• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Let's talk intelligently: Is the Wii done as far as third parties go?

hxa155

Member
Mar 16, 2009
1,653
0
0
I don't think it's possible to talk intelligently when it comes to the Wii and 3rd party. :lol At least not for a long time. But to answer your question, yes, it's basically done. Granted there are a lot of new 3rd party games coming out for the Wii, like Epic Mickey and Dragon Quest X, but it's missing out on a lot of multiplatforms that are only on HD consoles.
 

norinrad

Member
Aug 13, 2009
7,554
13
785
Nuclear Muffin said:
It's finished, doesn't matter if Epic Mickey or Goldeneye are successful or not. There isn't really enough time to develop any big major games for the system anyway since the Wii's successor will probably be announced at E3 next year and released late 2011/early 2012.

If Nintendo are smart, they'll be shopping around for their next console right about now.
I don't get why people always make these comments, i really can't wrap my mind around it, you make it sound like Nintendo is a sinking ship when history has proven time and time again its the 3rd parties that need to adapt change their strategies to be able to get a piece of the PIE Nintendo enjoys. If Nintendo was run by some of the people here judging by the comments being made, the company would have gone out of business years ago or worse ended up like Sega.
 

Busaiku

Member
Apr 5, 2006
46,931
1
0
InsaneZero said:
There is literally weeks of NOTHING coming out for the Wii in Japan, and software sales have tanked considerably. Hardware sales are just barely passable. Development and sales-wise, Nintendo's home ground has been purged with salt when it comes to consoles.
Just take a look at Nintendo's latest report.
Their Q1 sales (in Japan and the US) are actually up with 3 new games in Japan and 2 new games in the US in that period.
With more titles available for the rest of the year, and into next year (though probably nothing as big as New Super Mario Bros Wii or Wii Fit Plus), they're still in an ok position for now.
 
Feb 28, 2009
39,081
2
0
What each platform represents has been established. Had 3rd parties been more enthusiastic in the beginning instead of taking the "wait and see" approach, the Wii could've been a mecca for 3rd parties. Unfortunately, the ship has sailed and anything on the horizon are "B" tier games save DQX and Epic Mickey.

However, that isn't to say there won't be surprises. I was not expecting Little King's Story to beat out every single "AAA" game I played last year. I'm sure there will still be games like those. There just won't be super big budget games that appeal to the "mainstream" gamer.
 

Arpharmd B

Banned
Nov 3, 2007
3,884
1
0
viciouskillersquirrel said:
I've said this in the Media Create thread already - third parties created a situation on Wii where their games will not sell. They mostly did this by not building up a userbase for their games when they had the chance to.

When a system launches, its audience is almost uniformly made up of core gamers. This audience is starved of software and doesn't have a lot of options. This is a great chance for a publisher to release new IP or to expand the audience for existing IP - people will buy your game through lack of options and if your game is good, they'll also buy the sequel you release a year or so later.

The key then is to follow up on the launch window with a steady stream of releases so that you're cultivating the audience every time they're done with your last release. At the end, there's little need for esoteric market research to find out what the audience on a console wants - you've built the audience yourself and cultivated it from launch.

Thing is, prolonged release droughts will kill that audience. If you're not providing content to keep them excited, eventually, they will move on. This is what happened with Capcom and Ubisoft with the Wii. They hit the ground running with RE4 Wii and Red Steel. Both sold gangbusters and established an audience for their kind of title. Neither were followed up in a timely manner, however (in RE4's case, light gun spinoffs were not what the audience wanted and Red Steel 2 came far too late).

Nintendo, on the other hand, kept releasing games (with a few gaps - 2009 anyone?) and the Nintendo audience on the system is as strong as ever.

There was an audience for third party games on Wii. Third parties killed it.
You have this backwards. You need to consider the audience who buys the console, not the other way around. The audience that made the Wii a runaway sales success did not consist of RPG or FPS fans.

You can't force an audience where it doesn't exist.

