The Wii is a very misunderstood console.

[QUOTE="Last-Resort"][QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"] I don't think it's an unfair comparison though. It launched alongside the PS3 and the Xbox 360 so it is firmly rooted in this generation of consoles. If it launched in the PS2 era then you may have a point. However even then you really wouldn't because then we would be having the PS2 library vs the Wii's. There is no question that the PS2 destroys it, it has one of the greatest librarys since the SNES. This brings me back to my original point that the Wii's library is fvcking terrible. I traded mine in a few years ago because of it. I had one at launch, it has some good games. But only a few. Noone's lining up at the door to buy fvcking Rygar or Endless Ocean.GreekGameManiac

Lol.

Is that why the Wii sold so much more than it's competitors?

[QUOTE="famicommander"]I have had all three consoles for years now and I believe without question that the Wii has a better library. So many hidden gems like Little King's Story, Zack and Wiki, Fragile Dreams, Blastworks, Castle of Shikigami III, Ivy the Kiwi, Deadly Creatures, Fishing Resort, Mercury Meltdown Revolution, Muramasa, Lost in Shadow, Red Steel 2, Rune Factory, MadWorld, A Boy and His Blob, and so many others... I think the Wii really hits the sweet spot between "full fledged HD console title with expensive development costs" and "download-only title with not enough content to sell for full price". The Wii is much cheaper to make games for and as a result I believe developers are more eager to take risks on full-fledged experiences. Grammaton-Cleric

I don't understand how anyone can claim that the Wii has a superior library when objectively looking at the evidence.

Even if you subscribe to the notion that the Wii actually enjoyed a healthy smattering of software (something your paltry list actually negates) there is no denying that in terms of genre and variety the Wii is tremendously handicapped when compared to the HD consoles.

Let's take a look at some of the genres:

Fighting – The Wii enjoyed maybe two or three viable fighters IF you include Smash Bros. And it lacked the online infrastructure to make the competitive multiplayer (which is the crux of the genre) anything more than an afterthought. By contrast, the HD systems saw, among others: Blazblue, MK9, Soul Caliber 4 and 5, Tekken 6, Virtua Fighter 5, (Final Tuned comes this summer) DOA 4 (and 5) Street Fighter IV, Third Strike and Turbo Re-mastered, SFXTekken, and Marvel Vs. Capcom 3,.

And those are just off the top of my head.

Shooters – Yeah…good luck with that on the Wii. Probably the best shooter on the console was the excellent Red Steel 2 and it wasn't even a dedicated shooter.

Racers – The Wii got Mario Kart…again. The HD systems got a new Grand Turismo, Forza, a new Burnout, Need for Speed, Split Second, Wipeout HD, Dirt, Pure …and the list goes on.

Platformers – Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 were excellent. Donkey Kong Country and some other entries were also very good. Overall it is probably the best-represented genre on the system and arguably the only genre where the console can compete head-on with the HD systems.

RPGs – No contest, the Wii loses hands down in terms of volume and variety. Hell, even the recent release of Xenoblade has been effectively matched (if not outright surpassed) by the release of the Witcher 2 next week on the XB360.

I could go on but the point is clear and definitive: The HD consoles clearly have more variety by genre than the Wii and offer a much broader experience.

Even more interesting is that not only are there far more games being released on the HD consoles but those games on average carry far higher meta scores than what is being released on the Wii.

Quality over quantity only works when what is being released is actually good. The Wii, like every other Nintendo console since the N64, enjoys a few high-profile releases (most of them first party) each year while just about everything else is shovel-ware sludge.

As to the notion that the Wii is some sort of platform for innovation, that argument is circa 2006 when people still thought the pitiful processing power of the console coupled with the (supposedly innovative) motion controls were going to ignite developers to innovate.

Then a sheet of ice water known as reality came pouring down from the heavens and these same people learned that processing power is necessary for certain innovations to be implemented and that perhaps making a console less powerful than the XB1 was, in retrospect, a short-sighted move.

The reality is that most high-end developers abandoned the Wii once they realized it was little more than a PS2 with waggle controls. Those who generously stayed on board and tried to make decent third party games (Red Steel, No More Heroes, Mad World) would eventually see their efforts eclipsed by Nintendo's first party titles and the proliferation of cheap games purchased en masse by a casual public uninterested in anything but the novelty of motion control.

And really, how do you make the erroneous leap that the Wii has the more innovative and divergent software?

Both PSN and XBLA enjoy libraries better than the entirety of the Wii console and both services have games far more innovative and divergent than anything seen on Nintendo's little white box. Games like Braid, Limbo, From Dust, Fez, I Am Alive, Journey, Super Meat Boy and so many more represent the apex of innovation while the Wii currently sits there waiting to die as its successor is prepared.

If you prefer the mediocre to the exceptional that is your right but again, objectively, the Wii is a third tier system with a third tier library.

Misunderstood the power of the waggle.

Seriously, I liked maybe 10 games all gen, and my Wii is seriously dusted.

All the more power if you like it, but no way it can compare to the Big HD Twins and all the multiplats it sorely misses due to it's lack of power, online and sensible controls. Just...such a miss.

The Wii isn't the strongest of the others, this I agree.

It's like every other system to me - every system has its share of good and bad games. I don't think anyone here is saying that the Wii is bad, it just wasn't up to snuff when compared to the PS3 and XBox 360. Watching these systems grow is like an episode of Road Runner; no matter what kind of ideas Wile E. Coyote can pull off, Road Runner continues to outsmart him and make him lose everytime. Not saying that Wile is bad in creativity, but he just fails. In this case, the Wii has an excellent number of titles that strengthen the system, such as Mario Galaxy 1 and 2, but when you bring up multiplayer or online components, it is left in the dust.

No question!

I enjoyed the Wii for a short time as I wanted to play Skyward Sword and a few other titles that interested me but in the end I just got sick of it. Came down to preference as I kinda got sick of the controller. It definitely has the potential, but not for me :|

The Wii have some good games on it but almost all of these games eould be better without the motion control.

I'm pretty happy with my Wii :).I have plenty of games to play,and many more that I want to buy.

