Which is exactly why such a caricature is inaccurate, because that doesn't reflect each of my views. But simple arguments for simple people...
The thing that worries me the most is that I don't see the Wii U receiving a lot of the spinoff 3rd party games that the Wii was fortunate to have. I hope I'm wrong though. I would like to see a new Final Fantasy Chrystal Chronicles eventually.
3D World would have probably sold a lot better if it had new enemies and new villains. Why didn't they just use Wart as the main bad guy and have the game take place in Subcon? They would have sold few thousand more on nostalgia alone.
There is no strawman here, there is a swath of GAF that'll literally come into every single Wii U thread and shit it up because they don't like the fact that Nintendo didn't make a PS4/isn't going 3rd party/whatever.
Case in point.
"YOU MAKE A GREAT POST BUT YOU'RE FULL OF SHIT"
Nintendo and it's fans have always been the ones who have made this claim. They are the ones who demand us to pay several hundred dollars beyond the price of the game just for the right to play them so it is perfectly fair to hold them to a higher standard.
Sure. For all the you's that really care about that.
I'd say getting near universal acclaim from the press and vocal fans was more important.
This has nothing to do with me wanting to be a pre-teen and more about Nintendo making a Mario game that actually is appealing enough to sell systems which 3D World never was. Your an eloquent writer but your points are baloney.
Because it had no significant effect on the Wii U's sales?
$350 -> $299. Where the hell were you at launch?
If/when the WiiU ever finally hits the $150 price point, or $199 with a pro controller, I may bite, but not until then.
Well clearly it's not because it isn't selling like a Mario game usually does.
I've made this point before and I'll say it again: Having 3 or 4 amazing games isn't worth shit unless you price your fucking console what it's actually worth. I compare Nintendo this generation to Sony in 2006, but less so than MS: Coming off a massive success, they release a console with a feature that developers (read: Publishers) can't be bothered developing for and a price tag that is completely unreasonable for what you're buying. Perhaps Nintendo thought that brand neutral gamers were idiots.
Even the hardest of the hardcore Nintendo fans cannot deny that the business and technical decisions surrounding the Wii U have been a comedy of errors, fueled by a shortsighted belief that all Nintendo needed to do was walk into the HD era, click its fingers and have the hardcore jump all over them like they were Fonzie in the local meetup spot.
And that's EAD Tokyo's fault?
The game didn't sell poorly because it didn't have Wart, and in your admittedly outspoken rant I couldn't find a response to that assertion.
If Nintendo fans kept discussion to the official game/system treads you would see less negativity. The attempts to artificially improve the image of the platform by spamming each and every semi-positive article or impression of the platform or a game for it created a backlash, it's as simple as that.
While he did have some good points, he missed the forest while looking for a single tree: Nintendo and it's fans have always been the ones who have made this claim. They are the ones who demand us to pay several hundred dollars beyond the price of the game just for the right to play them so it is perfectly fair to hold them to a higher standard. Perhaps it is an impossible to reach that standard, but at the same time I'd say that the current fanbase they have aren't critical enough, and never react to negative changes within the company until after it's too late to quickly change course. Case in point: E3 2008. People had been voicing concerns over how their conferences and corporate focus was changing for the worse the previous year but the fans were dismissive because they still had Mario and Smash on the immediate horizon. Then this happened and all you got that holiday was Animal Crossing. 2008 was okay for the system overall because of releases before E3, but after it was pretty bad for a while.
