality of the titles should not be doubted or the system's sales would have evaporated long, long ago and other Nintendo titles would have seen a drastic drop in sales.

EDIT: Besides that, it's not like 3rd parties historically have sold games on the same level as Nintendo. Look at the best-selling console games of all time list sometime.

Kittonwy · Sep 16, 2009

Flachmatuch said:
Well in theory you build brand recognition through quality. It's also possible to build brands that can become successful on Nintendo platforms, like Guitar Hero, and of course publishers use brands on every platform for more success (and they do the same on Wii, look at TW for example). I'm not saying it's easy to compete with Nintendo, but it's not (mainly) because of their brand name (just look at how much Sony's brand name was worth for people while their stuff cost too much :-/) but because of the quality of Nintendo's software. It's quite obvious that software quality (mainly third party) is a huge issue on the Wii...or rather, not "quality" in itself, but the effort invested. Brand name is a much less significant issue, compared to amount and quality of effort invested.

You could and I'm not arguing that Nintendo wii games are bad, it's just that they're definitely the first-to-market and that's the advantage they have gained, "wii (insert in the blank)" IS a Nintendo brand.

Flachmatuch · Sep 16, 2009

If people don't stop with the "marketing" and "brand" arguments, they'll never understand what's really happening.

Flachmatuch · Sep 16, 2009

Kittonwy said:
You could and I'm not arguing that Nintendo wii games are bad, it's just that they're definitely the first-to-market and that's the advantage they have gained, "wii (insert in the blank)" IS a Nintendo brand.

Halo was a Microsoft brand, the 360 was a MS console and MW is mopping the floor with it in terms of sales - because it's a better product. But they had to invest a lot of effort in it - and of course console FPS' are already a pretty sophisticated genre/product category, so in some ways it was easier. It'll take a few years but they must put in the effort. Point is, there's nothing unchangeable about the Nintendo brand. All you have to do is to consistently make high quality and unique games that noone can really copy for some reason for a few decades, and you're set.

Touchdown · Sep 16, 2009

Dave Long said:
Pachter still hasn't figured out that videogames are largely an extension of the toy industry, thus he can't understand why people aren't consumed by the high-tech.

...and if you don't think videogames are toys, consider that many of the top sellers including your beloved Rock Bands and Guitar Heros feature plastic toys.

Dunlop · Sep 16, 2009

Flachmatuch said:
Halo was a Microsoft brand, the 360 was a MS console and MW is mopping the floor with it in terms of sales - because it's a better product. But they had to invest a lot of effort in it - and of course console FPS' are already a pretty sophisticated genre/product category, so in some ways it was easier. It'll take a few years but they must put in the effort.

It also helps a little bit that MW has been released on multiple platforms, I preffered MW over Halo3 but to call it a better product is entirely subjective.

poppabk · Sep 16, 2009

Kittonwy said:
Again not every wii owner own a PS3 or an xbox360 and probably hasn't seen what an HD game actually look like, they're satisfied with wii graphics because that's the only thing they've been exposed to, if someone is watching regular cable at 720p, he might think it looks fine, some people don't even know they have such things as HD channels.

Going from 480p to 720p is a pretty significant difference but going from wii to PS3/xbox360 is even bigger because there are many graphical features that wii games lack, on the other hand the user can only notice when the user has the opportunity to compare the two and not everybody does. When one does "get it" though, it might be hard to go back.

The cross over between Wii and PC gamers is pretty high, and the difference between the 2 is night and day. It is perfectly possible to enjoy 480p content from a Wii on an LCD, even after playing in 1080p, because graphical effects and resolution are not that important (for some people).

Flachmatuch · Sep 16, 2009

@Dunlop: Well that's true, but afaik MW is beating Halo on the Xbox too

Also, I really don't want to bash Halo (the first game is one of my favourite games ever), and I don't care about MW really, but based on people talking on GAF it just sounds like a better product. But I shouldn't have said it was better, would have been enough to say that it was very competitive in quality and maybe even better according to a lot of people, and that's what made it successful.

DeaconKnowledge · Sep 16, 2009

Dunlop said:
It also helps a little bit that MW has been released on multiple platforms, I preffered MW over Halo3 but to call it a better product is entirely subjective.

It sold tons better than Halo 3 ON the 360. I'd say that's a pretty objective barometer of its quality.

