Two Years Until Core Wii Gaming?

[QUOTE="Zhengi"]

Wrong. Their system sells because of third parties. Imagine if they had no 3rd party games. Their sales would be even worst and pathetic compared to the way the Wii sells. Man, if those consoles depended solely on first party games, it would be barren and filled droughts.

subrosian

The 360 and PS3 depend on their third parties, how is that a wrong statement :|

The Wii doesn't have much high-budget / quality third party support, yet sells well. How is that wrong?

Misread, thought you meant that MS and Sony don't need 3rd parties to sell their system.

Yes it is. Nintendo has done what they needed to do to entice 3rd party devs to join them. They provided them the largest install base plus the Wii sells a lot of software including 3rd party sales. Everything is right there for them to make better games. The 3rd party devs like EA are reporting losses in their fiscal report. Did you know that EA has reported 6 straight quarters in losses despite having big games come out on the 360 and PS3?

The numbers and the writing is on the wall. 3rd party devs can succeed on the Wii. Everything is laid out for them. They need to make the games. The good thing is that Japanese devs are starting to realize this and they're putting more support on the Wii. Western devs aren't and they'll only hurt themselves in the long run. At least some devs like EA and Activision are starting to realize that making games for the Wii is good for them and us gamers.

Zhengi

Most big named developers have already made the leap to next gen and spent the time designing new engines and assets, it wouldn't be in their best interest to all of a sudden throw this all away, especially since developers will make far more by making games multiplat between the PC/360/PS3 since 360 receives the largest amount of software sales out of any of the 3 consoles. Nintendo has only provided a large userbase which at this point are not too accepting to quality original titles.

EDIT: Nintendo has done very little when compared to Microsoft who not only released there console early to try and get 3rd party support but have gone out of there way to secure titles like Final Fantasy 13, DMC4, GTA4, etc.. and design one of the easiest consoles to develop on, and provide most of the coding needed to add an online function to your game.

[QUOTE="Zhengi"]

Yes it is. Nintendo has done what they needed to do to entice 3rd party devs to join them. They provided them the largest install base plus the Wii sells a lot of software including 3rd party sales. Everything is right there for them to make better games. The 3rd party devs like EA are reporting losses in their fiscal report. Did you know that EA has reported 6 straight quarters in losses despite having big games come out on the 360 and PS3?

The numbers and the writing is on the wall. 3rd party devs can succeed on the Wii. Everything is laid out for them. They need to make the games. The good thing is that Japanese devs are starting to realize this and they're putting more support on the Wii. Western devs aren't and they'll only hurt themselves in the long run. At least some devs like EA and Activision are starting to realize that making games for the Wii is good for them and us gamers.

opex07

Most big named developers have already made the leap to next gen and spent the time designing new engines and assets, it wouldn't be in their best interest to all of a sudden throw this all away, especially since developers will make far more by making games multiplat between the PC/360/PS3 since 360 receives the largest amount of software sales out of any of the 3 consoles. Nintendo has only provided a large userbase which at this point are not too accepting to quality original titles.

EDIT: Nintendo has done very little when compared to Microsoft who not only released there console early to try and get 3rd party support but have gone out of there way to secure titles like Final Fantasy 13, DMC4, GTA4, etc.. and design one of the easiest consoles to develop on, and provide most of the coding needed to add an online function to your game.

If only they took the time to ensure that their hardware wasn't a broken mess...

Well this thread grew. :| I'm gonna try to awkwardly jump into conversation.

So long as the Wii continues to sell well to this new audience, it's not in Nintendo's best interest to gain more serious third party support. As primary publisher they have little real competition - unlike Sony or Microsoft, their system sells even without the third parties.

That costs core Wii owners dearly though, Nintendo's icy third party relations results in games that "could have been" on the Wii and "could have" utilized the Wiimote (I don't buy the idea that the Wiimote inherently makes up for the Wii's other hardware faults, but, that's another battle for another day) finding friendlier shores on the 360 / PS3 / PC.

subrosian

If it's true that they have very little competition (which it is), what would be the harm in them reaching out to third parties? It's been their weakness for three gens now, do you honestly think that because they're doing well now they'll just stop all progress and sit there twirling their collective moustache?

It's obviously in their best interest if it does them only good and eliminates a big weakness. :?

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"][QUOTE="Zhengi"]

How have they not? They've released Zelda, Paper Mario, Battalion Wars 2, Fire Emblem, Metroid Prime 3, Super Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Bros Brawl, and Mario Kart since launch. What has Sony released? Uncharted, Heveanly Sword, Ratchet and Clank, and Folklore. Anything else I'm missing? Those games don't even compare to the quality and quantity of games that Nintendo has released for the Wii.