He's not devaluing past games. You've put them on a pedestal and made them into something that they never were. Most of the negativity towards 3D World has come from people who believe that Mario is a series where each new installment essentially reinvented the wheel, but honestly the only game that changed the series to the degree that these people seem to believe is necessary was Mario 64. SMB1-NSMBU have been progressions of the same gameplay, with a small detour with a game that was a reskin of a totally different game. Mario 64 was the first 3D Mario, so of course it had a ton of novelty. And ever since they've steadily progressed with each new 3D Mario game towards more focus on 3D platforming until here we are with 3D World. People overvalue the changes made between past Mario games and undervalue changes made in the newest games.If there's no way out, start devaluing past Nintendo games? Just because Mario 64 had the biggest jump, doesn't mean the others had none at all - like 3D World does now. SMW was an obvious generational leap in presentation, so was Sunshine. Before they started rehashing concepts, you always had at least one title for each generation that tried to change up core concepts, aesthetics and simply being perfectly suited to the new hardware. Sunshine might have failed, but it at least tried to experiment by being based around water mechanics while offering (at the time) amazing visuals. Galaxy was of course completely different from Sunshine, trying to downplay ,,nothing but gravity lolol'' in comparison to cat suits is funny, to say the least. Shit, for some reason Galaxy managed to be an event when it came out and Miyamoto didn't even need to become a youth wizard - man, I sure wonder why that is... lol
The reality is they never before dared to simply put a direct sequel (of a 2 year old handheld game on top of that) on a new home console that also happens to look worse than fucking Mario Kart and some 2 year old Sonic game - which automatically makes this title less ambitious than it's predecessors, no downplaying Galaxy in hindsight is gonna change that. Which would be okay, if the WiiU otherwise would have had a start on par with the GCN or Wii - but no, it was their worst first year ever with nothing but straight rehashes, map packs (including another unremarkable Mario game) and a couple of niche titles that were sent to die. It's a console with nothing but poor efforts solely based on last gen leftovers because they were once successful, now culminating in their flagship title that isn't even up on par with it's predecessors. And as expected, no spamming comparison gifs or high metacritic was ever gonna change that it's a map pack (if the minimal file size wasn't proof enough already) which is thankfully rejected by the home console audience that Nintendo is treating like shit right now. Casuals won't see the difference between this and 3D Land, just like with NSMBU, and hence no value in a console that offers nothing unique outside of that. (Including the controller which sees less use from devs than the Wiimote does even on WiiU) Meanwhile, you sure as hell could have never confused the orginal Mario Land with Mario World regardless of how much of an (un)informed gamer you were.
Random thought: They should add the characters from Doki Doki Panic into the Mario canon.
Maybe the low sales will force Nintendo into trying a new IP.
i'm kind of surprised this thread is still going
SM3DW will have serious legs, that's pretty much indisputable. so i don't think you could make heads or tails from the game's first week. we're talking about the worst selling nintendo console aside from virtual boy, so you need to taper your expectations a great deal. in that respect, it did okay. but you can't read too much into it either way
Maybe the low sales will force Nintendo into trying a new IP.
pretty the escapist docked 3dworld a point for still having bowser as the antagonistYou can't be real.
pretty the escapist docked 3dworld a point for still having bowser as the antagonist
I mean it was MovieBob reviewing, obviously, but they still went and published his review.
The ones in the E-shop or you don't count those?
... I don't get what that has to do with what I was responding to? I was pointing out a (somewhat) serious review site that similarly put emphasis on something as trivial as what anticitizien was attributing 3DWorld's 'failure' to.That's only one critic.....
The ones in the E-shop or you don't count those?
Because it's a dumb assertion that serves only to deflect attention away from the real problem?
There's nothing wrong with 3D World as a game. There is everything wrong with the platform it's sold on.
Better graphics indisputably increases development costs. What do you think developers pay their artists that create the HD assets, hopes and dreams? It's no accident that this past generation had some of the largest teams and biggest budgets yet. It takes a lot of people and resources to make those AAA HD games. As stated in my post you quoted, higher budgets are caused by a combination of the availability of higher end hardware and a toxic business model that developers and publishers are unwilling to move way from. This past generation has proven that developers do not think rationally, and and they do not stop pumping money into graphics before it becomes unsustainable. They continue to do it because they feel they have to to compete.Do you really think that it's better hardware or better graphics that increases development costs? Seriously? They don't. Look at EA with Crysis. At the time, that was the best looking game on the PC, & that game was only ran off of a $23 million budget.
If development costs are increasing, it's because of mismanagement from publishers when it comes to spending too much money on development of games &/or spending too much money on advertising/marketing the games. All because that most 3rd party publishers want their games to be the next COD in sales.
Plus thanks to the PS4's technology being very similar to PC, it'll be easier and less expensive for game studios to develop games for the console (they talk about it here, & here).
