Leondexter said:
Not true at all. I'm not advocating rushed product; I'm only advocating treating one console the same way as another in regards to game releases. You're the one trying to twist that into something outlandish, and it's childish.
You're not advocating it, but you keep suggesting it. By what magic should Red Steel 2 have come out even quicker and sucked even harder?
Leondexter said:
All this is obvious to you, to me, and should be to Capcom. So why are you debating with me about it? They let demand sit unfulfilled, that's my simple point. Well, actually, they tried to meet that demand with the lowest quality game they thought they could get away with. They had several options to make money on the Wii, and chose the cheapest, laziest ones. And they drove away the customers.
Except they also made Zack & Wiki, Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All Stars, Monster Hunter Tri. They made Resident Evil Umbrella Chronicles and Darkside Chronicles and RE4. You're sitting here whining about the fact that the system isn't getting any more RE4-style games, which is apparently your singular, only real complaint. Again, this is your idea of how magically there would be a foundation! Your idea of good Capcom support and foundation building was a port of RE4. Think about that for a second.
If they made an true Resident Evil mainline game for Wii, it would sell gangbusters (just like RE5 did). And would that now mean that there's a foundation? Again, no it wouldn't - platform-proof games don't show anything one way or the other!
Leondexter said:
Apparently the difference between you and me is that I liked quite a few early Wii games and wanted more, whereas you've decided that they were all shit and that everyone else thought so, too. Either way, the market to buy those games did exist, because they sold. Whether consumers were driven away because there weren't enough good games including the ones they bought or other than the ones they bought is irrelevant, and you're wrong.
Early adopters drive software sales for ALL platforms early on. Even PSP had people buying software in the West in the first year before ultimately teetering out into the wasteland it is now.
Again, a true foundation is not built based on launch-year software, which is almost uniformly buggy and shitty across all platforms (as it was on Wii). People stick around because they know the future might offer something different.
Nintendo however had the Wii pegged from the gate as a system that catered toward a specific set of games, and all their marketing, game development focus and developer support suggested this precise same thing. Any consumer would have made the same logical conclusion.
There was never a foundation because Nintendo never built it, nor wanted it.
Leondexter said:
Oh, get over yourself. You don't decide what's good for anyone but you. People enjoy different things. I liked CoD because the pointer controls worked well, simple as that. I'll happily admit the game outside of that was a poor reflection of its HD counterpart, but I was bored with WWII shooters and gave the fresh controls a shot. Those controls made it unique and worked well enough to whet my appetite for hopefully better games in the genre. That's entirely reasonable. Quite more so that your sadist theory.
You'll forgive me for calling bullshit. The idea that pointer controls - which are a shoddy, mid-level improvement at best over traditional controllers which are functionally worse than keyboard+mouse controls - magically LIT UP this entire genre for you (despite the games being corroded, horrible ports) which you were bored at is typical abused spouse behavior.
If all it took was "better controls" to make you interested in FPS again, then you should have been always interested in it - on the PC. But you're suggesting that you were bored across the board, and that this stop-gap pointing solution which isn't even close to as good KB+M and only incrementally superior than the typical controller magically changed your whole mind about the genre.
So magically that you were willing to take the fact that the developer was clearly gimping the shit out of the title because of the Wii's horrendously limited functionality.
That is someone who likes abuse, period. Anyone whose issue was controls in FPS would have moved to PC gaming, and anyone who hated the way traditional controllers functioned would not turn to shitty ports with poor gameplay propped up by the barest attempt at Wiimote immersion.
Leondexter said:
Yikes. I thought this was a discussion amongst reasonable, intelligent individuals. "It's a fact that what you like sucks" is a bit out of that realm, isn't it? Let's try and stay in keeping with the thread title.
It's a fact that you like to be abused. Slightly different. It's not something you should take personally, and it certainly isn't beyond intelligent discourse. It makes sense to me to acknowledge a fundamental problem with your approach to Wii games, since it is obviously coloring your entire perspective.
You should not allow yourself to be abused. It's bad for you, and I care Leondexter. I care deeply about people who allow themselves to be abused. Friends don't let friends be abused.
Leondexter said:
I can agree with that, sure. And I completely respect companies that decided not to work on the Wii. There's nothing wrong with that. It's the ones that did so, but with incredibly low standards (which is quite a few of them) that bother me. Developers left and right made what amounts to shovelware for the Wii. How is that better than "lowering their standards" to work outside their chosen genre? That's another very twisted view. I guess if you're going to "stop making what you're good at", you should go all the way down, is that it? That's a load of BS.