So the real question is how has Sony done more than Nintendo?

Zhengi

Are you kidding? Uncharted doesn't? Ratchet and Clank? They are both known for being very good games. You're also forgetting Siren and Little Big Planet.

Just because they have produced more games does not mean nintendo does more for gaming in general.

Nintendo has focused on casuals this generation, which is imo (and the opinions of many) working against gaming, not for it.

I mentioned Uncharted and Ratchet and Clank. Neither one of them even come close to SMG, GOTY for 2008. They're not bad games, but if those are your only examples, then you've failed. Those don't match up to the quality of Nintendo's first party games. And Siren is a fine game, but how many games is that? 5 Sony games vs. 8 Nintendo games. Where's the quantity and quality? Sony definitely can't match Nintendo.

And LBP isn't even out yet. And between now and then, Nintendo is releasing other games like Warioland and Animal Crossing. They're not exactly slacking off. No can Sony even compare to Nintendo's line up.

I also find it funny how you keep focusing on Nintendo's casual games. You're making it seem like Sony has never made the Eye Toy games or the Sing Star games. Bunch of hypocrites. Sony won with the PS1 and PS2 because they went after the casuals as well. Now that Nintendo does it, they're the big bad wolf trying to destroy the gaming industry. :roll:

Sony didn't win the PS2 because of casuals, they wont he market because the high quality third party support continued from the playstation to the PS2. The wide variety of PS2 games outmatches any other console in history in its selection, possibly second to the snes though. THe PS2 casuals, yes, but it also had anything else a gamer could possibly want and MULTIPLES of it. THAT is what sold the PS2. And I'm sure after the previous generation, looking back on the PS1's amazing library saturn and 64 owners might have bought a PS2 (like me - I had N64, first console I ever owned ^^;) to play PS1 games.

Of course sony has some casual titles, but that is not their main focus. Their main focus is clearly to provide high quality installments in their successful series'. Nintendo, on the other hand, is shifting its focus to casual gaming. Sony makes gaming for everyone, nintendo makes gaming for some.

Well this thread grew. :| I'm gonna try to awkwardly jump into conversation.

[QUOTE="subrosian"]So long as the Wii continues to sell well to this new audience, it's not in Nintendo's best interest to gain more serious third party support. As primary publisher they have little real competition - unlike Sony or Microsoft, their system sells even without the third parties.

That costs core Wii owners dearly though, Nintendo's icy third party relations results in games that "could have been" on the Wii and "could have" utilized the Wiimote (I don't buy the idea that the Wiimote inherently makes up for the Wii's other hardware faults, but, that's another battle for another day) finding friendlier shores on the 360 / PS3 / PC.

Tsug_Ze_Wind

If it's true that they have very little competition (which it is), what would be the harm in them reaching out to third parties? It's been their weakness for three gens now, do you honestly think that because they're doing well now they'll just stop all progress and sit there twirling their collective moustache?

It's obviously in their best interest if it does them only good and eliminates a big weakness. :?

Nintendo had better think quick on how to get back 3rd Party Support. The wii's success isn't a gaming phenomenon its a pop culture phenomenon. What is popular comes and goes very quickly. Though there are those hardcore gamers who bought the wii, many are becoming disappointed with the system and others are simply choosing to stay away from it (like me, I was going to buy it until I noticed the dangerous trend).

If nintendo has little to no hardcore base, when the casual gamers get bored of the wii (maybe as far off as next generation), nintendo's console will bomb harder than any of it's consoles have bombed before.

A few things to note. The Wii has still had the best exclusives this year so far with two AAA titles (Brawl and No More Heroes) and the Wii has a pretty respectable software library with superior versions of RE4, zelda and pro evo as well as the likes of of Galaxy, blastworks, zack and wiki and fire emblem.

The problem is that it is a Nintendo console so Third Parties are useless on it. That leaves Nintendo and the only games they've got coming are an Animal Crossing rehash and an outsourced Wario platformer. Too much of what people are talking about on Wii is rumoured orhasnt been revealed yet

[QUOTE="MagnuzGuerra"] So you really think Nintendo should give a damn about the "hardcore leaving"? The "hardcore" already has 360, PS3, PC and PSP to play. Let other people enjoy gaming a bit too with the Wii and DS. Hardcore need to stop thinking they are the center of the world.hakanakumono

The hardcore actually has the DS.

Well this thread grew. :| I'm gonna try to awkwardly jump into conversation.

