Support NeoGAF

[Wickerbasket]

It's obvious that you, and others not you specifically, don't want to hear the other opinion, you only care to say the same things you did in last week's Nintendoomed thread and gang on anyone having a different opinion. This is ofc not exclusive to this doomthread but also to every one before it.
I tried to express my opinion pointing continuously that i care only for software and that i am a multiplatform owner with varied tastes in games, that Nintendo covers only a part of my tastes and that's all, and all i got is jokes, pictures and ridicule but not even one post quoting mine and pointing their disagreement for each one of my paragraphs.

If there is no conversation going on but only ganging and joking i'll just have to bail from one yet Nintendoomed thread and also make a mental note to completely avoid further exposure to them. Have fun.

The ganging and joking is happening because your posts are so ridiculous and hyperbolic.

I mean, look at this shit, just look at it:

What annoys me though is fanboys talking about sales all the time because their precious publishers are incapable of creating games as good as Nintendo's first party.

There's nothing to refute because it's just plain funny. Trying to claim that Nintendo are the only company making good games will just get you ridicule.

 

[fallingdove]

I'm not salty, i actually own an army of consoles so i can play all the games i like, including the beautiful Tearaway you have as an avatar.
What annoys me though is fanboys talking about sales all the time because their precious publishers are incapable of creating games as good as Nintendo's first party.
For your information i have stated a lot of times that i hated the Wii and i fail to understand it's sales numbers as well.

Some people like to talk about Sales maybe? Maybe the same way you like to talk about just how good Nintendo's first party is?

 

[Instro]

This right here is what makes me think they should have one hybrid handled/console next time.

Why put out 2 pieces of hardware if you throw one to the back burner to support the other?

Probably would be more beneficial to keep 2 hardware lines going, but make it so that all handheld releases are available digitally on the console as well. With the right shared architecture it should be fairly trivial to release the handheld games at a higher res and whatever on their console in a timely manner. That way they still have a cheaply priced handheld that will do well, and their console never experiences droughts. The other benefit is that the console would be a great value proposition in countries where handhelds are less popular.

This seems to be what they are heading towards but we will see.

 

[TheGreatMightyPoo]

No matter what, the WiiU is my most played console for 2013 and 2014.
And anyway, aren't you tired posting to the same thread with a different title week after week for years now? The WiiU sells like crap, we get it, now let's make a thread when/if it starts selling ok, just for a change.

I also got news for you, XBOX One hasn't even sold 5 mil to customers worldwide yet and it's sales are falling by the week. PS4 sells abysmal in Japan, so does Vita everywhere.
Where are the weekly threads for all those? I only see WiiU threads, oh! and those 'Vita Godmode' threads when it sells more than 20k in Japan.

GAF is a gaming forum. We should be celebrating the fact that Nintendo, no matter how much they screwed up regarding hardware and account system, have brought us the past 2-3 years more top quality games than any other publisher in any console. Nintendo is in a very weird point of it's history, when they are maybe in their worst situation financially since many years ago, but at the same time releasing one great game after another.

This is not the WSJ forums, a lot of us don't care how much something sells as long as you can run it and it plays good, yet there are more sales threads than game appreciation threads.

Really guys, ask to have a 'WiiU sells like crap' thread, make it a sticky, make sure it stays open and shoot all your vitriol there. At least we'll know which thread to avoid and we won't have one with a different title every 4 days. Conspiracy theories aside, it seems like some of you actually enjoy watching Nintendo having a hard time.

You just have to roll with it, it's not going to change.

There will be the same Wii U thread with a different title every week.

Nintendo is as relevant as ever, hence why some with supposedly no interest in them now are regulars in any thread with their name in it.

Just enjoy the games(which is pretty easy to do) and let the others be harsh on the company and their practices.

After all they are doing this solely "for the best interest of the company"!!!

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Ya know what? Nintendo first party games just aren't that good. Sorry. They are decent for sequels, but as you can plainly see, they don't automatically sell consoles.
Kids play minecraft and many other games now.

The games are great it's just that people aren't buying an entire console for just a handful of games anymore. Especially when the games are the usual suspects, no matter how great they are. When we know going in that the big releases are going to be another Mario, another Zelda, another Smash, another Kart...it loses some of that luster. It becomes too predictable. Not to say Nintendo doesn't bring out complementary games like X or Bayonetta but we know which ones are going to get the most attention.