Look at Madden or Call of Duty. Both franchises had Wii releases early on, yet they just didn't sell but a fraction of the HD versions. The Wii audience spoke, they don't want Call of Duty or Madden. They want Just Dance. How is this the 3rd parties fault?
 

Mrbob

Member
Jun 7, 2004
63,747
6
0
The problem with the Wii in the west in the system is underpowered. Say what you will about the PS3 and 360, but assets can be created and used for both consoles which diffuse cost. To make a Wii version a developer has to create all new assets and redesign the game because the structure cannot fit, so in some ways a Wii version ends up being more costly to make since it needs a separate development process. Nintendo doesn't need the most powerful system, but their next system does need to be in the same ballpark as what Sony and MS offer. Then you'll see 3rd party development for the platform jump exponentially.
 

Platy

Member
Nov 26, 2009
37,152
7
880
Brazil
Linkhero1 said:
Last Story and Xenoblade are third party now?
I always took "third party" as developers* .... kinda strange to think in Professor Layton, Dragon Quest 9, Trauma Center, Apolo Justice, Monster Hunter Tri , Fatal Frame IV, Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles and other non nintendo (or second party) developed games published by Nintendo somewhere

...but the amount of people quoting me on that .... i guess i was wrong =/

*Unless is a co-production or it is paid or something ... like nintendo giving F-zero GX to SEGA or some zelda games to Capcom
 

Beth Cyra

Member
Nov 7, 2009
16,041
0
0
Oregon
Arpharmd B said:
You have this backwards. You need to consider the audience who buys the console, not the other way around. The audience that made the Wii a runaway sales success did not consist of RPG or FPS fans.

You can't force an audience where it doesn't exist.

Look at Madden or Call of Duty. Both franchises had Wii releases early on, yet they just didn't sell but a fraction of the HD versions. The Wii audience spoke, they don't want Call of Duty or Madden. They want Just Dance. How is this the 3rd parties fault?
I can see Madden, but I really wish people would stop listing Call of Duty as a failure 2 different games did over a million and another over 500K.

Just because it doesn't do the numbers it does on other platforms does not mean it was a failure or Wii owners don't want it.
 

InsaneZero

Member
Jul 25, 2008
3,960
0
0
TruePrime said:
I really don't see why this should be leveled at Wii, considering PS3 and Wii are neck and neck in hardware sales this year while Wii still has a huge LTD lead.

This is best left to Software which is where the real problem lies.
Was it good before? Yes, that's why the LTD lead is huge.
Does that matter? Hell no. The fact that the Wii and the PS3 is neck and neck now despite this generation's past speaks volumes of how healthy the Wii is at the moment. Software drives hardware, and by that logic the Wii userbase is not going to be consistently growing in the future. Thus the barely passable designation.
 

Faxanadu

Member
Jan 6, 2010
494
0
0
Earth
Arpharmd B said:
You have this backwards. You need to consider the audience who buys the console, not the other way around. The audience that made the Wii a runaway sales success did not consist of RPG or FPS fans.

You can't force an audience where it doesn't exist.

Look at Madden or Call of Duty. Both franchises had Wii releases early on, yet they just didn't sell but a fraction of the HD versions. The Wii audience spoke, they don't want Call of Duty or Madden. They want Just Dance. How is this the 3rd parties fault?
In the past gamers went where the games were. Usually that was the winning system. "X" system sells the mose units? Games were automatically developed there. That's all toppled over this generation.
 
Feb 28, 2009
39,081
2
0
Mrbob said:
The problem with the Wii in the west in the system is underpowered. Say what you will about the PS3 and 360, but assets can be created and used for both consoles which diffuse cost. To make a Wii version a developer has to create all new assets and redesign the game because the structure cannot fit, so in some ways a Wii version ends up being more costly to make since it needs a separate development process. Nintendo doesn't need the most powerful system, but their next system does need to be in the same ballpark as what Sony and MS offer. Then you'll see 3rd party development for the platform jump exponentially.
I know it's true but this post depresses me because it truly means the death of exclusives :(
 

Black Rainbow

Member
May 27, 2009
309
0
0
Intelligently? Does this even need to be asked? Outside of a few important titles here and there, 3rd parties never really gave the Wii a fair shake. That isn't going to magically change at this late stage in the game. It is what it is but Nintendo has proven yet again that 3rd party support doesn't really matter all that much on their home consoles. Nintendo has done an admirable job of satisfying Wii owners all by its itself.
 

