the Official Nintendo criticism thread. Maintain professionalism.

My two complaints are:

1. Not enough quality games coming from third parties. Nintendo needs to step up and help them with their games and upcoming projects.
2. A lot of the Wii games I've seen graphically don't impress me but I can live with that. I still think Nintendo should have upped the Wii's graphics and sold the console for $300 instead of $250.

the kiddie debate: nintendo strives to be like disney of the early 90s. They dont want to exclude anyone by releasing a game that has harsh rating. Simply as that. They believe that if the game is good enough, an older gamer will love it as much as a child. Beauty and the Beast is kiddie, Alladin is Kiddie, Lion King is kiddie, and Nintendo tries to be kiddie in the same way. There is substance behind the kid-friendliness and you would have to be a huge fanboy to hate those disney movies or nintendo's games. Why not leave the mature-only games to the third parties? Is it nintendo's responsibility to make every game?

regression in tech: minor sticking point here. It's a STAGNATION, not a regression. It would be a regression if the wii had n64 graphics, but the wii actually has a graphics upgrade from the gamecube. It's not a huge leap like the other consoles though, so it is a stagnation.

other than that, good post TC>

lol Ninetndo purposely maintains the kiddie image because thats something X360 and PS3 fails in. A parent goes to a shop and sees the three controls and will almost immediately prefer the nintendo. why coz of the kiddie image.however we all know thats not necessarily true.It has violent games but it manages to hide the "games are bad stigmata from the public".Very clever business! man Nintendo is no different from any other corp.and now apparently they are the 5th largest company in Japan!! I'm somewhat doubtful but there's no doubt they are making a lot of money!Great_Ragnarok

You forgot about the Wii being cheap as dirt. Unfortuantely that also applies for it's quality as a console well.

Actually, both are equally valid.

Nintendo does have a kiddy image. If it's a kiddy console or not, that's not relevant, nor the amount of mature games. Nintendo's IMAGE and reputation is that of a kiddie-friendly console, and usually also of a kiddie-focused console. It doesn't matter if it's true or not (it's partially true in that it's the only company to have a big focus on that market), it's about perception.

The other point is also slightly true. The Wii is comparable to the Xbox. While parts of it are better, parts of it aren't, so while it's not a full or even large regression, technologically, parts of it are inferior to last gen.

Grive

I would argue that Nintendo HAD a kiddy image, but everything about their recent strategy from the minimalist ipodish aesthetics of their technology to their advertising campaigns (Nicole Kidman WTF?) suggest otherwise. Likewise the software that is going in a simpistic more adultoriented direction (much to the chagrin of sheep)does nothing but scream adult to me.

and to complain that the Wii has REGRESSED (when even the most blinkered of fanboys will accept that the Wii is more powerful than the GC, despite all evidence to the contrary) is stupidity of the highest order

I have no problem with legitimate criticism of the Wii and i cant see myself ever getting one but ChiefFreeman is probably the most irrational Wii hater on these boards (almost every topic he makes is about the subject) and his views vary from the justifiable to the ridiculous

• 3rd Party games

Blackbond

this is my only major concern with the Wii (as i suspect it is for many others)

Not enough good games.

*waits for MP3*

Not enough good games.

*waits for MP3*

Jandurin

post 2007

[QUOTE="dubvisions"][QUOTE="joeblak"][QUOTE="dubvisions"]

For the money, I think the Wii is quite good.

Just stop with the darn supply issue. We all know you're faking it.

Eponique

Then why is Nintendo increasing Wii shipments from 14 million to 16.5 miilion by March 2008?

Then why didn't they do that in March 2007??

They underestimated the demand.

They underestimated the demand in November or December of 2006. Heck, even in January of 2007. The point is, they knew pretty quick what the demand was. IMO, they purposely held units to build more hype. This way, any time one hit a shelf, it was gone.

They could have ramped up production way back then. Instead, NOW they do it.

I'll put down my Battleaxe of Debate for a sec (I keep it right next to my Sword of Slaying) and I'll add my only two complaints.

Online. I don't use Xbox Live much, to tell you the truth, but it's the reason I bought my 360, and I think it's an awesome service. Although Nintendo's online in most cases (where online is actuallyimplemented, I mean)isn't as bad as people like to think, there really isn't any reason why it couldn't be better.