Your second point is spot on though and something that I wonder if Nintendo is even conscious of. Gone are the days where Nintendo is everyone's introduction into gaming. Gone are the days where for kids and parents the word Nintendo is pretty much a synonym for "video games". You have an entire generation of kids that are growing up with pick axes and angry birds meaning more to them than Mario and Pokemon and that's only going to continue to erode Nintendos market if they insist on relying on the same franchises and targeting the same fanbase.

 

[Magwik]

No matter what, the WiiU is my most played console for 2013 and 2014.
And anyway, aren't you tired posting to the same thread with a different title week after week for years now? The WiiU sells like crap, we get it, now let's make a thread when/if it starts selling ok, just for a change.

I also got news for you, XBOX One hasn't even sold 5 mil to customers worldwide yet and it's sales are falling by the week. PS4 sells abysmal in Japan, so does Vita everywhere.
Where are the weekly threads for all those? I only see WiiU threads, oh! and those 'Vita Godmode' threads when it sells more than 20k in Japan.

GAF is a gaming forum. We should be celebrating the fact that Nintendo, no matter how much they screwed up regarding hardware and account system, have brought us the past 2-3 years more top quality games than any other publisher in any console. Nintendo is in a very weird point of it's history, when they are maybe in their worst situation financially since many years ago, but at the same time releasing one great game after another.

This is not the WSJ forums, a lot of us don't care how much something sells as long as you can run it and it plays good, yet there are more sales threads than game appreciation threads.

Really guys, ask to have a 'WiiU sells like crap' thread, make it a sticky, make sure it stays open and shoot all your vitriol there. At least we'll know which thread to avoid and we won't have one with a different title every 4 days. Conspiracy theories aside, it seems like some of you actually enjoy watching Nintendo having a hard time.

 

[Schnozberry]

Probably would be more beneficial to keep 2 hardware lines going, but make it so that all handheld releases are available digitally on the console as well. With the right shared architecture it should be fairly trivial to release the handheld games at a higher res and whatever on their console in a timely manner. That way they still have a cheaply priced handheld that will do well, and their console never experiences droughts. The other benefit is that the console would be a great value proposition in countries where handhelds are less popular.

This seems to be what they are heading towards but we will see.

They could just release a cheap version of the handheld hardware in the vein of Vita TV in those cases. Nintendo can't support two platforms well without third party help, and the cavalry isn't coming.

 

[Gouty]

I can’t help but think the Wii brand name is damaged goods. Not in the sense that the market is confused (though that’s not helping) but that customers see the Wii name and recall a less than stellar experience and aren’t interested in any more of that.

The Wii sold 4793476 billion consoles to people who aren’t super invested or knowledgeable about games. That leads me to think that there were tons of blind purchases and that instead of picking out the gems like Zak and Wiki or A Boy And His Blob these people got burned by the Wii’s sea of shovel ware. All those vaguely responsive, shallow waggle fests centered around shit like fitness, music and hunting or were simply hastily slapped together tv show/product cash ins. People going in uninformed on the Wii probably had more than their fare share of bad experiences.

Now you might be thinking, that’s bullshit, the PS3 and 360 had tons of bullshit too. Its true, they did as well. But picture this, you’re at Best Buy and you’re blind folded. Pick 10 Wii games and ten PS3 games off a similarly sized shelf. How do you like your odds for having good to great experiences from those selections?

Granted everything I’ve said might not be THE cause of the Wii U floundering but I think its one of them.

 

[RobFox64tm]

We have a winner. People are more than willing to buy games and consoles that they perceive to be good. That they aren't buying Nintendo's current ones is the surest indicator we can have of their quality.

First thing I think of when I buy a new game is that I hope everyone else buys it so it can be good and I enjoy it more!

Sales have never been a good indicator of a games quality, nor has a games or genres popularity assured any kind of longevity within that experience either.

 

[jmood88]

I don't think it's that, I think it's about the graphics/power, that has been an issue from the very beginning with the Wii U. The majority of gamers have become graphic whores. As for third party, I am utterly baffled as to why that's such a huge issue, you can get third party games on three other platforms. Turn it the other way around, and Microsoft/Sony have a rather weak first party output compared to Nintendo, but it's all about the third parties for some reason.