Beth Cyra

Member
Nov 7, 2009
16,041
0
0
Oregon
InsaneZero said:
Was it good before? Yes, that's why the LTD lead is huge.
Does that matter? Hell no. The fact that the Wii and the PS3 is neck and neck now despite this generation's past speaks volumes of how healthy the Wii is at the moment. Software drives hardware, and by that logic the Wii userbase is not going to be consistently growing in the future. Thus the barely passable designation.
That doesn't matter. You can't only use it for one side of the argument, if the PS3 really is on the upswing and it is so much more dominate then by your argument it should be doing much better then it is.

As I said, bring forth Hardware especially when looking in americas and the fact that Wii still easily crushes PS3 month after month is pointless.

This is about 3rd Parties and software.
 

Man God

Non-Canon Member
Nov 2, 2007
70,821
1
0
Wii has a surprisingly large amount of them actually.

Huge budget third party exclusives, on the other hand. Pretty damn rare.
 

jiggle

Member
Jun 7, 2004
20,372
1
0
Faxanadu said:
"X" system sells the mose units? Games were automatically developed there. That's all toppled over this generation.


that did happen
on DS :p
and next on 3DS
 

Rush2thestart

Member
Mar 10, 2009
1,594
0
0
Arpharmd B said:
Look at Madden or Call of Duty. Both franchises had Wii releases early on, yet they just didn't sell but a fraction of the HD versions. The Wii audience spoke, they don't want Call of Duty or Madden. They want Just Dance. How is this the 3rd parties fault?
Call of Duty 3 on Wii sold better than Call of Duty 3 on PS3. The reason why COD doesn't sell more on Wii anymore is because the platform missed out on the biggest game in the franchise at that point, Call of Duty 4 (by a large margin). That year was crucial and really hurt the franchises potential on the Wii.

As for Madden, I haven't really followed the series on Wii (have no interest), but I have heard that EA did a poor job of trying to reach the "Wii audience" and it bit them in the ass. I can see how that happeneed. Cartoony Madden? What were they thinking?

Anyway, he is right. You need to build a market for the games.
 

Platy

Member
Nov 26, 2009
37,152
7
880
Brazil
Mrbob said:
The problem with the Wii in the west in the system is underpowered. Say what you will about the PS3 and 360, but assets can be created and used for both consoles which diffuse cost. To make a Wii version a developer has to create all new assets and redesign the game because the structure cannot fit, so in some ways a Wii version ends up being more costly to make since it needs a separate development process. Nintendo doesn't need the most powerful system, but their next system does need to be in the same ballpark as what Sony and MS offer. Then you'll see 3rd party development for the platform jump exponentially.
MT Framework Lite ? =|
 

freddy

Banned
Jun 7, 2007
8,296
0
0
I don't think companies like to selling to half the userbase they were last generation on terms of traditional games but the ship sailed long ago and there weren't enough passengers. Last time round developers had a base of 130 million plus at this stage and this time they have been playing with far less. Meanwhile Nintendo has made bank with multiple 10 million plus sellers.

I think both sides will be working towards closing the gap specifications wise and perhaps more importantly to 3rd parties a more robust online service that will allow developers to peddle their horse armour more effectively and push content to a wider audience.
 

flyinpiranha

Member
Aug 25, 2009
11,261
0
0
Faxanadu said:
There's nothing wrong with going all out making games in HD. Problem is that's all western devs seem to care about. "Graphics Clowns" wasn't a reference to the HD systems.
It is a backbone of the Western industry ... "Make it for me, and make it HD!" ... but it's where the industry is going. I think it's odd that you state the dinosaur analogy in your original statement yet Nintendo (besides motion which now the others are doing too) stayed the most stagnant technology and series-wise. Metroid was another Prime. Zelda looks like another TP, Galaxy was truly good though ... while people praise Nintendo for innovating and pushing the industry forward they also stagnate in other areas.