Kilrogg · Sep 16, 2009

Vinci said:
I bolded that because I'm not arguing it was their brand either; I think that played very little role with the console outside of Nintendo's inherent fanbase. I'm talking about the fact that their games - the new IPs they introduced for the Wii - are the reason they are where they are today. It's not a matter of technology, it's not because 'lol motion controls' are the new hotness. Nintendo created games for the controller, and without those games the controls would mean absolutely nothing. You could not have repeated the Wii's success without Wii Sports or Wii Fit. No 3rd party offering would have done it.

And it's not that Nintendo's games are the greatest games ever designed or that they're pulling out all the stops, it's because their games are the result of the company really understanding what people wanted. Some of their extensions from this core 'want' have failed to work in the same way, but they clearly get what the initial 'want' is and how it works.

To elaborate on brand, it's pretty clear to me that Nintendo didn't want the classic Nintendo brand to stick to the Wii like the smell of a loser. While the DS got rid of the Gameboy brand, the Wii almost got rid of the Nintendo brand altogether. At least that's what Nintendo intended to do. First, the official label isn't "Nintendo Wii", but "Wii", period. The DS is called "Nintendo DS". Second, the Nintendo logo was slightly changed sometime in 2006 or 2007: it went from the very defined, trademark red of Nintendo to the subdued, much more discreet grey, which was appropriately adopted for the Wii logo as well. Third, the design of the system is much less Nintendo than any other Nintendo console, bar maybe the VCR-like NES. The Wii screams functionality and style, dropping the round, toy-like shapes and colours in the process.

Fourth and perhaps most important, the games. While it's true that the staple Nintendo franchises (and characters) all got Wii iterations, the defining games of the system, bar Mario Kart, are nothing like Nintendo's previous games. Wii Sports and Wii Fit aren't games Nintendo would have made for the GCN or the N64. One could argue that Nintendo recreated the Nintendo brand so efficiently that some Nintendo fans felt betrayed, and judging by what some say, it's almost as if Nintendo never released all those classic Nintendo games on the system.

The Nintendo brand didn't sell the Wii, because there's no Nintendo brand at work so to speak. There is a Wii brand/experience and by that, I don't just mean clever advertising or communication, but games too and that did wonders, but it's unlike anything the Nintendo of the last decade would have done.

Vinci · Sep 16, 2009

Kilrogg said:
The Nintendo brand didn't sell the Wii, because there's no Nintendo brand at work so to speak. There is a Wii brand/experience and by that, I don't just mean clever advertising or communication, but games too and that did wonders, but it's unlike anything the Nintendo of the last decade would have done.

And I agree completely with this. The Wii games weren't based on Nintendo's own wants or predilections or history, but on those they felt consumers wanted. It just so happened they were right and really understand this side of things now. They've had misfires with this new audience when they've tried to go outside the initial spectrum of what that audience wants, but when they get that mix of old and new right, it's huge. Look at Mario Kart.

birdchili · Sep 16, 2009

Kittonwy said:
Again not every wii owner own a PS3 or an xbox360 and probably hasn't seen what an HD game actually look like, they're satisfied with wii graphics because that's the only thing they've been exposed to, if someone is watching regular cable at 720p, he might think it looks fine, some people don't even know they have such things as HD channels.

it's more like having discovery only available in sd, and tsn only in hd. it's not so much the resolution that's going to be a sell for tsn - it's content.

even for something like little king's story - there's not a single pointer or motion-based control in the game, but there's nothing else like it. same with the motion/peripheral stuff that nintendo has released: sports, fit, etc... there are so few actual parallels there. are there many 2d hd srpgs (like muramasa?), or hd light gun games?

conversely, what on wii is like bioshock? or fallout? there's almost nothing.

it's hard to argue that resolution is such a big issue when the *types* of games are so different.

Bizzyb · Sep 16, 2009

Madden 10 bombed on Wii because EA promoted the game to NON Madden players. It's as simple as that. Cartoon Graphics, Simplified Gameplay, Removal of Features, No Franchise Mode, basically they did everything they could to turn off the madden gamers who would have normally purchased the game in favor for some "elusive audience that has yet to be tapped into"....

The same people who buy Cooking Mama and Carnival games are NOT going to buy Madden, and until EA gets that through their thick skulls they will continue to alienate what's left of their Madden fanbase on Wii.

Vinci · Sep 16, 2009

Bizzyb said:
Madden 10 bombed on Wii because EA promoted the game to NON Madden players. It's as simple as that. Cartoon Graphics, Simplified Gameplay, Removal of Features, No Franchise Mode, basically they did everything they could to turn off the madden gamers who would have normally purchased the game in favor for some "elusive audience that has yet to be tapped into"....

I love when people bring up Madden as some sort of attack on the Wii or its userbase. If EA had done to PS3 and 360 owners what they've done to Wii owners with each release, those system's Madden sales would drop like a stone too.