It's not just graphics. I don't give a damn about Nintendo franchises so why would I buy a Nintendo console when they make games I don't want and don't get the games that I do want (or if they do get the games I want, they get the worst version available)?

 

[AstroNut325]

The games are great it's just that people aren't buying an entire console for just a handful of games anymore. Especially when the games are the usual suspects, no matter how great they are. When we know going in that the big releases are going to be another Mario, another Zelda, another Smash, another Kart...it loses some of that luster. It becomes too predictable. Not to say Nintendo doesn't bring out complementary games like X or Bayonetta but we know which ones are going to get the most attention.

Your second point is spot on though and something that I wonder if Nintendo is even conscious of. Gone are the days where Nintendo is everyone's introduction into gaming. Gone are the days where for kids and parents the word Nintendo is pretty much a synonym for "video games". You have an entire generation of kids that are growing up with pick axes and angry birds meaning more to them than Mario and Pokemon and that's only going to continue to erode Nintendos market if they insist on relying on the same franchises and targeting the same fanbase.

Thank you. You just perfectly summarized what I was thinking. And your points on the younger generations starting gaming with mobiles is perfectly dead on! I have seen it with my own eyes. Parents no longer feel the need to spend another $200-300 + games for their kids in-home entertainment. They have their iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch and the kids are completely satisfied with their broad library of cheap games.

 

[dangerskew]

Kids play minecraft and many other games now.

This, absolutely this. Nintendo makes absolutely fantastic games, but characters/franchises like Mario, Link, Kirby, etc, simply do not have the appeal that they used to , especially among the younger generations. LOADS of kids got their parents to buy them a 360 last gen just so that they could play Minecraft with their friends. A decade from now, the 5-12 year-olds of today will grow up to have nostalgia (the same kind of nostalgia that many of us have for Mario, Sonic, Nintendo, and Sega) for Minecraft and Angry Birds. Hell, even Pokemon seems to have WAY more appeal with 20-somethings than it does with its target audience, children.

Minecraft's massive success shows that all gamers haven't suddenly all become graphics whores.

Nintendo needs to take a long, hard look at recent games such as Minecraft and make something similar with a dose of "Nintendo Magic". Preferably a new IP, as I feel that their long-standing roster of characters is almost alienating to people who are new to Nintendo. In the meantime, they REALLY need to work out a deal with Mojang to port Minecraft to the Wii U. Nintendo would handle the porting in-house and add awesome GamePad functionality. Instead of buying character skins as DLC like on the 360 version, players could make their own custom skins on the GamePad screen and share them on Miiverse for anyone to use.

Edit: Welp, looks like Ninja Scooter beat me to the punch.

 

[valouris]

Well at least they still have Pokemon..

 

[sappyday]

I feel bad reading stuff like this and then looking at my Wii U collecting dust. Besides Smash, there isn't a game I'm hyped for. If they announce a new Zelda I'll get it but I already know what I'm gonna get out of it.

 

[Version 3.0]

That they aren't buying Nintendo's current ones is the surest indicator we can have of their quality.

Whoa, let's not get into the sales=quality black hole. That's not true at all. Sales equate to a perception of quality at best, along with other important factors like value.

Nintendo's games are among the best, though of course that's subjective. But they are not the revered juggernauts they once were. Great games are quite easy to find. Anyone who's been paying the least bit of attention over the last 15 years knows that Nintendo's systems are starved of the biggest, most popular games - aside from Nintendo's own games, of course.

It's almost literally Nintendo vs. Everyone Else. It's amazing how well they've done in that situation over the years (a situation of their own making, for the most part), but at the moment, it's caught up with them.

 

[Memorabilia]

People say that lowering the Wii U's price would be devastating for Nintendo, but would it be really?

Manufacturing expense is a sunk cost and Nintendo has more cash than God. So, no. They'd be better off cutting the price down to $149 with a packin and getting these things out of warehouses and into the living rooms of more gamers.

 

[OmahaG8]

You just have to roll with it, it's not going to change.

There will be the same Wii U thread with a different title every week.

Nintendo is as relevant as ever, hence why some with supposedly no interest in them now are regulars in any thread with their name in it.

Just enjoy the games(which is pretty easy to do) and let the others be harsh on the company and their practices.

After all they are doing this solely "for the best interest of the company"!!!