[QUOTE="subrosian"]So long as the Wii continues to sell well to this new audience, it's not in Nintendo's best interest to gain more serious third party support. As primary publisher they have little real competition - unlike Sony or Microsoft, their system sells even without the third parties.

That costs core Wii owners dearly though, Nintendo's icy third party relations results in games that "could have been" on the Wii and "could have" utilized the Wiimote (I don't buy the idea that the Wiimote inherently makes up for the Wii's other hardware faults, but, that's another battle for another day) finding friendlier shores on the 360 / PS3 / PC.

Tsug_Ze_Wind

If it's true that they have very little competition (which it is), what would be the harm in them reaching out to third parties? It's been their weakness for three gens now, do you honestly think that because they're doing well now they'll just stop all progress and sit there twirling their collective moustache?

It's obviously in their best interest if it does them only good and eliminates a big weakness. :?

You're too young to remember Nintendo's draconian NES development regulations. They make the money on their systems, period - their relationship with third parties was always callous. The difference is, in this era, with the money coming from casuals / non-gamers (who frankly don't have a refined taste in games due to inexperience) Nintendo has even more incentive to limit the hand of the third parties.

They're not fighting a war with SEGA this time - and the reality is, they're not fighting a war with Sony or Microsoft. They've said it numerous times, the Wii is a toy, the Wii isn't a videogame system, and for them it's about making record profits while they can on the latest popular gadget. That's it - and it comes at the cost of the core fans.

What's the harm? What's the benefit? Sony and Microsoft take huge losses to secure third parties, provide the powerful hardware and software toolsets those companies need, provide the online infrastructure, et cetera to create modern games, and then secure the audience for guaranteed game sales. Nintendo has done none of that - they'd have to put their money where their mouth is - and when corporate profits matter more than your long time customers, that's not going to happen.

LoL Hey Nintendonians how bout you try out this phrase

Just Wait ha 2 years thats just sad

footfoe2

maybe you should actually read the article before you make yourself sound so.... uninformed

oh, too late

[QUOTE="Tsug_Ze_Wind"]

Well this thread grew. :| I'm gonna try to awkwardly jump into conversation.

[QUOTE="subrosian"]So long as the Wii continues to sell well to this new audience, it's not in Nintendo's best interest to gain more serious third party support. As primary publisher they have little real competition - unlike Sony or Microsoft, their system sells even without the third parties.

That costs core Wii owners dearly though, Nintendo's icy third party relations results in games that "could have been" on the Wii and "could have" utilized the Wiimote (I don't buy the idea that the Wiimote inherently makes up for the Wii's other hardware faults, but, that's another battle for another day) finding friendlier shores on the 360 / PS3 / PC.

subrosian

If it's true that they have very little competition (which it is), what would be the harm in them reaching out to third parties? It's been their weakness for three gens now, do you honestly think that because they're doing well now they'll just stop all progress and sit there twirling their collective moustache?

It's obviously in their best interest if it does them only good and eliminates a big weakness. :?

You're too young to remember Nintendo's draconian NES development regulations. They make the money on their systems, period - their relationship with third parties was always callous. The difference is, in this era, with the money coming from casuals / non-gamers (who frankly don't have a refined taste in games due to inexperience) Nintendo has even more incentive to limit the hand of the third parties.

They're not fighting a war with SEGA this time - and the reality is, they're not fighting a war with Sony or Microsoft. They've said it numerous times, the Wii is a toy, the Wii isn't a videogame system, and for them it's about making record profits while they can on the latest popular gadget. That's it - and it comes at the cost of the core fans.

What's the harm? What's the benefit? Sony and Microsoft take huge losses to secure third parties, provide the powerful hardware and software toolsets those companies need, provide the online infrastructure, et cetera to create modern games, and then secure the audience for guaranteed game sales. Nintendo has done none of that - they'd have to put their money where their mouth is - and when corporate profits matter more than your long time customers, that's not going to happen.

what a lie... they have never said that the wii isnt a videogame system...

anybody saying that is obviously confused.

you mean to tell me that the ONLY console this gen that just plays videogames is not a videogame system? seriously? :|

[QUOTE="Tsug_Ze_Wind"]

Well this thread grew. :| I'm gonna try to awkwardly jump into conversation.

[QUOTE="subrosian"]So long as the Wii continues to sell well to this new audience, it's not in Nintendo's best interest to gain more serious third party support. As primary publisher they have little real competition - unlike Sony or Microsoft, their system sells even without the third parties.