Reggie. I always liked that Nintendo didn't need to be cocky. They were sometimes, but they didn't get into the straight-up trash talk that I used to despise. Now, Reggie is fine as an executive, and truly, Nintendo needs someone like him, but he needs to watch what he says, and not stoop to the competitor's level. There is a way to kick ass without talking trash. Leave that to us. ;)

[QUOTE="Bill_McBlumpkin"]

[QUOTE="Eponique"]They have failed to maintain an 80% marketshare in Japan and this is why they fail miserably.Eponique

Are you capable of criticizing them?

People who aren't able to even acknowledge the BLATANT faults in each of the consoles puzzle me. You know, honest critique is something that causes products to improve, and that is something the Wii drastically needs.

The Wii has great sales numbers, yes. Unfortunately you don't play sales numbers.

IplayalotofMallTycoon8)

If you want something to change, you're going to have to offer something more than just criticism. Although your points are vaild for the most part, it's not much more than an overdressed average bashing thread.

When I saw the title of this thread I was expecting some insightful ideas and thoughts to how to correct what you view as "bad." A lot of people cry over what the Wii is and what Nintendo is doing, but seldom does anyone ever say what they want to see out of the system. Perhaps what they want already exists on the PS3 and the 360 and the underlying reality is that if they got what they want, we'd just be looking at three very similar systems.

Things Nintendo needs to work on:

- Better third party support.

- Better online experience.

- Maintain equal focus on hardcore and casual software.

If they can acheive these, i think they would be extremely succesful.

Eponique, I am going to do something here, I want you to demonstrate something for me. The Wiimote speaker is considered to offer lower quality sound than a true "full sized speaker" would, and the Wii is the only system to not support true surround sound this generation. It does not offer true, discrete 5.1 channel surround to the listener. It is limited to an audio output method that has become outdated.Can you admit that this is a *weakness* of the Wii compared to the competition? subrosian

Eh, maybe I should play some other Wii games to really see if the audio from the Wiimote really is that bad, but I don't know.

I own a Wii and my complaints are:

Audio. Honestly, why am I still using red and whitestereo RCAcables in 2007? Full surround takes up so little processing power.... is it really too much to ask? PLII is a joke.

Hardware (visual): I just wish I wasn't playing games that looked like Gamecubes games. Sometimes after playing 360 and PS3 the Wii can be a little rough on my eyes. I mean honestly.... would it have killed them to put another 20 bucks worth of horsepower into the thing? It would've made a huge difference.

Those are my two complaints with the system.

I have complaints for all three of the systems, though (to be fair.)

Bill_McBlumpkin

i think the audio is fine. i dont have any problems with the graphics.

overall im happy with the wii and DS. could use a few better games on wii certainly but there coming...and pretty soon too. however i do have some issues with both platforms.

Wii:

i can understand that ninendo didnt want to go into the hardware race. overall i have no prob with the visual side of things (though some devs do need a kick in the backside). if mario galaxy is the best it can do then thats ok. however whats a real shame is the lack of something to deal with physics...whether it be a better processor or a dedicated physics chip. the current CPU (if rumours are true) is not really good enough. sure it could do HL2 level physics but we wont be seeing anything crumbling anytime soon. the wiimote + detailed physics could have led to some really interesting ideas.

the rights management system for VC downloads is also absolutely stupid imho. tying the account to the hardware is bad enough but having no option to transfer details over in the case of a faulty unit is downright crap. the only way to do it is to send the wii off to nintendo and get them to do it. that means no wii for 2 weeks. the DS has a system where all details can be moved from one unit to the other..why cant wii? protection is needed of course but the system is draconian. i should be able to bring it to my local and transfer everything to the replacement unit there and then.

theres other little niggles but nothing major.

DS

a complete lack of heardware acceleration is dissapointing. N64 had it why cant the DS? games look blocky compared to their N64 counterparts. technically speaking the DS maybe be meeting and surpassing the N64s performance but lack of hardware acceleration is holding it back on the visual side.

i also would have liked a second touch screen.

[QUOTE="Grive"]

Actually, both are equally valid.

Nintendo does have a kiddy image. If it's a kiddy console or not, that's not relevant, nor the amount of mature games. Nintendo's IMAGE and reputation is that of a kiddie-friendly console, and usually also of a kiddie-focused console. It doesn't matter if it's true or not (it's partially true in that it's the only company to have a big focus on that market), it's about perception.

The other point is also slightly true. The Wii is comparable to the Xbox. While parts of it are better, parts of it aren't, so while it's not a full or even large regression, technologically, parts of it are inferior to last gen.