No. Not even close. I have been around and thoroughly enjoyed Nintendo when it was relevant. Being critical of Nintendo, a company who has seemingly floundered for years now, some of us can only help but laugh when someone says "everything's great guys, really. It just needs that one more thing".

I had (have) an NES, SNES, N64, GBC, GBA, GBA SP, DS, DS Lite, 3DS, 3DS XL, GameCube, Wii, and Wii U. I bought all of those new, not used. Hell, I'm even looking to buy a Virtual Boy CIB.

Oh yeah, I platinum'd Club Nintendo 3 years in a row now. But I'm just one of the "doom and gloomers" who takes some perverse joy in all of this, Nintendo shares no blame?

There is a reason this picture, and the iterations thereof, were so popular.

But no. Ditching E3, releasing a handful (and I stress handful here) of games on the Wii U, never getting up to speed on Virtual Console, and just generally under delivering at every turn.

What part am I supposed to be happy or thrilled about? Oh, I can play some GBA games on my Wii U now but not my 3DS?

At least Nintendo has a unified account system, right?

 

[StevieP]

Manufacturing expense is a sunk cost and Nintendo has more cash than God. So, no. They'd be better off cutting the price down to $149 with a packin and getting these things out of warehouses and into the living rooms of more gamers.

Losing like 6 billion dollars is always a good idea

 

[LegendofLex]

Whoa, let's not get into the sales=quality black hole. That's not true at all. Sales equate to a perception of quality at best, along with other important factors like value.

Nintendo's games are among the best, though of course that's subjective. But they are not the revered juggernauts they once were. Great games are quite easy to find. Anyone who's been paying the least bit of attention over the last 15 years knows that Nintendo's systems are starved of the biggest, most popular games - aside from Nintendo's own games, of course.

It's almost literally Nintendo vs. Everyone Else. It's amazing how well they've done in that situation over the years (a situation of their own making, for the most part), but at the moment, it's caught up with them.

How exactly do you measure quality, if not by something's value?
And how do you objectively measure value, if not by people's actual behavior?

If no one is willing to exchange $300 (monetary value) for Wii U (a good), then it's hard to argue that the good has the value (otherwise, the real world would prove this). And without the value, can we honestly say that the quality is there?

To use a specific example, everyone seemed to agree that Zelda was the highest-quality action-adventure/fantasy game... when it was the best-selling one in the Ocarina of Time days. Now, it's not so clear - and other action-adventure/fantasy/RPGs have surpassed it in sales.

 

[RobFox64tm]

How exactly do you measure quality, if not by something's value?
And how do you objectively measure value, if not by people's actual behavior?

If no one is willing to exchange $300 (monetary value) for Wii U (a good), then it's hard to argue that the good has the value (otherwise, the real world would prove this). And without the value, can we honestly say that the quality is there?

To use a specific example, everyone seemed to agree that Zelda was the highest-quality action-adventure/fantasy game... when it was the best-selling one in the Ocarina of Time days. Now, it's not so clear - and other action-adventure/fantasy/RPGs have surpassed it in sales.

Your argument marginalizes the opinions of everyone who has ever said "I don't like such and such game, in spite of it's popularity," which probably describes pretty much any gamer out there. Which games are good and which games are bad is subjective, but the idea that only the most popular games are any good is objectively wrong.

 

[StevieP]

How exactly do you measure quality, if not by something's value?
And how do you objectively measure value, if not by people's actual behavior?

If no one is willing to exchange $300 (monetary value) for Wii U (a good), then it's hard to argue that the good has the value (otherwise, the real world would prove this). And without the value, can we honestly say that the quality is there?

To use a specific example, everyone seemed to agree that Zelda was the highest-quality action-adventure/fantasy game... when it was the best-selling one in the Ocarina of Time days. Now, it's not so clear - and other action-adventure/fantasy/RPGs have surpassed it in sales.

Wii Play is, then, a much better game than the Last of Us.

 

[LegendofLex]

Your argument marginalizes the opinions of everyone who has ever said "I don't like such and such game, in spite of it's popularity," which probably describes pretty much any gamer out there. Which games are good and which games are bad is subjective, but the idea that only the most popular games are any good is objectively wrong.

The market decides which kind of quality it will accept, just as any individual does.