I just feel that if the Wii was more powerful as a system more developers would be jumping on board (EDIT - took this out - didn't make sense to me haha). I don't think it's a "well, we waited too long so why do it now?" type of situation ... to be honest, that doesn't make any sense because the install base is higher than it was years ago. But I'm also not a developer so I'm not claiming anything, just discussing.
 

Man God

Non-Canon Member
Nov 2, 2007
70,821
1
0
Rush2thestart said:
Call of Duty 3 on Wii sold better than Call of Duty 3 on PS3. The reason why COD doesn't sell more on Wii anymore is because the platform missed out on the biggest game in the franchise at that point, Call of Duty 4 (by a large margin). That year was crucial and really hurt the franchises potential on the Wii.

As for Madden, I haven't really followed the series on Wii (have no interest), but I have heard that EA did a poor job of trying to reach the "Wii audience" and it bit them in the ass. I can see how that happeneed. Cartoony Madden? What were they thinking?

Anyway, he is right. You need to build a market for the games.
First Wii Madden game uses all sorts of funky motion controls and is one of the most fun football games I've ever played.

They ruined it the year after, and made it even worse the year after that.
 

Poyunch

Member
Dec 29, 2009
15,193
0
690
Platy said:
I always took "third party" as developers* .... kinda strange to think in Professor Layton, Dragon Quest 9, Trauma Center, Apolo Justice, Monster Hunter Tri , Fatal Frame IV, Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles and other non nintendo (or second party) developed games published by Nintendo somewhere

...but the amount of people quoting me on that .... i guess i was wrong =/

*Unless is a co-production or it is paid or something ... like nintendo giving F-zero GX to SEGA or some zelda games to Capcom
But Xenoblade and Monolith Soft are both Nintendo owned and The Last Story is a Nintendo IP and they sort of did give the IP for Mistwalker to develop.
 

Boney

Banned
Jan 6, 2010
33,742
0
0
Rush2thestart said:
Call of Duty 3 on Wii sold better than Call of Duty 3 on PS3. The reason why COD doesn't sell more on Wii anymore is because the platform missed out on the biggest game in the franchise at that point, Call of Duty 4 (by a large margin). That year was crucial and really hurt the franchises potential on the Wii.
Although this is true, it's not like it really matters. Neither did exceptionally well and if Wii would've get Modern Warfare, it would've been a "gimped" port. I'm not saying not having it there was a good decision, but not that big of a deal.
 

Fredescu

Member
Jan 30, 2007
15,388
0
0
Sydney, Aus
Faxanadu said:
In the past gamers went where the games were. Usually that was the winning system. "X" system sells the mose units? Games were automatically developed there. That's all toppled over this generation.
I was just thinking how frequently "hardware -> software -> hardware -> software" was trotted out in the months following the Wii launch. Funny how that didn't work out.

jiggle said:
that did happen
on DS :p
Not for western devs it didn't. That appears to be changing with the 3DS though.
 
Feb 28, 2009
39,081
2
0
speedpop said:
Third party exclusives died out a long time ago (outside of certain handheld releases, of course)
I'm including all consoles (not handhelds). There are still many games available on Wii that aren't on the HD twins.
 
Jun 11, 2006
9,239
0
0
Reposting what I *just* posted in the Media Create thread. Please excuse the rambling style - I'm barely awake.


BMF said:
Meh.

Nintendo had to pick and choose which directions that they were pushing their system as they don't have the unlimited resources that many believe that they have. From a financial success standpoint they chose very well. Unfortunately the 3rd parties really didn't pick up the slack.

It's sad that there isn't much of a market for RPGs on the Wii, and one can try to blame one party or the other, but in the end it just is what it is.