@ TC you failed to mention House of the Dead: Overkill, A Boy and his Blob, Sin and Punishment 2, Mad World, Contra ReBirth, Castlevania ReBirth, Ghost Squad etc.... I think the Wii is fine as a stand alone console and if it were my primary console then I would be happy with it, to say that all the Wii has is Nintendo Titles is just flat out wrong. That's like saying all the 360 has is FPS or all PS3 has is Bluray movies. :roll: I've never seen a system attract so much hate. I mean sure, Genesis vs. SNES was just silly fanboys and not so sublimal messaging by the media but, the amount of anger and hate towards the Wii has certainly reached all time levels of disgusted gamers. Also, Wii threads attract flys like $#!t. The Wii isn't perfect but, neither are it's competitors. You can't go wrong with any of the three being your primary system and each one has something to offer. The same people who say waggle sucks, sure were thrilled when move and kinnect were announced. If you own all three great! But, seriously who has time to play every game worth playing?Spirit_of_87

The Wii obviously has some great games otherwise I wouldn't own one.

That said, if you place the Wii library (both physical and digital software) against either the PS3 or the XB360 it fails miserably.

Like I stated earlier, objectively it has a much smaller library and most of the genres aren't very well represented.

The only way I could see somebody using the Wii as their primary console is if they had little to no interest in fighters, zero interest in western RPGs, and were content to take sloppy ports and mediocre entries in most other genres save platforming.

Oh and waggle sucks, Kinnect sucks, and Move sucks.

Motion control was a joke in 2006 and it's an even bigger joke now.

Lol.

Is that why the Wii sold so much more than it's competitors?

GreekGameManiac

Have you seen the sales number s for the Wii lately?

The Wii sold because it was a fad and everyone –including a large segment of people who don't normally play games – bought one.

Now the fad is over and I seriously doubt the WiiU is going to put them back on top.

Here's how history will remember the Wii: Best-selling console – Worst game library.

Very much misunderstood. It has a bunch of great niche exclusives that you can't find anywhere else. Don't bother trying to explain that to knuckle-headed mainstream bro gamers though, or the critic-loving lap dogs.

Very much misunderstood. It has a bunch of great niche exclusives that you can't find anywhere else. Don't bother trying to explain that to knuckle-headed mainstream bro gamers though, or the critic-loving lap dogs.

Bigboi500

The PS3 and XB360 (especially the latter) both enjoy heaps of exclusives including some divergent and innovative gaming experiences.

And spare us all the "bro" nonsense. (That's a textbook straw man argument being erected in a hurricane)

Nintendo aimed for the lowest common denominator with the Wii and that is precisely what they hit.

Anything you care to throw out there as being unique I promise you can be countered with any number of killer exclusives on either HD console. And I'm not referring to AAA titles either but rather the massive torrent of downloadable software that effectively buries the Wii library and then some.

And if you do choose to factor in both physical games and digital downloads the sheer dominance of the HD twins becomes even more definitive.

The irony regarding those niche games you mention is that many of them would probably have seen much better success on the HD twins.

There is no misunderstanding the Wii. It was the best-selling console due to it being a casual fad and the masses who made the system a huge success bought some of the most turgid and unfathomably poor software available for the system.

Then the bubble burst and the low-grade tech coupled with the dearth of software has made the last two years of the Wii's lifecycle little more than a perfunctory exhibition by Nintendo. It's almost paradoxical how a console could be so financially successful and yet fail fundamentally on so many levels.

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

Very much misunderstood. It has a bunch of great niche exclusives that you can't find anywhere else. Don't bother trying to explain that to knuckle-headed mainstream bro gamers though, or the critic-loving lap dogs.

Grammaton-Cleric

The PS3 and XB360 (especially the latter) both enjoy heaps of exclusives including some divergent and innovative gaming experiences.

And spare us all the "bro" nonsense. (That's a textbook straw man argument being erected in a hurricane)

Nintendo aimed for the lowest common denominator with the Wii and that is precisely what they hit.

Anything you care to throw out there as being unique I promise you can be countered with any number of killer exclusives on either HD console. And I'm not referring to AAA titles either but rather the massive torrent of downloadable software that effectively buries the Wii library and then some.

And if you do choose to factor in both physical games and digital downloads the sheer dominance of the HD twins becomes even more definitive.

The irony regarding those niche games you mention is that many of them would probably have seen much better success on the HD twins.

There is no misunderstanding the Wii. It was the best-selling console due to it being a casual fad and the masses who made the system a huge success bought some of the most turgid and unfathomably poor software available for the system.

Then the bubble burst and the low-grade tech coupled with the dearth of software has made the last two years of the Wii's lifecycle little more than a perfunctory exhibition by Nintendo. It's almost paradoxical how a console could be so financially successful and yet fail fundamentally on so many levels.

Why bust out a measuring stick, because when you compare the HD twins to the PC, they look like dog excrement, so why say Wii games would be much better on pseudo pc's and just go all out and put them on the real thing?

Let's put away our e peens and internet bravado and leave that bullsh*t for System Wars.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

Very much misunderstood. It has a bunch of great niche exclusives that you can't find anywhere else. Don't bother trying to explain that to knuckle-headed mainstream bro gamers though, or the critic-loving lap dogs.

Bigboi500

The PS3 and XB360 (especially the latter) both enjoy heaps of exclusives including some divergent and innovative gaming experiences.

And spare us all the "bro" nonsense. (That's a textbook straw man argument being erected in a hurricane)

Nintendo aimed for the lowest common denominator with the Wii and that is precisely what they hit.

Anything you care to throw out there as being unique I promise you can be countered with any number of killer exclusives on either HD console. And I'm not referring to AAA titles either but rather the massive torrent of downloadable software that effectively buries the Wii library and then some.

And if you do choose to factor in both physical games and digital downloads the sheer dominance of the HD twins becomes even more definitive.

The irony regarding those niche games you mention is that many of them would probably have seen much better success on the HD twins.

There is no misunderstanding the Wii. It was the best-selling console due to it being a casual fad and the masses who made the system a huge success bought some of the most turgid and unfathomably poor software available for the system.

Then the bubble burst and the low-grade tech coupled with the dearth of software has made the last two years of the Wii's lifecycle little more than a perfunctory exhibition by Nintendo. It's almost paradoxical how a console could be so financially successful and yet fail fundamentally on so many levels.