The difference, of course, is that what the market finds acceptable is the meaningful indicator if we're going to have a discussion about anything but personal preferences.

 

[RobFox64tm]

The market decides which kind of quality it will accept, just as any individual does.

The difference, of course, is that what the market finds acceptable is the meaningful indicator if we're going to have a discussion about anything but personal preferences.

If you're a philistine and want to follow the leader around without forming nary an original thought or opinion, by all means, let the market dictate quality for you.

 

[Panajev2001a]

It is exactly because Nintendo isn't competitive that their console is failing.

They don't compete on price, both hardware and software.
They don't compete on functionality, both in system OS nor Online functionality.
They don't compete on third party support.

Not only that, but they have some batshit ideas when it comes to region locking, online purchases and with the way generally they treat their customers.

To reduce it to "People want Nintendo to fail" is nothing more than a childish persecution complex. Nobody has a problem with a competitive Nintendo as the SNES era showed.

... or the way the handle the Virtual Console on Wii U, the fact that they are not competitive on Online and have publically given up on matching Xbox LIVE and PSN because they say the gap is too wide after spending years laughing at their competitors for "wasting" R&D on online networks, or how they were caught with their pants down with troubles adapting to modern graphics technologies and the HD era problems 6+ years after everybody else, or that they brush aside AR and VR with their "leapfrog" strategy, etc...

 

[LegendofLex]

If you're a philistine and want to follow the leader around without forming nary an original thought or opinion, by all means, let the market dictate quality for you.

I don't know what you mean about "following the leader." If I like a game, I buy it. If I don't like a game, I don't buy it. And I talk about my personal preferences all the time. That goes for consoles, too.

But that doesn't mean that developers/publishers/console makers should listen to me. They should listen to their customers as a whole. (Even if I would want things done differently.) I do not singlehandedly keep Nintendo afloat (clearly!).

 

[Version 3.0]

How exactly do you measure quality, if not by something's value?
And how do you objectively measure value, if not by people's actual behavior?

If no one is willing to exchange $300 (monetary value) for Wii U (a good), then it's hard to argue that the good has the value (otherwise, the real world would prove this). And without the value, can we honestly say that the quality is there?

To use a specific example, everyone seemed to agree that Zelda was the highest-quality action-adventure/fantasy game... when it was the best-selling one in the Ocarina of Time days. Now, it's not so clear - and other action-adventure/fantasy/RPGs have surpassed it in sales.

Let's start with the classic example: is the McDonald's hamburger the best food on Earth?

Of course not. It's a great value, with wide appeal, but only a crazy person would argue that it's the highest quality.

You can say the same about most very popular things. They have wide appeal.

I can most certainly point out to you many things that are clearly of high quality, and yet I have no interest in them.

I find it hard to believe that any of this is news to you. Surely you know that there are critically acclaimed games (or movies, songs/bands, books, etc) that have sold poorly. Surely you can name examples of your own of games (etc) that are well-regarded and influential in their field, but were not commercially dominant?

If quality was closely related to sales, we wouldn't have marketing.

Also, in the videogame world, there's a prerequisite purchase required to play games: the console. I'm not arguing the Wii U is a good console - it's terrible. So any great game, or set of games, that someone is interested in has to overcome that. On the flipside, the (correct) perception of the PS4 is that it's a good value based on the promise of future support alone, in the absence of a compelling current library.

 

[RobFox64tm]

I don't know what you mean about "following the leader." If I like a game, I buy it. If I don't like a game, I don't buy it. And I talk about my personal preferences all the time. That goes for consoles, too.

But that doesn't mean that developers/publishers/console makers should listen to me. They should listen to their customers as a whole. (Even if I would want things done differently.) I do not singlehandedly keep Nintendo afloat (clearly!).

I honestly wasn't directing that at you specifically, so I apologize if it seemed that way, but your way off base here. Devs and publishers do tend to follow what the market dictates, yes, but that doesn't mean other avenues are any lesser for it. Popularity and quality aren't the same thing, and often times they aren't even related.

 

[Version 3.0]

I don't know what you mean about "following the leader." If I like a game, I buy it. If I don't like a game, I don't buy it. And I talk about my personal preferences all the time. That goes for consoles, too.

You must be quite privileged if you are always able to determine whether you like a game before you buy it. Or maybe you don't buy many, or are just very good at convincing yourself that you like what you buy (a common malady).