NorthlandMan

I would argue that Nintendo HAD a kiddy image, but everything about their recent strategy from the minimalist ipodish aesthetics of their technology to their advertising campaigns (Nicole Kidman WTF?) suggest otherwise. Likewise the software that is going in a simpistic more adultoriented direction (much to the chagrin of sheep)does nothing but scream adult to me.

and to complain that the Wii has REGRESSED (when even the most blinkered of fanboys will accept that the Wii is more powerful than the GC, despite all evidence to the contrary) is stupidity of the highest order

I have no problem with legitimate criticism of the Wii and i cant see myself ever getting one but ChiefFreeman is probably the most irrational Wii hater on these boards (almost every topic he makes is about the subject) and his views vary from the justifiable to the ridiculous

Also NorthlandMan, Nintendo has NEVER released the system specs for the Wii, so how do we know for certain it is at all more powerful? It's ironic that the Wii's best looking games were all former Gamecube games also (Zelda Twilight Princess, Super Paper Mario, Resident Evil 4 Wii). All the games that were developed on Wii hardware look worse. So that is in fact, a regression.

Also NorthlandMan, Nintendo has NEVER released the system specs for the Wii, so how do we know for certain it is at all more powerful? It's ironic that the Wii's best looking games were all former Gamecube games also (Zelda Twilight Princess, Super Paper Mario, Resident Evil 4 Wii). All the games that were developed on Wii hardware look worse. So that is in fact, a regression.

ChiefFreeman

EVERYONE so far has said that the Wii is more powerful than the GC, you are right in saying that this is not particularly noticeable but it doesn't make it any less true. From what we have seen it seems to be a regression, but in real world terms it is not. so that statement is comletely false.

As for your viewpoints in general, like i said some of your points were excellent and some of them were just plain ridiculous. You would be taken more seriously if you worked on the more legitimate viewpoints as well as occasionally posting something that wasnt a Wii hate thread. As it is you just come off as an insecure fanboy, which isn't something you want to do if you're trying to critique a console.

Well I appreciate that you can at least see eye to eye with me on SOME of my views, even though you think the rest of what I say might be crap.

Everyone has said the Wii is more powerful? Does just saying it mean it's fact? I like to go by evidence, and judging by the evidence I have seen thus far (the games), I believe it be untrue.

And as for being a Nintendo/Wii hater: I owned an NES, N64, and a Gamecube. Bring a consumer of past Nintendo products, I feel I have every right to be critical of them, no matter how fan-boyish that might seem to anyone else. I've played the Mario games, the Metroid Games, and of course..Resident Evil 4, the best game EVER made for a Nintendo console! It sold well, it was given the highest of critical praise across the board, and it was game that both the hardcore and causal mature gamer could enjoy. So why do we see so few of these kinds of titles on Nintendo consoles? It's simple: Nintendo wants to protect its family friendly image. They are moving farther and farther away from being a traditional game company.

the biggest damage and misunderstanding here is that in the assumption of a revolution.I've mentioned this many times but ill say it again.

Innovation lies with the developer and so ultimately it is the out puts that matter not the inputs. Inputs matter in terms of efficency and ease of excuting the set outputs.a revolution in the wii lies with the non gamer because the ease and simplicity.however I don't think any serious gamer hear would pay much attention to their controller about 1 or 3 hours in to the game.usually the object is to learn the game-play mechanics soon as possible so you can start interacting with the game(i.e outputs). at which point the novelty of the controller is almost forgotten!! infact sometimes the wiimote was horrible and I preferd the standard gamepad or keyboard.

so my point here is the main attraction of the wii, which is the controller, is idealy revlolutionary to the non-gamer. but for someone who has played games a lot, 250$ is not worthwhile.why? becasue its hardware isn't evolved enough to be called next gen.

It hasn't got the power to make larger,realistic graphicaly beautiful games like X360,PS3

It hasn't got enough power to have very smart A.I.

It hasn't got enough power to render as many enemies or objects of interaction as the PS3 or the X360

It lacks freedom in developing as well, due to low resources

It suffers from lack of solid online multi player

oh before I get flamed and told how graphics and physics aren't as important as gameplay, I ask you how will the gameplay be any more outstanding when clearly a simple change in controller isn't a revolution unless you've never played games before.The day nintendo makes a game other than another rehash of their old series, the day nintendo creates something truly unique especialy customized for the wiimote.Then I will give them credit as of being revolutionary.Hopefully that day isn't far