Why bust out a measuring stick, because when you compare the HD twins to the PC, they look like dog excrement, so why say Wii games would be much better on pseudo pc's and just go all out and put them on the real thing?

Let's put away our e peens and internet bravado and leave that bullsh*t for System Wars.

It should also be kept in mind that me-tooism isn't caused by controllers its caused by timid developers and conservative gamers. Nintendo changed (simplified) the controller, but its still the most timid of the first parties in terms of core game creation and its fanbase is still the most conservative in terms of games they are willing to give a chance to. The only such games that put up decent numbers were the original No More Heroes and Red Steel because they launched extremely early in the life of the Wii when people were trying to see what their Wiimotes could do, and its worth noting that even their successors died at retail.

If Nintendo honestly wanted to expand its audience, it would have made a broader range of core games (purchasing a few talented developers or making alliances with indies). Instead Nintendo chose to play it safe, preaching to the converted (here's this week's Mario!), which is lucrative and low risk (not many Mario games fail to make money) but it doesn't expand the congregation.

As you just stated, the PC (with its healthy indie scene) has a tremendous amount of variety and innovation, despite the fact that the last change in the PC interface was the mouse.

It should also be kept in mind that me-tooism isn't caused by controllers its caused by timid developers and conservative gamers. Nintendo changed (simplified) the controller, but its still the most timid of the first parties in terms of core game creation and its fanbase is still the most conservative in terms of games they are willing to give a chance to. The only such games that put up decent numbers were the original No More Heroes and Red Steel because they launched extremely early in the life of the Wii when people were trying to see what their Wiimotes could do, and its worth noting that even their successors died at retail.

If Nintendo honestly wanted to expand its audience, it would have made a broader range of core games (purchasing a few talented developers or making alliances with indies). Instead Nintendo chose to play it safe, preaching to the converted (here's this week's Mario!), which is lucrative and low risk (not many Mario games fail to make money) but it doesn't expand the congregation.

As you just stated, the PC (with its healthy indie scene) has a tremendous amount of variety and innovation, despite the fact that the last change in the PC interface was the mouse.

CarnageHeart

Apparently Nintendo plans to keep the Wii remote to use along with the pad controller of the Wii U. It'll be interesting to see how that turns out, I think the new controller has a lot of potential (but that's another topic).

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

It should also be kept in mind that me-tooism isn't caused by controllers its caused by timid developers and conservative gamers. Nintendo changed (simplified) the controller, but its still the most timid of the first parties in terms of core game creation and its fanbase is still the most conservative in terms of games they are willing to give a chance to. The only such games that put up decent numbers were the original No More Heroes and Red Steel because they launched extremely early in the life of the Wii when people were trying to see what their Wiimotes could do, and its worth noting that even their successors died at retail.

If Nintendo honestly wanted to expand its audience, it would have made a broader range of core games (purchasing a few talented developers or making alliances with indies). Instead Nintendo chose to play it safe, preaching to the converted (here's this week's Mario!), which is lucrative and low risk (not many Mario games fail to make money) but it doesn't expand the congregation.

As you just stated, the PC (with its healthy indie scene) has a tremendous amount of variety and innovation, despite the fact that the last change in the PC interface was the mouse.

Bigboi500

Apparently Nintendo plans to keep the Wii remote to use along with the pad controller of the Wii U. It'll be interesting to see how that turns out, I think the new controller has a lot of potential (but that's another topic).

I didn't say anything negative about motion controls (I have a PS Move and had a PS Eye and an Eyetoy before that). Motion controls shouldn't be forced on games, but they do have their uses. Between my daughters and I games like LBP2, Swords and Soldiers, Beat Sketcher, Tumble, Everybody Dance and Eyepet have gotten quite a bit of play on my system and I am looking forward to Sorcery. One of these days I am going to try playing a shooter with the move, though I'm perfectly comfortable with the dual analog control scheme.

My point is that there is a difference between changing the controller (which Nintendo did) and offering new experiences (which Nintendo didn't). Surely you can agree that Mario (or Zelda) with motion controls is a lot less commercially risky than original games like Valkyria Chronicles, Viva Pinata, Littlebigplanet or Demon's Souls.

I think the fact that my mother bought a Wii so she could do her excercises tells me a lot about the console. And not even she uses it.

A fun little gimmick though, Wii Sports with the family is great.

I think it's pretty obvious to most people that the Wii's library is pretty great. In all honesty, it's probably the strongest first party effort from Nintendo since the SNES.

In terms of the best library, it's pretty subjective. Yeah, the Wii missed out on multiplat titles, but the other consoles missed out on some great Wii exclusives too.

I played the Wii more than my 360, though I know for a lot of other people it's the opposite. To each their own.

I think it's pretty obvious to most people that the Wii's library is pretty great. In all honesty, it's probably the strongest first party effort from Nintendo since the SNES.

In terms of the best library, it's pretty subjective. Yeah, the Wii missed out on multiplat titles, but the other consoles missed out on some great Wii exclusives too.

I played the Wii more than my 360, though I know for a lot of other people it's the opposite. To each their own.

Haziqonfire

Games like Xenoblade and The Last Story are begging for a port, although the former will never happen. I don't know if The Last Story is a Wii exclusive as well, but since this is Mistwalker we are talking about, a port could possibly happen, unless if Nintendo beat their competition to the punch.

In any case, I feel sorry for the Wii. They get handed what I hear is a good RPG called Tales Of Graces, only for Wii owners to get an inferior version, since Namco Bandai gave PS3 owners Tales Of Grace F. So while it may be good to have exclusives, in some cases, it just isn't meant to be.

Congrats for playing more than the usual 20-30 popular/decent/good games on the Nntendo Wii. 80 Games in you collection for wii. My main complaint with the Wii is that their are many games for it which are Playstation 2 ports. Legend of the Dragon, Mortal Kombat Armageddon, Bully Scholarship edition, Godzilla Unleashed, Obscure the Aftermath, Jeep Thrills, Rygar the Battle for Argus. These games are also on the PS2. There are more PS2 ports but I cannot think of them right now.