 

[Version 3.0]

The difference, of course, is that what the market finds acceptable is the meaningful indicator if we're going to have a discussion about anything but personal preferences.

The market is not even a very good indicator of personal preferences. If you asked everyone on Earth what their favorite movie is, and tallied the votes, I guarantee the top films would not be the top grossing films. Same with games, books, etc.

Again with McDonald's or Subway - these are not people's favorite restaurants. They're just acceptable to a wide demographic.

If you don't believe me, do a test, right here on GAF. Make a thread asking people to list their purchases from last gen, and then do another asking for favorite games from last gen. Tally the results and see for yourself the difference between sales and quality.

 

[LegendofLex]

Let's start with the classic example: is the McDonald's hamburger the best food on Earth?

Of course not. It's a great value, with wide appeal, but only a crazy person would argue that it's the highest quality.

McDonald's hamburgers sell well (and thus have value) for many more reasons than just their quality. A lot of it boils down to the business model. It costs the consumer virtually nothing to have a McDonald's nearby his/her home or workplace; meanwhile it costs the consumer quite a bit to have a box to play games on. The two business models aren't really comparable in that sense (unless games become totally hardware agnostic).

But to look at your example in light of a comparison to games: "value" really boils down to quality vs. price. McDonald's is able to succeed largely because they provide the correct ratio of worth (quality) and price (value). A hamburger does not have to be the best in the world if it only costs $1, $3, $5.

Likewise for games. Games have to provide the appropriate level of worth (quality) for the suggested price (value). They can be $60 if they are worthy enough (of high enough quality), but if they are not (and particularly when sales at $60 do not recoup investments), they get price-dropped.

Not all games have to be $60 games, of course. But then, cheaper games don't always sell better.

What we see currently is that between its hardware and software, Wii U ($300 w/ $60 retail games) has been unable to compete, even against more expensive machines (Xbox @ $500 w/ $60 retail games; PS4 @ $400 w/ $60 retail games). This suggests that it's not being valued at the price (in other words, that it's not worth the price, that it's not of the correct quality).

You're absolutely right, of course, that marketing is designed to make you change your perceptions about the quality of a thing. And you'd absolutely be right that sometimes people are deluded into thinking games have quality that they often do not (and this often translates to dissatisfaction). I think this explains the tendency toward front-loaded sales in our current industry.

But, if anything, that further highlights the problem Nintendo faces. What has happened to the enduring perception of quality (i.e. not swayed as heavily by marketing) that Nintendo has historically been known for?

The market is not even a very good indicator of personal preferences.

Re-read what you just responded to. I'm very aware the market is not a signal for any individual's personal preference. What it is a signal for is generally preferred. Especially if you look at general trends for how people are satisfying different appetites (the shooter appetite, the RPG appetite). The games that do the "better job" at satisfying a particular itch sell well relative to other games that are competing for that itch (often regardless of price); when they no longer do a better job at satisfying that itch, people abandon them.

McDonald's and Subway may not be people's favorite restaurants (I personally prefer BJ's). But then BJ's does not exist to do the job McDonald's does. So saying "I prefer BJ's to McDonald's" is true - it's a matter of personal preference; saying "BJ's does BJ's job better than McDonald's does McD's job," however, is probably not as true - and that is the more "objective" statement about "quality."

 

[Azure Dream]

It is exactly because Nintendo isn't competitive that their console is failing.

They don't compete on price, both hardware and software.
They don't compete on functionality, both in system OS nor Online functionality.
They don't compete on third party support.

Not only that, but they have some batshit ideas when it comes to region locking, online purchases and with the way generally they treat their customers.

To reduce it to "People want Nintendo to fail" is nothing more than a childish persecution complex. Nobody has a problem with a competitive Nintendo as the SNES era showed.

Another thumbs up for this post. I would love Nintendo to be back on their A Game. But they decided they weren't really competing anymore, which might've worked for the Wii delivering such a unique experience at the time, but it doesn't work for the Wii U, brushing too close to existing tablets and second-screen experiences, with limitations stacked on top of that.

 

[ZombiePlatypus]

I honestly wasn't directing that at you specifically, so I apologize if it seemed that way, but your way off base here. Devs and publishers do tend to follow what the market dictates, yes, but that doesn't mean other avenues are any lesser for it. Popularity and quality aren't the same thing, and often times they aren't even related.