The Wii's market was formed in the first year of it's existence, and that year consisted almost entirely of Nintendo pushing games that they knew weren't going to come from 3rd parties and 3rd party leaders talking about the exiting opportunity while their individual developers openly hated the system because it couldn't produce sparks in HD resolutions. In the end, little worthwhile came from 3rd parties.

And so the software market for the Wii is what it is.
 

Beth Cyra

Member
Nov 7, 2009
16,041
0
0
Oregon
PounchEnvy said:
But Xenoblade and Monolith Soft are both Nintendo owned and The Last Story is a Nintendo IP and they sort of did give the IP for Mistwalker to develop.
When was it confirmed that The Last Story is a Nintendo IP? I know they are funding the project but I thought this was Mistwalkers Ip like Blue Dragon.
 

Alcibiades

Member
Jun 6, 2004
5,859
164
1,615
texas
Black Ops might actually do pretty well going by the success of World at War and Reflex, but beyond that there isn't much.

I think the major issue is that 3rd parties have never been willing to fully invest in the Wii to the same degree they do other consoles. Wii never saw flagship titles with extravagant budgets and first-rate development teams (except from Nintendo). The MT Framework situation is a good example, Capcom should have had that ready to go from the very beginning, even "watered down" ports of Devil May Cry 4, Resident Evil 5, etc... would have done well enough on the system (as long as they weren't as shoddy as something like Chop 'Till You Drop).
 
Apr 13, 2006
960
0
0
Pureauthor said:
The Wii as it stands is a horrible environment for third parties of the traditional stripe, and there's relatively little anyone can do to change that.

Third parties refused to build up a base during the system's early years, and Nintendo apparently did not do enough (or anything) to try to win them over. So that's where we stand now, and from a business perspective I'd be hard pressed to claim that putting more 3rd party games on the system is a good choice.

Of course the Wii is a relatively healthier choice for the people seeking places to put their expanded audience games, but I have a feeling this thread isn't talking about those.
Came into the thread to say pretty much this. Very well put.

In the UK in particular (not sure about the rest of Europe), expanded audience titles are still doing well. Ubisoft's Dance On Broadway is the latest big-seller, and Just Dance 2 will do decent numbers.

I think Wii's sales could drop off quite significantly next year (heck, it's clear they already have to some extent by the simple fact that retailers are putting together bundles at attractive prices rather than sticking with the RRP as they did when it was flying off the shelves). A price cut before this holiday season wouldn't entirely surprise me, but I've got a bad feeling that Epic Mickey will flop. It'll perhaps do better than a lot of core-focused third-party titles but not the kind of numbers Disney needs.

Next year's going to be almost exclusively Nintendo with just the occasional big casual release from two or three of the major publishers. It wouldn't entirely surprise me if Nintendo just focused on 3DS and gradually reduced Wii support.

As for how we got here, as others have said, most third-parties waited far too long to get on board with Wii, and by that stage, the core audience was starting to get slightly disillusioned. Third-party devs didn't want to work on a comparatively underpowered console, we got a ton of half-arsed ports and - crucially - no-one marketed their core titles to any degree. Then we got a vicious circle whereby publishers would make a game for the console, steadfastly refuse to market it, then say "well, what's the point" when, inevitably, poor sales followed.

That's not to say that marketing would have made all the difference, but games with substantial campaigns - ie the ones where Nintendo has partnered with another publisher, so Dragon Quest and Monster Hunter - have both done pretty well. Admittedly not crazy numbers, but relatively healthy compared to, say, MadWorld and Dead Space Extraction.

The other problem, and this is something I fully expect a lot of people to disagree with, is the hypocrisy of many core gamers who might claim they're not bothered about HD or the additional processing power of PS3 and 360, but whose purchasing habits clearly prove they are. There's a fairly substantial audience that ignores some of the best third-party titles on Wii and uses their machine simply as a 'Nintendo player'. Granted, Nintendo has made probably eight of the console's ten best games, but there are plenty of well-reviewed third-party games that have simply been ignored.