But you have played 80 Wii games, So you have given Nintendo's 6th console a decent chance. I also own a wii but I only have 8 games for it. Motion controls just are not my way of playing videogames. Nintendo has had huge success with the Wii. I have enjoyed all of their consoles. I still have NES/SNES/N64/GC and all of my Nintnedo systems have Over 30 games for them. Except the Wii.

I agree that Wii is a misunderstood console. By gamers, Third Party Developers and Nintendo themselves to an extent. But it is Nintendo first console that will break the 100.000,000 mark. Currently at 97.4 Million sold. The Wii is the "Winner" of the 7th gen console race. But the least popular and most Understood.

Well the mouse is its own form of motion control. Say what you will about motion controls, but both Sony and Microsoft implemented it in their systems in one form or another, with varying success. Certain games really benefit from it while others are better suited to standard controls imo. I disliked how it was used in Skyward Sword, but loved it in games like Animal Crossing, Metroid Prime Trilogy and No More Heroes 1 & 2.

Bigboi500

I'm having a bit of trouble udnerstanding this, because this is the way I see it. Not really an attack on the Wii, but motion controls in general.

Firstly, how is a mouse a form of motion control? It's for moving a cursor, yes, but I've never heard of a game that forces you to shake the mouse and move it in all sorts of weird patterns in order to advance. If anything, the mouse is just a more efficient and accurate implementation of the dual control sticks.

As for motion controls for Sony and Microsoft, they only introduced these measures because they Wii was selling like wildfire, and motion controls were the hot thing to capitalize on. The Move and Kinect were in no way targeted towards dedicated, core gamers; it was a method of bringing more non-gamers to the HD consoles.

Also, it's debatable whether or not games benefiting from motion controls is actually the case. It's more so a matter of games being *designed* formotion controls so they can work.

I personally don't think motion controls are helpful in any way, shape or form to gaming. People will claim that motion controls add a degree of immersion to the experience which is a load of bollocks; motion controls, much like virutal reality, are gimmicks. Motion controls do not incorporate physical feedback, so how can you possibly feel 'immersed'? Swinging a Wiimote or Move wand feels nothing like swinging a sword, or a chainsaw, or whatever the case may be.

Games like Xenoblade and The Last Story are begging for a port, although the former will never happen. I don't know if The Last Story is a Wii exclusive as well, but since this is Mistwalker we are talking about, a port could possibly happen, unless if Nintendo beat their competition to the punch.

In any case, I feel sorry for the Wii. They get handed what I hear is a good RPG called Tales Of Graces, only for Wii owners to get an inferior version, since Namco Bandai gave PS3 owners Tales Of Grace F. So while it may be good to have exclusives, in some cases, it just isn't meant to be.

Metamania

I don't think either of those could get ported. The Last Story is published by Nintendo in both EU and JP I believe, it's only NA that it's been outsourced to XSEED Games. Xenoblade has no chance at all in being ported since Monolith Soft is now owned by Nintendo and is a first party studio.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

Very much misunderstood. It has a bunch of great niche exclusives that you can't find anywhere else. Don't bother trying to explain that to knuckle-headed mainstream bro gamers though, or the critic-loving lap dogs.

Bigboi500

The PS3 and XB360 (especially the latter) both enjoy heaps of exclusives including some divergent and innovative gaming experiences.

And spare us all the "bro" nonsense. (That's a textbook straw man argument being erected in a hurricane)

Nintendo aimed for the lowest common denominator with the Wii and that is precisely what they hit.

Anything you care to throw out there as being unique I promise you can be countered with any number of killer exclusives on either HD console. And I'm not referring to AAA titles either but rather the massive torrent of downloadable software that effectively buries the Wii library and then some.

And if you do choose to factor in both physical games and digital downloads the sheer dominance of the HD twins becomes even more definitive.

The irony regarding those niche games you mention is that many of them would probably have seen much better success on the HD twins.

There is no misunderstanding the Wii. It was the best-selling console due to it being a casual fad and the masses who made the system a huge success bought some of the most turgid and unfathomably poor software available for the system.

Then the bubble burst and the low-grade tech coupled with the dearth of software has made the last two years of the Wii's lifecycle little more than a perfunctory exhibition by Nintendo. It's almost paradoxical how a console could be so financially successful and yet fail fundamentally on so many levels.

Why bust out a measuring stick, because when you compare the HD twins to the PC, they look like dog excrement, so why say Wii games would be much better on pseudo pc's and just go all out and put them on the real thing?

Let's put away our e peens and internet bravado and leave that bullsh*t for System Wars.

Why wouldn't the Wii be compared to the HD Twins?

Because Nintendo couldn't be bothered to release a system that was more than a slightly beefed up Gamecube?

That doesn't even begin to make sense.

The Wii is what Nintendo offered up during this console generation and thus is logically compared to other contemporary consoles released at the same time.

Back when the system was outselling the other two nobody had a problem comparing the consoles directly so why is it that now, the Wii is supposed to receive some sort of specialized classification?

Also, your assertion that Nintendo was looking to break up the alleged stagnancy of the industry is laughable. Nintendo doesn't care about stagnation (as evidenced by the way they handle a number of their franchises) but rather the Wii was a gamble that paid off, at least in consumer sales.

Of course the console didn't really innovate much of anything and motion control turned out to be much ado about nothing, which is why so many Nintendo 1st party titles used waggle sparingly. (arguably waggle was implemented perfunctory)

As to your comparison of PC gaming, I don't think most HD console games quite look like "dog excrement" in comparison because despite the age of the consoles they can still pull off graphical fidelity like the upcoming (and by all accounts outstanding) port of The Witcher 2.

Of course PCs are an abstraction, not a dedicated gaming platform, and they can always eclipse the power of even the newest console given the nature of their hardware. We are discussing the current console cycle, not the obvious technical superiority of the PC over EVERYTHING. (Which will never change)

Lastly, I would caution you to temper your emotions when accusing me of system war fodder when my posts are anything but. I own a Wii but I also happen to possess enough objectivity to identify the obvious and practically unending shortcomings of a console that was, from the very outset, predicated upon very low-end hardware and a unique but ultimately vapid input innovation.

It's also interesting that you've opted to completely ignore one incontrovertible fact: setting aside graphical fidelity, the Wii has a far smaller library and much less variety than the other systems.