This.

They can align together sometimes, but that doesn't make them one and the same.

 

[metalslimer]

You just have to roll with it, it's not going to change.

There will be the same Wii U thread with a different title every week.

Nintendo is as relevant as ever, hence why some with supposedly no interest in them now are regulars in any thread with their name in it.

Just enjoy the games(which is pretty easy to do) and let the others be harsh on the company and their practices.

After all they are doing this solely "for the best interest of the company"!!!

Come on.....maybe on message boards, but no one with any sense of honestly can state this without chuckling. If Gaf was a reflection of the real world, there would be like 2 Wii U related threads a month.

 

[Psycho_Mantis]

You just have to roll with it, it's not going to change.

There will be the same Wii U thread with a different title every week.

Nintendo is as relevant as ever, hence why some with supposedly no interest in them now are regulars in any thread with their name in it.

Just enjoy the games(which is pretty easy to do) and let the others be harsh on the company and their practices.

After all they are doing this solely "for the best interest of the company"!!!

Actually the sales point to the conclusion that Nintendo is as irrelevant as ever in the console market.

 

[Enlil]

change the name...Nintendo Revolution. new advertisement and problem solved.

 

[Toshi_TNE]

Wii Play is, then, a much better game than the Last of Us.

I love that he decided to ignore your post since it destroys his argument. Sales have nothing to do with quality.

 

[theprodigy]

Wii Play is, then, a much better game than the Last of Us.

using Nintendo fans' own logic at times, yes it would be
(this is why using sales only when it's convenient is bad, kids)

 

[LegendofLex]

I love that he decided to ignore your post since it destroys his argument. Sales has nothing to do with quality.

If you read my argument closely, you'd see I allude to comparing quality based on the jobs things do. Apart from them both being video games, The Last of Us has a very different job to do than Wii Play.

But the job Zelda does is not so different from the job The Elder Scrolls does. So when The Elder Scrolls suddenly starts outselling Zelda (at similar price points, no less!), I think we have to start questioning what that means about their relative quality.

That said, I would definitely say that Wii Play does its particular job (mindless arcade fun) better than The Last of Us does its particular job (action-adventure survival). There's no real reason why Wii Play would have sold more than 20 million units otherwise (see: the sequel). Hell, I'd say as a rule being part of a particular genre is no excuse for being outsold, since the list of best-selling games covers a pretty diverse spread.

 

[Tookay]

If you read my argument closely, you'd see I allude to comparing quality based on the jobs things do. Apart from them both being video games, The Last of Us has a very different job to do than Wii Play.

But the job Zelda does is not so different from the job The Elder Scrolls does. So when The Elder Scrolls suddenly starts outselling Zelda (at similar price points, no less!), I think we have to start questioning what that means about their relative quality.

That said, I would definitely say that Wii Play does its particular job (mindless arcade fun) better than The Last of Us does its particular job (action-adventure survival). There's no real reason why Wii Play would have sold more than 20 million units otherwise (see: the sequel).

There are plenty of other reasons why Wii Play would sell much better than TLOU... like the fact that it was on a trendy console, offered a free controller and had more accessible subject matter for a mass-market audience (particularly families with children).

Come on. Don't be so disingenuous as to suggest it speaks to a perception of quality, especially in relation to something totally different.

 

[StevieP]

Skyrim and Zelda are also extremely different games. They're not even aesthetically similar, let alone in game design.

 

[Anoregon]

Skyrim and Zelda are also extremely different games. They're not even aesthetically similar, let alone in game design.

They both have swords and bad guys that you can hit with the swords

 

[genjiZERO]

Man, I'd like to get a WiiU, but it's just not worth it at the price point.

WiiU + MK = $150 I'd be all over it.

 

[LegendofLex]

There are plenty of other reasons why Wii Play would sell much better than TLOU... like the fact that it was on a trendy console, offered a free controller and had more accessible subject matter for a mass-market audience (particularly families with children).

Come on. Don't be so disingenuous as to suggest it speaks to a perception of quality, especially in relation to something else.

If the job of Wii Play was to sell controllers, it did that job pretty well, too. (You could fetch a controller without Wii Play for less, and obviously sales for Wii Play did not match those for Wii Sports 1:1.)