No. They simply should develop the good shit for platforms that do want their stuff. That's PS360PC. There was never any market for hardcore games on Wii, never a foundation, and so they have not desired to put in more added effort. Their hardcore games - whether good quality or bad - universally bomb, outside of platform-proof titles.
You forget that Nintendo has competitors. And their biggest "victory" this gen - if you can call it that - was that they DID cater to hardcore games and developers, and you know what? Consumers saw that, and developers saw that. And so even beyond the fact that they had predicted PS3 to win which hurt Wii early on, PS360 would have likely always been the go-to platform for hardcore games. Because it has the features hardcore gamers want, the power hardcore gamers want and because Sony and Microsoft marketed it that way.
And because developers can port across all platforms with ease. The biggest mistake for gimping the shit out of Wii's power was this.
In the end, what motivation exactly did these developers have to even START putting their biggest effort on Wii? Nintendo showed no desire for their support, and Sony and Microsoft did. And occasionally... they even paid for it.
Leondexter said:
But not all of it, and not the majority of it. I have no doubt that Nintendo is awful to work with, but these companies are responsible for their own decisions and product.
And the one MOST responsible for the Wii product - the very thing that defines the outline of how people will think about your software library - is Nintendo.
Trying to say it's even mostly developers fault is hilarious reflexive fanboy bullshit, in my opinion. Nintendo did not support developers, did not care about them, they marketed their system a certain way and their own software reflected that. For the first two years the Wii was a horrible thing for hardcore gamers. Again, there was no foundation built.
Nintendo defines how consumers look at the Wii, not other developers. They had to lead the way. They did lead the way - to a paradise of casual tardware which developers have no interest in making (or when they do, they make it poorly). Because it's NOT IN THEIR DNA. And they shouldn't have to lower their standards to such a catastrophically low place simply because Nintendo doesn't focus on it.
And a simple side note to this all: On the few occasions third party developers were really successful outside of platform-proof titles, it was with the casual games. Positive reinforcement and all that continually suggested to developers this is what the audience wanted. It's what they wanted when they purchased the Raving Rabbids games, or when they purchased Carnival Games, or EA Active or Just Dance.
In other words, developers are only being rewarded
when they don't make hardcore games.
ElFly said:
EA porting the sims and ubisoft porting splinter cell is expected, and not on the same level of effort than mgs33D
Factually false.
EA has announced the absolute biggest franchises they have at their disposal for the 3DS. In fact, this is the same type of support they've thrown behind all the systems they ended up supporting the most.
Madden, FIFA and the Sims are what defines EA (incidentally, these franchises are bigger than Metal Gear Solid too). All the developers who announced support for the 3DS to date have done the same thing EA has - which is announce their absolute biggest franchises they have for the thing.
Because 3DS is so early, this actually IS the greatest level of support a company can show.
SquareEnix announced Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest and Kingdom Hearts.
EA announced Madden, FIFA and the Sims.
Atlus announced the Shin Megami Tensei series.
Capcom announced Resident Evil and Street Fighter.
Konami announced Pro Evolution Soccer, Metal Gear Solid, etc.
Do you see a pattern? If you don't, it's because you're being willfully dense.
So I'll give you the answer:
EVERY developer currently announced has revealed their token maximum support via their
Biggest Franchises for the 3DS. In essence, you literally cannot have a greater showing of support right out of the gate than 3DS has.
Eteric Rice said:
No idea what he's talking about in terms of Western support.
Call me when Bioware, Bethesda, etc announce support with their major franchises (Dragon Age, Fallout, Oblivion, etc.
Unless he means EA, Activision, and Ubisoft, which we all know will dump 10,000 pounds of shovelware on to the system.
Reading comprehension. I said any Western and Eastern developer
currently announced has given their maximum support. The biggest ones have announced their support.
Companies like Bioware and Bethesda
are not handheld companies. They are noteworthy Western companies who have to date shown very little interest in either DS or PSP or any other handheld platform. They've done very little on either handheld to date. Handheld development is not in their DNA.
Acting as if they have some sort of specific vendetta against the 3DS and that it's an affront they didn't announce something out of the gate (when there's tons of smaller developers both Japanese and Western who probably weren't even given dev kits at the early stage 3DS was unveiled) is hilarious and straight up fanboy bullshit.