Oh and the pseudo-PC thing was cute. Of course that would only make logical sense if the consoles you deride were actually trying to supplant or emulate the full breadth of PC functionality when in reality they are doing what they have always done: act as dedicated gaming platforms.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

It should also be kept in mind that me-tooism isn't caused by controllers its caused by timid developers and conservative gamers. Nintendo changed (simplified) the controller, but its still the most timid of the first parties in terms of core game creation and its fanbase is still the most conservative in terms of games they are willing to give a chance to. The only such games that put up decent numbers were the original No More Heroes and Red Steel because they launched extremely early in the life of the Wii when people were trying to see what their Wiimotes could do, and its worth noting that even their successors died at retail.

If Nintendo honestly wanted to expand its audience, it would have made a broader range of core games (purchasing a few talented developers or making alliances with indies). Instead Nintendo chose to play it safe, preaching to the converted (here's this week's Mario!), which is lucrative and low risk (not many Mario games fail to make money) but it doesn't expand the congregation.

As you just stated, the PC (with its healthy indie scene) has a tremendous amount of variety and innovation, despite the fact that the last change in the PC interface was the mouse.

Bigboi500

Apparently Nintendo plans to keep the Wii remote to use along with the pad controller of the Wii U. It'll be interesting to see how that turns out, I think the new controller has a lot of potential (but that's another topic).

I think it's pretty obvious to most people that the Wii's library is pretty great. In all honesty, it's probably the strongest first party effort from Nintendo since the SNES.

In terms of the best library, it's pretty subjective. Yeah, the Wii missed out on multiplat titles, but the other consoles missed out on some great Wii exclusives too.

I played the Wii more than my 360, though I know for a lot of other people it's the opposite. To each their own.

Haziqonfire

Personal opinion is fine but objectively the Wii has a fraction of the games available on the other two consoles and many genres are barely represented.

When the best FPS on your console is the Conduit, you've got a significant problem.

The fact that you personally prefer your Wii is clearly your right but that alone doesn't really do anything to negate the fact that the HD Twins have far more games, more variety, more entries in each respective genre, and the software as a whole carries a far better meta-score average.

And before we start slamming critical consensus entirely let's keep in mind that Nintendo 1st party titles tend to get serious latitude from the gaming press.

There is a certain segment of the gaming populace that will forgive Nintendo any transgression but after three lackluster consoles I'm losing my patience for such sporadic and paltry offerings. Every console since the SNES has been nothing but dry spells with an occasional oasis followed by more pronounced waiting.

I think I understood it just fine. It's a piece of s**t console with the most annoying influence on console gaming in history.

I think I understood it just fine. It's a piece of s**t console with the most annoying influence on console gaming in history.

UpInFlames

Its not a piece of sh!t really, its not great but i wouldn't go that far.

And gaming was always going to go the way of motion control eventually anyway, probably ending up as a full blown virtual reality.

Personal opinion is fine but objectively the Wii has a fraction of the games available on the other two consoles and many genres are barely represented.

When the best FPS on your console is the Conduit, you've got a significant problem.

The fact that you personally prefer your Wii is clearly your right but that alone doesn't really do anything to negate the fact that the HD Twins have far more games, more variety, more entries in each respective genre, and the software as a whole carries a far better meta-score average.

And before we start slamming critical consensus entirely let's keep in mind that Nintendo 1st party titles tend to get serious latitude from the gaming press.

There is a certain segment of the gaming populace that will forgive Nintendo any transgression but after three lackluster consoles I'm losing my patience for such sporadic and paltry offerings. Every console since the SNES has been nothing but dry spells with an occasional oasis followed by more pronounced waiting.

Grammaton-Cleric

I think that's wrong, as the last few Call of Duty games have been pretty good on the console. Then again, I've never really had an issue since I don't play first person shooters.

It's true the Wii misses out on multiplatform titles and that hurts it if you don't own another machine. Though, most core players own two platforms or more anyway.

I feel the opposite with the Wii. I've never really had moments where I haven't had something new to play, except for Winter 2008 which only had Animal Crossing and De Blob. Most of 2011 was also a dry spell, but I feel like the platform was basically done by the end of 2010 save for Zelda, Xenoblade and Last Story. It was obvious Nintendo was shifting focus on the 3DS and Wii U at that point.

So much hatred.

Tsk tsk tsk.

Grow up,people.

I bought one for the kids a couple years before I got my PS3. Current game library: Wii - 1 game. PS3 - 45+.

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

The PS3 and XB360 (especially the latter) both enjoy heaps of exclusives including some divergent and innovative gaming experiences.

And spare us all the "bro" nonsense. (That's a textbook straw man argument being erected in a hurricane)

Nintendo aimed for the lowest common denominator with the Wii and that is precisely what they hit.

Anything you care to throw out there as being unique I promise you can be countered with any number of killer exclusives on either HD console. And I'm not referring to AAA titles either but rather the massive torrent of downloadable software that effectively buries the Wii library and then some.

And if you do choose to factor in both physical games and digital downloads the sheer dominance of the HD twins becomes even more definitive.

The irony regarding those niche games you mention is that many of them would probably have seen much better success on the HD twins.

There is no misunderstanding the Wii. It was the best-selling console due to it being a casual fad and the masses who made the system a huge success bought some of the most turgid and unfathomably poor software available for the system.

Then the bubble burst and the low-grade tech coupled with the dearth of software has made the last two years of the Wii's lifecycle little more than a perfunctory exhibition by Nintendo. It's almost paradoxical how a console could be so financially successful and yet fail fundamentally on so many levels.

Grammaton-Cleric

Why bust out a measuring stick, because when you compare the HD twins to the PC, they look like dog excrement, so why say Wii games would be much better on pseudo pc's and just go all out and put them on the real thing?

Let's put away our e peens and internet bravado and leave that bullsh*t for System Wars.

Why wouldn't the Wii be compared to the HD Twins?

Because Nintendo couldn't be bothered to release a system that was more than a slightly beefed up Gamecube?

That doesn't even begin to make sense.

The Wii is what Nintendo offered up during this console generation and thus is logically compared to other contemporary consoles released at the same time.

Back when the system was outselling the other two nobody had a problem comparing the consoles directly so why is it that now, the Wii is supposed to receive some sort of specialized classification?