I do think the specialist gaming press has played a small part here, hopping aboard the hype train for big PS3/360 releases but not doing enough to draw readers' attention to the best Wii titles. The divisiveness of motion-control in general has exacerbated this issue, with many of the Wii's early greats receiving very mixed reviews thanks to some critics either taking their sweet time in growing accustomed to the remote and nunchuk or being simply unwilling to accept such a significant change in a console's core setup. Sitting down for Wii Sports, anyone?
 

Rush2thestart

Member
Mar 10, 2009
1,594
0
0
Boney said:
Although this is true, it's not like it really matters. Neither did exceptionally well and if Wii would've get Modern Warfare, it would've been a "gimped" port. I'm not saying not having it there was a good decision, but not that big of a deal.
COD3 was a million seller on Wii and PS3. That is good. Not post-COD4 good, but good.

As for the whole "gimped" port thing, COD: MW Reflex was a very faithful port. Those small differences wouldn't have made much difference. I believe Reflex managed to surpass 1 mil with no advertising and being a 2 year old port.
 

Black Rainbow

Member
May 27, 2009
309
0
0
flyinpiranha said:
It is a backbone of the Western industry ... "Make it for me, and make it HD!" ... but it's where the industry is going. I think it's odd that you state the dinosaur analogy in your original statement yet Nintendo (besides motion which now the others are doing too) stayed the most stagnant technology and series-wise. Metroid was another Prime. Zelda looks like another TP, Galaxy was truly good though ... while people praise Nintendo for innovating and pushing the industry forward they also stagnate in other areas.
The most stagnant? All companies make sequels that are like their predecessors. Why designate Nintendo as the company that has "stayed the most stagnant series-wise"? That's a strange criticism if I've ever read one.
 

Man God

Non-Canon Member
Nov 2, 2007
70,821
1
0
Fredescu said:
Not for western devs it didn't. That appears to be changing with the 3DS though.
How soon people forget. Tons of 3rd party games from western developers came out during the first year of both the DS and the GBA. Most were terrible and sold accordingly, then the companies just gave up.
 

Htown

STOP SHITTING ON MY MOTHER'S HEADSTONE
Feb 19, 2008
44,007
6
0
I don't think third parties were ever really on board with the Wii. Everybody figured the Wii would be an also-ran, so they barely gave any support to the system. Yes there are quality third party games on the Wii, but they're usually little niche titles or strange second tier experimental things. The main focus for third parties has always been on the HD systems, with the Wii getting little side projects or spinoffs. Or "test" games.

And that's the worst part. Once the third parties saw that the Wii was selling gangbusters, they didn't shift development of major "hardcore" titles to the platform. They put out test games to see if the hardcore audience was there. The problem is, for the most part the hardcore audience doesn't want test games, they want the real deal.

So here's how it went: the Wii comes out, sells a lot of units. Third parties get caught with their pants down, and don't really have anything big out for the system. They see that casual games sell a ton, since Nintendo was focused on bringing in new gamers with games like Wii Sports, and that they're relatively cheap to develop, so a wave of casual games comes in. Meanwhile, third parties start releasing "test games", usually late or last-gen ports or off-genre spinoffs to see if there's a hardcore market on Wii, too. But hardcore gamers don't buy those kinds of games that much.

Everybody figures there's no hardcore market on the Wii, since the only thing that's been selling on the system (warning: insane generalization alert) is casual stuff. They ignore the fact that Nintendo's hardcore games sell well, because it's Nintendo and their franchises would sell well regardless, so it doesn't count. From then on, it's only second tier titles, except for the occasional publisher who tries to take a B title and put it on Wii, expecting it to sell like a AAA title because "there aren't any shooters/hyperviolent brawlers on Wii".

Basically, the third parties poisoned the Wii software lineup with games that were either bad, rushed, niche, spinoff or "test" games and then complained that there wasn't a healthy software ecosystem on the platform. And then the few good solid releases that companies did release on the system a few years into the Wii's lifespan were ignored, because the hardcore gamers had no reason to trust that any third party game wouldn't waste their money on some nonsense.