That said, I think the better alternative with Madden would've been having the Wii version completely different by stealing some ideas from PES. That way it's interesting enough that Madden players might double-dip (or might not, you never know), it doesn't compete directly against the other versions, and it might very well get people interested that otherwise wouldn't be.

I personally dislike Madden and love PES. I'd be thrilled to see some actual effort put into something like that.

AColdDay · Sep 16, 2009

The best thing that could happen for Madden Wii at this point is to drop the Madden name and make a football game that is completely different than anything else. Something like that 2K game All-Pro Football, but with the real NFL teams.

Digital-Hero · Sep 16, 2009

theBishop · Sep 16, 2009

poppabk said:
The cross over between Wii and PC gamers is pretty high

which PC gamers are we talking about here?

poppabk · Sep 16, 2009

theBishop said:
which PC gamers are we talking about here?

Mainly ones that have been gaming on PC for a long time, and who never made the transition to dual analog.

botticus · Sep 16, 2009

DeaconKnowledge said:
It sold tons better than Halo 3 ON the 360. I'd say that's a pretty objective barometer of its quality.

Is there a source for that? As far as I know it is the opposite.

Beer Monkey · Sep 16, 2009

Flachmatuch said:
Halo was a Microsoft brand, the 360 was a MS console and MW is mopping the floor with it in terms of sales - because it's a better product.

Mopping the floor is a pretty strong term. :lol

Bizzyb · Sep 16, 2009

jred250 said:
The best thing that could happen for Madden Wii at this point is to drop the Madden name and make a football game that is completely different than anything else. Something like that 2K game All-Pro Football, but with the real NFL teams.

I don't necessarily agree with that. There are madden players on Wii, myself included. Give them Madden like before but actually give them everything (that's possible) that's also on the HD consoles and sales will be there.

Why is it so hard to understand this concept when it clearly worked with Tiger Woods?

Dunlop · Sep 16, 2009

DeaconKnowledge said:
It sold tons better than Halo 3 ON the 360. I'd say that's a pretty objective barometer of its quality.

I guess you're right, I mean WiiPlay outsold them both combined

Oh yes, I went there

Son of Godzilla · Sep 16, 2009

DeaconKnowledge said:
It sold tons better than Halo 3 ON the 360. I'd say that's a pretty objective barometer of its quality.

Uh... It did not.

Zzoram · Sep 16, 2009

Bizzyb said:
I don't necessarily agree with that. There are madden players on Wii, myself included. Give them Madden like before but actually give them everything (that's possible) that's also on the HD consoles and sales will be there.

Why is it so hard to understand this concept when it clearly worked with Tiger Woods?

Tiger Woods controls are more intuitive with a Wiimote. Madden is just complicated, regardless of controls. The people who cared enough to learn Madden already learned it on a gamepad.

Zertez · Sep 16, 2009

Wasnt Pachter predicting the same thing this time last year? The PS3 was finally going to overtake the 360 and WiiHD was going to be unveiled soon.

donny2112 · Sep 16, 2009

Flachmatuch said:
@Dunlop: Well that's true, but afaik MW is beating Halo on the Xbox too

With Halo 3's huge start and continued longevity (it was in the Top 20 several times earlier this year), I'd say it's still ahead of COD4 on the 360, not that this is at all a comparable way of explaining Nintendo's success on the Wii, though.

MWS Natural · Sep 16, 2009

Bizzyb said:
Madden 10 bombed on Wii because EA promoted the game to NON Madden players. It's as simple as that. Cartoon Graphics, Simplified Gameplay, Removal of Features, No Franchise Mode, basically they did everything they could to turn off the madden gamers who would have normally purchased the game in favor for some "elusive audience that has yet to be tapped into"....

The same people who buy Cooking Mama and Carnival games are NOT going to buy Madden, and until EA gets that through their thick skulls they will continue to alienate what's left of their Madden fanbase on Wii.

Who else would they sell it to?? Any real madden fan wouldn't get their fix on the Wii, they might as well just keep playing the PS2 version if they weren't interested in HD.

markatisu · Sep 16, 2009

Zzoram said:
Tiger Woods controls are more intuitive with a Wiimote. Madden is just complicated, regardless of controls. The people who cared enough to learn Madden already learned it on a gamepad.

Cause the Wii does not have a Classic Controller or Gamecube controller?

I don't think anyone is saying the Wii version should outsell the HD twins, what I think people are saying is it would be selling at a decent level if it was not changed yearly with no rhyme or reason

Who else would they sell it to?? Any real madden fan wouldn't get their fix on the Wii, they might as well just keep playing the PS2 version if they weren't interested in HD.