Also, your assertion that Nintendo was looking to break up the alleged stagnancy of the industry is laughable. Nintendo doesn't care about stagnation (as evidenced by the way they handle a number of their franchises) but rather the Wii was a gamble that paid off, at least in consumer sales.

Of course the console didn't really innovate much of anything and motion control turned out to be much ado about nothing, which is why so many Nintendo 1st party titles used waggle sparingly. (arguably waggle was implemented perfunctory)

As to your comparison of PC gaming, I don't think most HD console games quite look like "dog excrement" in comparison because despite the age of the consoles they can still pull off graphical fidelity like the upcoming (and by all accounts outstanding) port of The Witcher 2.

Of course PCs are an abstraction, not a dedicated gaming platform, and they can always eclipse the power of even the newest console given the nature of their hardware. We are discussing the current console cycle, not the obvious technical superiority of the PC over EVERYTHING. (Which will never change)

Lastly, I would caution you to temper your emotions when accusing me of system war fodder when my posts are anything but. I own a Wii but I also happen to possess enough objectivity to identify the obvious and practically unending shortcomings of a console that was, from the very outset, predicated upon very low-end hardware and a unique but ultimately vapid input innovation.

It's also interesting that you've opted to completely ignore one incontrovertible fact: setting aside graphical fidelity, the Wii has a far smaller library and much less variety than the other systems.

Oh and the pseudo-PC thing was cute. Of course that would only make logical sense if the consoles you deride were actually trying to supplant or emulate the full breadth of PC functionality when in reality they are doing what they have always done: act as dedicated gaming platforms.

Nobody is disputing the fact that the Wii library offers less than other consoles, but to dismiss them outright is just silly. Every system has something great to offer if you're open-minded enough to try them.

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

It should also be kept in mind that me-tooism isn't caused by controllers its caused by timid developers and conservative gamers. Nintendo changed (simplified) the controller, but its still the most timid of the first parties in terms of core game creation and its fanbase is still the most conservative in terms of games they are willing to give a chance to. The only such games that put up decent numbers were the original No More Heroes and Red Steel because they launched extremely early in the life of the Wii when people were trying to see what their Wiimotes could do, and its worth noting that even their successors died at retail.

If Nintendo honestly wanted to expand its audience, it would have made a broader range of core games (purchasing a few talented developers or making alliances with indies). Instead Nintendo chose to play it safe, preaching to the converted (here's this week's Mario!), which is lucrative and low risk (not many Mario games fail to make money) but it doesn't expand the congregation.

As you just stated, the PC (with its healthy indie scene) has a tremendous amount of variety and innovation, despite the fact that the last change in the PC interface was the mouse.

CarnageHeart

Apparently Nintendo plans to keep the Wii remote to use along with the pad controller of the Wii U. It'll be interesting to see how that turns out, I think the new controller has a lot of potential (but that's another topic).

I didn't say anything negative about motion controls (I have a PS Move and had a PS Eye and an Eyetoy before that). Motion controls shouldn't be forced on games, but they do have their uses. Between my daughters and I games like LBP2, Swords and Soldiers, Beat Sketcher, Tumble, Everybody Dance and Eyepet have gotten quite a bit of play on my system and I am looking forward to Sorcery. One of these days I am going to try playing a shooter with the move, though I'm perfectly comfortable with the dual analog control scheme.

My point is that there is a difference between changing the controller (which Nintendo did) and offering new experiences (which Nintendo didn't). Surely you can agree that Mario (or Zelda) with motion controls is a lot less commercially risky than original games like Valkyria Chronicles, Viva Pinata, Littlebigplanet or Demon's Souls.

Ah the Wii. I see that it still has it's defenders. I guess people really do enjoy its collection of games, and it does serve a section of the crowd the PS360 seem to neglect; the crowd that wants to stay in the past, play games that dont rely on smart A.I, physics, graphics and other gameplay enhancements that come with better horsepower, a crowd that's happy with gimmicks and pretty content with playing the next Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong and Metroid. Hell, it doesn't even have to be a different game. As the Metroid Prime trilogy and NSMB Wii showed, they will eat it up even if they have played it already. I suppose the PS3 has an amazing library now considering the MGS, Ico, God of War and Splinter Cell collections are now available in HD and 3D. Right?

It's hilarious. That even the Wii after years of lack of third party support and ridiculously barren first party support (what else did Nintendo put out for the Wii have last year other than Skyward Sword?), the fans will still defend it. I suppose the sheer quality of Nintendo games is partially responsible for this defense force, and I suppose I dont blame them. Nintendo has always been an Ace developer. The problem I have is that these games could've been so much more had Nintendo gone with a more traditional console with current gen hardware, and had kept the motion controls optional.

Watching every video of Skyward Sword was painful because it looked antique. The graphics worse than PS2 games. Now it turned out to be a fantastic game by all acounts (Pedro's account notwithstanding), but how can these people not see how great it could've been on the PS3 or 360?

I also find it hilarious when people post lists of games to defend Wii's library. The f***ing thing has been out for 6 years, it better have a decent size list of great games. The problem the rest of us have is that the we expect a list like that every year. Hell, just looking at last year which was kind of a meh year for the PS360, I can produce a list that has just as many quality games that came out on the PS3.

• Mass Effect 2
• LittleBigPlanet 2
• Dead Space 2
• Killzone 3
• Bulletstorm
• Crysis 2
• Mortal Kombat
• Outland
• Socom 4
• Motorstorm Apocalypse
• L.A Noire (I feel like s*** putting it here, but i saw some pretty questionable games in Wii lists in this thread as well)
• Portal 2
• Mafia 2
• Infamous 2
• Catherine
• Resistance 3
• Gears of War 3
• Uncharted 3
• Modern Warfare 3
• Infamous Festival of Blood
• Rage
• Deus Ex Human Revolution
• Skyrim
• Batman Arkham City
• Dark Souls
• Assassin's Creed Revelations
• Battlefield 3

And that doesn't even include most of the PSN games. XBLA line up is even stronger. So technically I just proved that the PS3 line up from 2011 alone destroys the entire Wii software library of six years.

Anything by Nintendo has been underrated since 64. Nintendo reached the same negative level as SEGA/Sonic Team.