That costs core Wii owners dearly though, Nintendo's icy third party relations results in games that "could have been" on the Wii and "could have" utilized the Wiimote (I don't buy the idea that the Wiimote inherently makes up for the Wii's other hardware faults, but, that's another battle for another day) finding friendlier shores on the 360 / PS3 / PC.

subrosian

If it's true that they have very little competition (which it is), what would be the harm in them reaching out to third parties? It's been their weakness for three gens now, do you honestly think that because they're doing well now they'll just stop all progress and sit there twirling their collective moustache?

It's obviously in their best interest if it does them only good and eliminates a big weakness. :?

You're too young to remember Nintendo's draconian NES development regulations. They make the money on their systems, period - their relationship with third parties was always callous. The difference is, in this era, with the money coming from casuals / non-gamers (who frankly don't have a refined taste in games due to inexperience) Nintendo has even more incentive to limit the hand of the third parties.

They're not fighting a war with SEGA this time - and the reality is, they're not fighting a war with Sony or Microsoft. They've said it numerous times, the Wii is a toy, the Wii isn't a videogame system, and for them it's about making record profits while they can on the latest popular gadget. That's it - and it comes at the cost of the core fans.

What's the harm? What's the benefit? Sony and Microsoft take huge losses to secure third parties, provide the powerful hardware and software toolsets those companies need, provide the online infrastructure, et cetera to create modern games, and then secure the audience for guaranteed game sales. Nintendo has done none of that - they'd have to put their money where their mouth is - and when corporate profits matter more than your long time customers, that's not going to happen.

A few things to note. The Wii has still had the best exclusives this year so far with two AAA titles (Brawl and No More Heroes) and the Wii has a pretty respectable software library with superior versions of RE4, zelda and pro evo as well as the likes of of Galaxy, blastworks, zack and wiki and fire emblem.

The problem is that it is a Nintendo console so Third Parties are useless on it. That leaves Nintendo and the only games they've got coming are an Animal Crossing rehash and an outsourced Wario platformer. Too much of what people are talking about on Wii is rumoured orhasnt been revealed yet

blushield

The best? So you think Brawl and No More Heroes > Sins of a Solar Empire and Twilight of the Arnor? You're joking right?

[QUOTE="subrosian"][QUOTE="Tsug_Ze_Wind"]

Well this thread grew. :| I'm gonna try to awkwardly jump into conversation.

[QUOTE="subrosian"]So long as the Wii continues to sell well to this new audience, it's not in Nintendo's best interest to gain more serious third party support. As primary publisher they have little real competition - unlike Sony or Microsoft, their system sells even without the third parties.

That costs core Wii owners dearly though, Nintendo's icy third party relations results in games that "could have been" on the Wii and "could have" utilized the Wiimote (I don't buy the idea that the Wiimote inherently makes up for the Wii's other hardware faults, but, that's another battle for another day) finding friendlier shores on the 360 / PS3 / PC.

Stevo_the_gamer

If it's true that they have very little competition (which it is), what would be the harm in them reaching out to third parties? It's been their weakness for three gens now, do you honestly think that because they're doing well now they'll just stop all progress and sit there twirling their collective moustache?

It's obviously in their best interest if it does them only good and eliminates a big weakness. :?

You're too young to remember Nintendo's draconian NES development regulations. They make the money on their systems, period - their relationship with third parties was always callous. The difference is, in this era, with the money coming from casuals / non-gamers (who frankly don't have a refined taste in games due to inexperience) Nintendo has even more incentive to limit the hand of the third parties.

They're not fighting a war with SEGA this time - and the reality is, they're not fighting a war with Sony or Microsoft. They've said it numerous times, the Wii is a toy, the Wii isn't a videogame system, and for them it's about making record profits while they can on the latest popular gadget. That's it - and it comes at the cost of the core fans.

What's the harm? What's the benefit? Sony and Microsoft take huge losses to secure third parties, provide the powerful hardware and software toolsets those companies need, provide the online infrastructure, et cetera to create modern games, and then secure the audience for guaranteed game sales. Nintendo has done none of that - they'd have to put their money where their mouth is - and when corporate profits matter more than your long time customers, that's not going to happen.

A few things to note. The Wii has still had the best exclusives this year so far with two AAA titles (Brawl and No More Heroes) and the Wii has a pretty respectable software library with superior versions of RE4, zelda and pro evo as well as the likes of of Galaxy, blastworks, zack and wiki and fire emblem.

The problem is that it is a Nintendo console so Third Parties are useless on it. That leaves Nintendo and the only games they've got coming are an Animal Crossing rehash and an outsourced Wario platformer. Too much of what people are talking about on Wii is rumoured orhasnt been revealed yet

blushield

The best? So you think Brawl and No More Heroes > Sins of a Solar Empire and Twilight of the Arnor? You're joking right?