All the PS2 owners though are not buying it and not moving to the HD systems, so where are they going?

birdchili · Sep 16, 2009

markatisu said:
Cause the Wii does not have a Classic Controller or Gamecube controller?

people who might buy madden wii don't have either of these.

charlequin · Sep 16, 2009

Vinci said:
Oh god, another two to three years of this nonsense. *sighs*

What, like the next batch of nonsense is going to be any better?

Leondexter said:
People who don't care enough to get a good TV often don't care about the picture either. I know a couple of people who bought what the salesman told them to buy, have pretty poor picture quality, and can't tell. They marvel at their new TVs because the screen is bigger.

This is every single person with a nice TV in my or my wife's family. I've been saying this on GAF since 2005: the appeal of HDTVs is entirely in their size: they're big, yet flat. They're extremely attractive physical objects and they let someone fit a much larger TV into their home than they otherwise could. Until the push for "digital cable" got big most people would come home and immediately start watching SD shows on them stretched out to 16:9.

D4Danger · Sep 16, 2009

Digital-Hero said:

:lol

He should use that as his avatar on gaf.

markatisu · Sep 16, 2009

birdchili said:
people who might buy madden wii don't have either of these.

And you know this how?

Dragon · Sep 16, 2009

DeaconKnowledge said:
It sold tons better than Halo 3 ON the 360. I'd say that's a pretty objective barometer of its quality.

Objective? I'm not disagreeing with you on the quality of the games in question (Hell I haven't played either one of them!), however I am disagreeing with you about thinking that sales are a barometer of a game's quality. I don't see the connection myself. Wii Fit > Mario Galaxy confirmed.

DeaconKnowledge said:
The same Wii Play that people complain shouldn't be on NPD lists because it's an accessory with a game, not the other way around? That Wii Play?

:lol

birdchili · Sep 16, 2009

markatisu said:
And you know this how?

madden players probably didn't have a gamecube.

madden players probably haven't been rockin' the vc playing the snes oldies.

making a game that requires the classic controller is pretty crazy unless you're targeting a fairly hardcore buys-lots-of-games niche. ie: not madden.

DeaconKnowledge · Sep 16, 2009

Dunlop said:
I guess you're right, I mean WiiPlay outsold them both combined

Oh yes, I went there

The same Wii Play that people complain shouldn't be on NPD lists because it's an accessory with a game, not the other way around? That Wii Play?

birdchili said:
madden players probably didn't have a gamecube.

madden players probably haven't been rockin' the vc playing the snes oldies.

making a game that targets the classic controller is pretty crazy unless you're targeting a fairly hardcore buys-lots-of-games niche. ie: not madden.

So.... Madden is so casual, the players won't buy a Wii to play it?

DeaconKnowledge · Sep 16, 2009

birdchili · Sep 16, 2009

DeaconKnowledge said:
So.... Madden is so casual, the players won't buy a Wii to play it?

they won't buy a classic controller to play it. or at least enough of them won't that it's ill-conceived to require an extra controller purchase for a game like this.

El-Suave · Sep 16, 2009

Digital-Hero said:

The fumes emanating from the pot in this picture reminded me of this somehow:

which characterizes our relationship with Pachter (or any analyst for that matter) quite nicely.

poppabk · Sep 16, 2009

MWS Natural said:
Who else would they sell it to?? Any real madden fan wouldn't get their fix on the Wii, they might as well just keep playing the PS2 version if they weren't interested in HD.

People who watch football on TV, but don't have a PS3 or 360 yet - people are football fans first and madden fans second.
It is not co-incidence that Maddens release coincides with the start of football season, has fully detailed rosters and features commentary, TV camera angles and basically recreates watching a game on TV. Madden is a simulation of football as experienced by watching it on TV, people want to recreate that experience but with control over the game. The HD consoles are therefore always going to be the best option - the Wii's ability to (potentially) more accurately recreate the actions associated with playing the game are incidental. Everytime EA moves away from trying to recreate what you see on TV, however poorly they can do so on the Wii, its a nail in the coffin for the franchise on the Wii.
I think at this stage it is too late, they would never have had a great audience on the Wii, but now it is destined to be terrible.

Support NeoGAF

Pachter Expects 360 to Finish 3rd This Holiday, Explains Why Wii HD is a Must

Member

Danish

Banned

Member

Member

Danish

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Danish

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future

Member

Member

paid requisite penance

Danish

Member

Banned

Danish

Member

Member

Banned

Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Unconfirmed Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future

Similar threads