[spoiler] What makes things funnier is that there are people saying that Nintendo would be better off as a third party company like SEGA/Sonic Team. Yet even I think that won't work because since SEGA went third party, the Sonic series reputation got worse. In fact, I think Nintendo will have it worse as a third party company more so than SEGA ever did. [/spoiler]

When the best FPS on your console is the Conduit, you've got a significant problem.

Grammaton-Cleric

I think the Wii had better FPS than that. Call of Duty 4 on Wii was better and that was a port, heck, even Eurocom's Goldeneye was much better.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

When the best FPS on your console is the Conduit, you've got a significant problem.

nintendoboy16

I think the Wii had better FPS than that. Call of Duty 4 on Wii was better and that was a port, heck, even Eurocom's Goldeneye was much better.

Goldeneye for the Wii may be the best FPS on the Wii, but it's certainly not better than the updated versions. Goldeneye Reloaded, for both PS3 and XBox 360, updated the visuals with the Call Of Duty engine to back it up, plus there's more multiplayer options. I don't see how it's a better game than what the Wii version had to offer. In fact, the only thing missing from the updated versions is the time trial option that was made exclusively for the Wii, but was removed from the updated games. No big deal though; Goldeneye for the Wii is literally in the shadows of its new brethern!

[QUOTE="nintendoboy16"]

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

When the best FPS on your console is the Conduit, you've got a significant problem.

Metamania

I think the Wii had better FPS than that. Call of Duty 4 on Wii was better and that was a port, heck, even Eurocom's Goldeneye was much better.

Goldeneye for the Wii may be the best FPS on the Wii, but it's certainly not better than the updated versions. Goldeneye Reloaded, for both PS3 and XBox 360, updated the visuals with the Call Of Duty engine to back it up, plus there's more multiplayer options. I don't see how it's a better game than what the Wii version had to offer. In fact, the only thing missing from the updated versions is the time trial option that was made exclusively for the Wii, but was removed from the updated games. No big deal though; Goldeneye for the Wii is literally in the shadows of its new brethern!

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]Well the mouse is its own form of motion control. Say what you will about motion controls, but both Sony and Microsoft implemented it in their systems in one form or another, with varying success. Certain games really benefit from it while others are better suited to standard controls imo. I disliked how it was used in Skyward Sword, but loved it in games like Animal Crossing, Metroid Prime Trilogy and No More Heroes 1 & 2.

Apparently Nintendo plans to keep the Wii remote to use along with the pad controller of the Wii U. It'll be interesting to see how that turns out, I think the new controller has a lot of potential (but that's another topic).

Bigboi500

I didn't say anything negative about motion controls (I have a PS Move and had a PS Eye and an Eyetoy before that). Motion controls shouldn't be forced on games, but they do have their uses. Between my daughters and I games like LBP2, Swords and Soldiers, Beat Sketcher, Tumble, Everybody Dance and Eyepet have gotten quite a bit of play on my system and I am looking forward to Sorcery. One of these days I am going to try playing a shooter with the move, though I'm perfectly comfortable with the dual analog control scheme.

My point is that there is a difference between changing the controller (which Nintendo did) and offering new experiences (which Nintendo didn't). Surely you can agree that Mario (or Zelda) with motion controls is a lot less commercially risky than original games like Valkyria Chronicles, Viva Pinata, Littlebigplanet or Demon's Souls.

I'm fine with motion controls in the right context, but I don't think slapping them onto old games makes the old games new. MP Trilogy was MP3 (previously released on the Wii) and MP1 and 2 with motion controls and slight tech tweaks.

[QUOTE="nintendoboy16"]

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

I think the Wii had better FPS than that. Call of Duty 4 on Wii was better and that was a port, heck, even Eurocom's Goldeneye was much better.

Metamania

Goldeneye for the Wii may be the best FPS on the Wii, but it's certainly not better than the updated versions. Goldeneye Reloaded, for both PS3 and XBox 360, updated the visuals with the Call Of Duty engine to back it up, plus there's more multiplayer options. I don't see how it's a better game than what the Wii version had to offer. In fact, the only thing missing from the updated versions is the time trial option that was made exclusively for the Wii, but was removed from the updated games. No big deal though; Goldeneye for the Wii is literally in the shadows of its new brethern!

I'll enjoy playing my Goldeneye from the shadows -- with a pointer. Go have fun playing shooters with dual-analog sticks :lol: .http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L1E6m6ETIo-- it's so bad, and it further disappoints me to see how some great games (Halo: Reach, for instance) get buried in the terrihorribleness of dual-analog controlling because they're console-exclusive.

But really, I see no issue at all with the Wii's focus not being the FPS. The fact that you hold it as a judging factor shows how new you are in the gaming scenario.

I bought one for the kids a couple years before I got my PS3. Current game library: Wii - 1 game. PS3 - 45+.

Jackc8

Should I bother? With the amount of great game options you have available by owning a Wii, and the fact that you still have only one game, it makes me wonder how much of a gaming fan you are.

You're up in here comparing libraries and putting down the system... when the topics is about the Wii being a misunderstood consoles, and it is. The comparisons are ridiculous because it isn't comparable in power, so it relies on exclusives, and a lot of those exclusives are what's misunderstood by so many. Having played a lot of the better ones, I'd go so far as to say that some of them are much better than over hyped HD twin multiplats, but that's just my opinion.

Nobody is disputing the fact that the Wii library offers less than other consoles, but to dismiss them outright is just silly. Every system has something great to offer if you're open-minded enough to try them.

Bigboi500

I never dismissed the console outright. I own one because there are some damn fine games on the system. (A fact you keep purposely ignoring)

But the fact remains it was put DIRECTLY up against the HD Twins this console cycle and thus the direct comparison is a fair one. And keep in mind my critique has little to do with processing power but rather the dearth of software that has plagued the system for most of its lifecycle.

As to the Wii relying on exclusives, it failed miserably on that front too. Both the XB360 and PS3 have a much higher number of AA and AAA exclusives.

What you need to understand is that I'm console-agnostic; I care about games and while the Wii had some great software as a whole its offerings were eclipsed by the other two systems.