Sakura Samurai was fun. So was PushMo. I haven't tried Dillon's yet, but let's be honest. While semantically, you're correct that these are new IP, that's not what people are asking for when they ask for new IP.
These eShop titles are about as good as an upper tier indie game on any given platform.
What people want is for Nintendo to invest the full power of their formidable game development skill in a new concept (with new mechanics). Something that really digs deeper into the game mechanics than PushMo does with its one-by-one puzzles or Sakura Samurai with its 3 bosses and 7 enemy types.
Those games are fun, but in a climate where Nintendo has been enamored with mini-games, it's fair to want something meatier.
Isn't that what Wonderful 101 is trying to be? Also is X considered a new IP?
I think this is actually pretty decent considering the lower installed base for the WiiU when compared to the others.
It'd help if Nintendo properly supported Wonderful 101 and it had sold well.Isn't that what Wonderful 101 is trying to be? Also is X considered a new IP?
... I don't get what that has to do with what I was responding to? I was pointing out a (somewhat) serious review site that similarly put emphasis on something as trivial as what anticitizien was attributing 3DWorld's 'failure' to.
Yeah, I don't see how Nintendo comes back in the console space. A huge chunk of their audience is attached to mobile. They don't know what Mario is, they know that red bird though.
There is just no chance for a console that only offers Nintendo stuff. Time to give up. It'll only get harder. 107k and rapidly approaching zero.
Do I have to dig up 3DS sales or can you do it yourself?
both of which anticitizen suggested as things 3DWorld 'should' have done and which the outlier review I was talking about heavily insinuates they should have doneThere is a substantial leap of logic involved in trying to tie together "why didn't they introduce a new villain" and "why didn't they pander to nostalgia by dredging up an old villain" as a single coherent thought.
He's not devaluing past games. You've put them on a pedestal and made them into something that they never were. Most of the negativity towards 3D World has come from people who believe that Mario is a series where each new installment essentially reinvented the wheel, but honestly the only game that changed the series to the degree that these people seem to believe is necessary was Mario 64. SMB1-NSMBU have been progressions of the same gameplay, with a small detour with a game that was a reskin of a totally different game. Mario 64 was the first 3D Mario, so of course it had a ton of novelty. And ever since they've steadily progressed with each new 3D Mario game towards more focus on 3D platforming until here we are with 3D World. People overvalue the changes made between past Mario games and undervalue changes made in the newest games.
New powerups are enough for old games but not 3D World.
Increased scope is good enough for old games but not 3D World.
Better graphics are good enough for old games but not 3D World.
It's funny that people champion Sunshine as an example of Nintendo doing what they think Nintendo should do with Mario when it was essentially Mario 64 with increased scope, new powerups, and better graphics (but much worse level design and missions) limited to a single tropical trope. 3D World is a bigger, prettier game than ever with new powerups that are well used with great level design and it's despised.
While I already find it telling you've left it out of your posts talking about how every other 3D Mario is a far more impressive feat than 3DWorld, what were your thoughts on Galaxy 2? Was it a far lesser Mario game than the previous ones because it was a direct sequel to Galaxy and likely used even more cut material and ideas from Galaxy 1 than 3DWorld does from 3DLand?Sure, whatever revisionist history is needed to detract that 3D World simply lacks the generational leap of the others. In the end, it was obvious to everyone that Sunshine was a brandnew game for a brandnew generation. As we see here, people are obviously content with 3D Land and don't wanna buy more levels for it on overpriced hardware - even actual WiiU owners.
It's not as popular as 2D Mario anywhere I think. People probably just expected things to be different this time due to NSMBU's cold reception compared to the insane amount NSMBWii sold. 3DLand may have sold more than NSMB2 on the 3DS did though, I don't remember the sales exactly.In 30 pages this may have been said, but I though 3D Mario was not as popular as 2D Mario in Japan. Please do not quote me on this, though.
In 30 pages this may have been said, but I though 3D Mario was not as popular as 2D Mario in Japan. Please do not quote me on this, though.
There was never a price drop. There was a price shift. The cost of entry is exactly the same.