Japanese developers were slightly better at jumping on board than western devs, so the Wii has a couple of big titles - no, scratch that. The Wii has a couple of "big" third party titles in franchises that have only ever been super popular in Japan.

tl;dr Third parties are done with the Wii because they've never not been done with the Wii.

Somebody post the "walls of shame" images with pics of the third party releases for the system, please.
 

seady

Member
Oct 31, 2009
4,387
1
670
Hong Kong
I think we need to define "AAA games" differently on the Wii compare to the HD Consoles.

PS3/360 owners consider Splinter Cell, Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty are AAA games, but when the same games come to the Wii, we will get the feeling that they are just downgraded ports that don't really belong to the Wii in the first place. No matter how much effort or bonus content they put in it, they will still feel like an inferior version of something better.

The core userbase of Wii also don't consider those hardcore franchise as AAA titles. They don't give a damn about Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty. Developer can ask to make the next Call of Duty exclusive on the Wii and that would make a huge uproar in the hardcore community, but from a random Wii user's standpoint, they don't see it as an important title.
 

XiaNaphryz

LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
Nov 5, 2005
52,177
0
0
SF Bay Area
ShockingAlberto said:
The biggest third party Wii games? Trauma Team (one of my GOTYs)
What's sad is that a lot of people will likely never get around to Trauma Team. Easily Wii GOTY if SMG2 wasn't a factor.

Hell, it took Kotaku a few months to get around and review it:

I expected Trauma Team to be a somewhat tired sequel, the fifth of a something that surely was tapped for all its best ideas by now. Not the case. Whatever you may think of Japanese-developed surgery games that involve macho surgeons and delicate ladies.. whatever you may think of a game that looks like it could be a bad anime or a bland third stab at the Wii ... think again. This game takes chances most games on any platform don't. It plays well, tells a good story in a great way. It should be on best-Wii-games lists. It makes the cut. Easily.
 
Sep 13, 2007
11,023
0
0
I doubt there are any mind blowing new 3rd party exclusives on the horizon, but we'll probably see another handful of interesting little low-mid budget niche games, which are what the Wii has always gotten.

Like a few people have mentioned, I'm interested to see how publishers will react to Nintendo's next console, and how powerful Nintendo will make it. In a single generation people have come to expect modest graphics from Nintendo systems, but that's not indicative of the entire history of their hardware. Nintendo also has a greater potential wow factor going into the next console generation because of how this one shaped people's expectations.
 

wazoo

Member
Jun 10, 2004
5,579
0
0
cosmicblizzard said:
However, that isn't to say there won't be surprises. I was not expecting Little King's Story to beat out every single "AAA" game I played last year. I'm sure there will still be games like those. There just won't be super big budget games that appeal to the "mainstream" gamer.
Even 2nd tier niche games are gone missing for 2011. That is really the problem. Wii has been a good home for all those non blokbusters games, but I see them going to 3DS. This year, the first half was quite heavy, but pretty much everything announced at E3 will be out by christmas (except a few late exceptions).

Anyway, the 1st party games alone justify the Wii2 to be delayed to 2012. Looking at the last year of the GC or N64, we have not yet reached such low outputs.
 

Fredescu

Member
Jan 30, 2007
15,388
0
0
Sydney, Aus
Man God said:
How soon people forget. Tons of 3rd party games from western developers came out during the first year of both the DS and the GBA. Most were terrible and sold accordingly, then the companies just gave up.
Which of those games would you classify as a significant effort in terms of budget and creativity? Obviously GTA: CW is the high water mark, but I don't mean that far necessarily.
 

GhaleonQ

Member
Aug 24, 2006
11,572
5
1,260
Milwaukee/Wisconsin Rapids/Hanover
Htown, it seems like your premise is that only very high budget, U.S. oriented games can carry a system? That's not obvious from this generation's sales figures, nor does it make sense to apply the Playstation 3/Xbox 360 template to the way the Wii was pitched. "Throw some gruff-guy shooters at it" is facile, I think.