I'll enjoy playing my Goldeneye from the shadows -- with a pointer. Go have fun playing shooters with dual-analog sticks :lol: - it's so bad, and it further disappoints me to see how some great games (Halo: Reach, for instance) get buried in the terrihorribleness of dual-analog controlling because they're console-exclusive.

But really, I see no issue at all with the Wii's focus not being the FPS. The fact that you hold it as a judging factor shows how new you are in the gaming scenario.

iHarlequin

Well, personally speaking I've been playing games for over thirty years and I'd happily put my knowledge of this medium up against just about anybody.

As to your anti-dual analog comments, they really do reek of the type of nonsense we were inundated with back in 2006, when the Wii was supposedly going to become the predominant FPS console due to the alleged superiority of Waggle Control.

Controller preference and input methodology really does come down to personal preference. I've played FPS using mouse/keyboard, dual analog and the Wimote and I'd easily say the Wimote was my least favorite.

Objectively it's not bad by any means but it's nothing overtly special or even that much more accurate than the dual sticks and it is certainly enjoys nowhere the precision of a mouse.

As to the genre, I'm not the biggest fan of the FPS but to ignore its significance in this market is like a musician ignoring iTunes. That understood there are many other genres that the Wii is also lacking in so by no means is the dearth of viable FPS my only metric.

And Halo: Reach, even were it not a console exclusive, couldn't have been done on the Wii without stripping down just about everything that made it so good in the first place.

So much hatred.

Tsk tsk tsk.

Grow up,people.

GreekGameManiac

I'm not seeing hate so much as clearly delineated reasons why some people (myself included) consider the Wii to be an overall weak console.

And it is ironic that you chide people to "grow up" when you offer no intelligent rebuttal to those you admonish.

Take your own advice or better yet, refute what I and others have asserted.

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

You're up in here comparing libraries and putting down the system... when the topics is about the Wii being a misunderstood consoles, and it is. The comparisons are ridiculous because it isn't comparable in power, so it relies on exclusives, and a lot of those exclusives are what's misunderstood by so many. Having played a lot of the better ones, I'd go so far as to say that some of them are much better than over hyped HD twin multiplats, but that's just my opinion.

Nobody is disputing the fact that the Wii library offers less than other consoles, but to dismiss them outright is just silly. Every system has something great to offer if you're open-minded enough to try them.

Grammaton-Cleric

I never dismissed the console outright. I own one because there are some damn fine games on the system. (A fact you keep purposely ignoring)

But the fact remains it was put DIRECTLY up against the HD Twins this console cycle and thus the direct comparison is a fair one. And keep in mind my critique has little to do with processing power but rather the dearth of software that has plagued the system for most of its lifecycle.

As to the Wii relying on exclusives, it failed miserably on that front too. Both the XB360 and PS3 have a much higher number of AA and AAA exclusives.

What you need to understand is that I'm console-agnostic; I care about games and while the Wii had some great software as a whole its offerings were eclipsed by the other two systems.

[QUOTE="Metamania"]

[QUOTE="nintendoboy16"]

I think the Wii had better FPS than that. Call of Duty 4 on Wii was better and that was a port, heck, even Eurocom's Goldeneye was much better.

nintendoboy16

Goldeneye for the Wii may be the best FPS on the Wii, but it's certainly not better than the updated versions. Goldeneye Reloaded, for both PS3 and XBox 360, updated the visuals with the Call Of Duty engine to back it up, plus there's more multiplayer options. I don't see how it's a better game than what the Wii version had to offer. In fact, the only thing missing from the updated versions is the time trial option that was made exclusively for the Wii, but was removed from the updated games. No big deal though; Goldeneye for the Wii is literally in the shadows of its new brethern!

I believe so, but I'm not 100% sure.

You're up in here comparing libraries and putting down the system... when the topics is about the Wii being a misunderstood consoles, and it is. The comparisons are ridiculous because it isn't comparable in power, so it relies on exclusives, and a lot of those exclusives are what's misunderstood by so many. Having played a lot of the better ones, I'd go so far as to say that some of them are much better than over hyped HD twin multiplats, but that's just my opinion.

Nobody is disputing the fact that the Wii library offers less than other consoles, but to dismiss them outright is just silly. Every system has something great to offer if you're open-minded enough to try them.

Bigboi500

Lets be real for a moment. The Wii is dismisable. The vast majority of gamers have enjoyed gaming without it and would continue to enjoy gaming without it. The same cannot be said about the PS3 and Xbox 360. Also the idea of needing to be opening minded to enjoy the Wii sounds like a poor excuse for a system that it lacking in general. Nintendo opted for a significantly weaker system in exchange for a control that is NOT optimal for most gaming. It is not anyone's fault but Nintendo for the misdirection and this misdirection has cost gaming severely with the induction of motion controls in games that does not need or improve with its inclusion. But who cares the gimmick sold exceptionally well.

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]You're up in here comparing libraries and putting down the system... when the topics is about the Wii being a misunderstood consoles, and it is. The comparisons are ridiculous because it isn't comparable in power, so it relies on exclusives, and a lot of those exclusives are what's misunderstood by so many. Having played a lot of the better ones, I'd go so far as to say that some of them are much better than over hyped HD twin multiplats, but that's just my opinion.

Nobody is disputing the fact that the Wii library offers less than other consoles, but to dismiss them outright is just silly. Every system has something great to offer if you're open-minded enough to try them.

Pedro

Lets be real for a moment. The Wii is dismisable. The vast majority of gamers have enjoyed gaming without it and would continue to enjoy gaming without it. The same cannot be said about the PS3 and Xbox 360. Also the idea of needing to be opening minded to enjoy the Wii sounds like a poor excuse for a system that it lacking in general. Nintendo opted for a significantly weaker system in exchange for a control that is NOT optimal for most gaming. It is not anyone's fault but Nintendo for the misdirection and this misdirection has cost gaming severely with the induction of motion controls in games that does not need or improve with its inclusion. But who cares the gimmick sold exceptionally well.

Your personal opinion has been noted. A lot of people, including myself, disagree with that opinion. Your "vast majority" statement is incorrect, because the Wii has sold a ton more than the PS3 and 360, so more people enjoy the Wii than they do those systems.

Bigboi500

Just thought I'd fix that for you.