Skyrim and Zelda are also extremely different games. They're not even aesthetically similar, let alone in game design.

I won't dispute that on a fine-grained, up-close, "game design" basis. But I still have to wonder why the exodus of Zelda players and the growth of the Elder Scrolls happened at precisely the same time, then? Them not being aesthetically similar is even a boon to the comparison - The Elder Scrolls matches the popular idea of fantasy at present, while Zelda doesn't.

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

I guess I'll be the one to say it: I legitimately had way more fun with Tanks in Wii Play than I did at any point in the Last of Us.

 

[metalslimer]

I wonder why the exodus of Zelda players and the growth of the Elder Scrolls happened at precisely the same time, then?

Skyrim was marketed a shit ton on two systems where the vast majority of core gamers were located and Zelda was on a system that hadn't seen a big release in a year and required a peripheral to play?

Also Phantom Hourglass sold very well, and it was a shit game, so let's not think quality and sales definitely go together with Zelda. Timing, platform health, and marketing play a large role. Nintendo could make a Zelda that gets a 100 on MC for Wii U, and it would probably still be one of the worst selling Zeldas.

 

[KoopaTheCasual]

This response is amazing.

 

[LegendofLex]

Skyrim was marketed a shit ton on two systems where the vast majority of core gamers were located and Zelda was on a system that hadn't seen a big release in a year and required a peripheral to play?

Skyrim sold better on each system it released for than Zelda did on its one system. Not to mention that people have historically been more than willing to buy peripherals to get at games they really want (link cable for Pokemon, Expansion Pak for DK64, Balance Board for Wii Fit).

Also Phantom Hourglass sold very well, and it was a shit game, so let's not think quality and sales definitely go together with Zelda.

And we saw how nicely people perceived its quality long-term with the Spirit Tracks sales. Isn't it magical how people shit on plenty of other series while they continue to sell well, but Nintendo's franchises decline in the same circumstances?

 

[evilromero]

This, absolutely this. Nintendo makes absolutely fantastic games, but characters/franchises like Mario, Link, Kirby, etc, simply do not have the appeal that they used to , especially among the younger generations. LOADS of kids got their parents to buy them a 360 last gen just so that they could play Minecraft with their friends. A decade from now, the 5-12 year-olds of today will grow up to have nostalgia (the same kind of nostalgia that many of us have for Mario, Sonic, Nintendo, and Sega) for Minecraft and Angry Birds. Hell, even Pokemon seems to have WAY more appeal with 20-somethings than it does with its target audience, children.

Minecraft's massive success shows that all gamers haven't suddenly all become graphics whores.

Nintendo needs to take a long, hard look at recent games such as Minecraft and make something similar with a dose of "Nintendo Magic". Preferably a new IP, as I feel that their long-standing roster of characters is almost alienating to people who are new to Nintendo. In the meantime, they REALLY need to work out a deal with Mojang to port Minecraft to the Wii U. Nintendo would handle the porting in-house and add awesome GamePad functionality. Instead of buying character skins as DLC like on the 360 version, players could make their own custom skins on the GamePad screen and share them on Miiverse for anyone to use.

Edit: Welp, looks like Ninja Scooter beat me to the punch.

No, but what it shows is that gamers crave immersive experiences. That's something that Nintendo has moved away from in favor of focused arcade-like experiences such as 3D World and DKR. I especially want a more substantial Nintendo experience than what they're offering. But that's just me personally. Something that let's me truly explore, even if it's not required or pressing within the game. I know not all games need to be this, but it's one category that's sorely lacking on the Wii U.

 

[AstroNut325]

I honestly wasn't directing that at you specifically, so I apologize if it seemed that way, but your way off base here. Devs and publishers do tend to follow what the market dictates, yes, but that doesn't mean other avenues are any lesser for it. Popularity and quality aren't the same thing, and often times they aren't even related.

But... That is precisely what Nintendo wanted out of the Wii U! They wanted it to be the next Wii with the casuals. They wanted it to be popular/trendy with their unproven touch based gaming controller. They wanted to be the McDonald's of the food industry with the Wii U just like the Wii!

 

[metalslimer]

And we saw how nicely people perceived its quality long-term with the Spirit Tracks sales.

So quality doesn't determine a game's sales? So Skyrim selling well shows nothing about its quality vs Zelda then until we see the next game's sales making this point useless?