Platy said:
I always took "third party" as developers* .... kinda strange to think in Professor Layton, Dragon Quest 9, Trauma Center, Apolo Justice, Monster Hunter Tri , Fatal Frame IV, Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles and other non nintendo (or second party) developed games published by Nintendo somewhere

...but the amount of people quoting me on that .... i guess i was wrong =/

*Unless is a co-production or it is paid or something ... like nintendo giving F-zero GX to SEGA or some zelda games to Capcom
I will stand by you in your error, since I got yelled at a while back for insisting on the same thing. HEY, EVERYONE, YOU SUCK.

XiaNaphryz said:
What's sad is that a lot of people will likely never get around to Trauma Team. Easily Wii GOTY if SMG2 wasn't a factor.

Hell, it took Kotaku a few months to get around and review it:
Does anyone one want to try the, "It's games writers fault," defence? I think it's somewhat valid here. I'm not suggesting that they didn't get niche attention, but the absence from any year-end or hidden gems conversation (especially given the increased attention to downloadable-but-only-on-Playstation-Network-or-Xbox-Live and IPhone games) had to hurt lifetime sales.
 

jump_button

Banned
Dec 24, 2007
5,097
0
0
Big N could had set them self apart with the wii mote on it on they didnt have to go for the low end, but by doing so made devs pick between 2 HD or Wii that they was unsure would be a hit and not a fad

most devs still think wii is a fad
 

VerTiGo

Banned
Jan 10, 2005
2,419
0
0
I don't think it's dead in any form. You'll still see games like Epic Mickey and Sonic Colors coming to the platform with decent sales performance. Some publishers will still find the right games to release on the platform, but most will probably follow whatever game trends that Nintendo has proven succesful on the platform.

With this said, less shovelware, less quantity, but probably and increase in quality for whatever does come the Wii's way.
 

Man God

Non-Canon Member
Nov 2, 2007
70,821
1
0
Fredescu said:
Which of those games would you classify as a significant effort in terms of budget and creativity? Obviously GTA: CW is the high water mark, but I don't mean that far necessarily.
Shit like sports titles, Tony Hawk on the GBA. PoP Tactics and Age of Empires on the DS. Ubisoft bringing over the terrible Lunar DS. Some decent hitters.

PSP had an interesting run of PS2 ports and GTA games. Then people realized that DC graphics with PSX loadtimes on a handheld with an hour of battery life just wasn't what they wanted.
 

ElFly

Member
Sep 3, 2006
16,567
0
0
jump_button said:
Big N could had set them self apart with the wii mote on it on they didnt have to go for the low end, but by doing so made devs pick between 2 HD or Wii that they was unsure would be a hit and not a fad

most devs still think wii is a fad
But in the last generation where Nintendo was on the same level that the competition, technologically speaking, the third party support was mediocre at best.
 

Xellos

Member
Jun 10, 2004
1,667
62
1,415
I don't know, for the rest of 2010, third party support looks about as good as it ever did. Which is to say, Epic Mickey looks good, Goldeneye and NBA Jam seem like they might be fun, Sonic Colors may actually turn out OK (Sonic Cycle stage 1), and this year's Call of Duty will actually be released . . . this year! There won't be any new rail shooters though, just a port of LA Machine Guns, so I guess Wii third party support is slipping on that front.
 

Black Rainbow

Member
May 27, 2009
309
0
0
jump_button said:
Big N could had set them self apart with the wii mote on it on they didnt have to go for the low end, but by doing so made devs pick between 2 HD or Wii that they was unsure would be a hit and not a fad

most devs still think wii is a fad
A fad, by definition, is something that is only popular for a short time. The Wii has been popular since it was released in 2006. If "most devs" feel the Wii is a fad, it's high time some of them pick up a dictionary and learn what the term fad truly means because they're clueless about its definition right now.