[/QUOTEIHe might be joking with NMH. I've heard mixed things about that game.

But brawl is a quality game

He might be joking with NMH. I've heard mixed things about that game.

But brawl is a quality game

Shinobishyguy

The best? So you think Brawl and No More Heroes > Sins of a Solar Empire and Twilight of the Arnor? You're joking right?

Stevo_the_gamer

should have specified amongst consoles

but of course that wont last. microsoft and Sony have genuinely great exclusives coming out while Nintendo has animal crossing

This year the 360 and Ps3 will have better exclusives than the Wii and a metric ton of amazing multiplatform games

Sheep can keep their "market leader"

Indeed, but that singular game doesn't give the Wii an edge over its competitors this year.Stevo_the_gamer

to be fair all the PS3 has ahd so far is MGS 4 and all the 360 has had is a string of AA titles and flops

in terms of exclusive so far this year the Wii is winning

[QUOTE="Rocky32189"]

They are talking about overall development times. Why is this so hard to comprehend for some of you? You might as well just make a topic saying the 360 and PS3 sucks because it's going to take years to make Halo 4 and God of War 3.

angry_fork

God of War 3 is coming out in December of 09', are we getting a new Zelda by then? Mario? exactly.

Your logic kinda sucks

When did the last Mario platformer come out?

Late 2007

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]

The best? So you think Brawl and No More Heroes > Sins of a Solar Empire and Twilight of the Arnor? You're joking right?

blushield

should have specified amongst consoles

but of course that wont last. microsoft and Sony have genuinely great exclusives coming out while Nintendo has animal crossing

This year the 360 and Ps3 will have better exclusives than the Wii and a metric ton of amazing multiplatform games

Sheep can keep their "market leader"

[QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"]

He might be joking with NMH. I've heard mixed things about that game.

But brawl is a quality game

Stevo_the_gamer

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"][QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"]

He might be joking with NMH. I've heard mixed things about that game.

But brawl is a quality game

Shinobishyguy

[QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"][QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"][QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"]

He might be joking with NMH. I've heard mixed things about that game.

But brawl is a quality game

Stevo_the_gamer

But this ISSystemWars for a reason, ya'know? If it wasn't - it'd be ConsoleWars.Stevo_the_gamer

True

butthe PC is better than every console put together, that has always gone without saying.

yes but comparing a quality game like brawl to another quality game like you just listed isn't a joke.Shinobishyguy

True

butthe PC is better than every console put together, that has always gone without saying.

blushield

Maybe, maybe not. Some would disagree. (I personally wouldn't of course - since my PC costs more than all three consoles combined)

In essence, the message I was conveying was that PC gaming is supreme ... Ha. No, just kidding. Best exclusives of the year should not include the game(s) he listed. It was a joke to me, which probably wouldn't surprise you -- ya'know? ;)Stevo_the_gamer

I thought we were going by gamespot scores not your opinion

I'd argue that super smash brothers and MGS4 aren't exactly universally appealing either. But they scored high on gamespot and that's what matters

Maybe, maybe not. Some would disagree. (I personally wouldn't of course - since my PC costs more than all three consoles combined)

Stevo_the_gamer

I don't it's possible to argue against it. The consoles have advantages sure, but the sheer quality and voume of the PC library is unmatched

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]In essence, the message I was conveying was that PC gaming is supreme ... Ha. No, just kidding. Best exclusives of the year should not include the game(s) he listed. It was a joke to me, which probably wouldn't surprise you -- ya'know? ;)blushield

I thought we were going by gamespot scores not your opinion

I'd argue that super smash brothers and MGS4 aren't exactly universally appealing either. But they scored high on gamespot and that's what matters

[QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"] yes but comparing a quality game like brawl to another quality game like you just listed isn't a joke.Stevo_the_gamer

True

butthe PC is better than every console put together, that has always gone without saying.

blushield

Maybe, maybe not. Some would disagree. (I personally wouldn't of course - since my PC costs more than all three consoles combined)

Are you aware of the review scores?

and why exactly shouldn't brawl be listed as one of the best exclusives this year?

Are you aware of the review scores?

Shinobishyguy

Very aware that an inexperience Gamespot reviewer reviewed it (Ah, besides the point).

Well, comparing scores across different platforms is flat-out inane. Numerical scores do not hold any context and/or foundation when you compare two titles which not only go by extremely different standards, but also they're in completely different genres.Stevo_the_gamer

Well what else have we got? I'm not a fan of smash brothers but that doesn't mean it's not a AAA game on gamespot. I also think MGS4 and No More Heroes were overrated, again they're high rated games by gamespot standards

bottom line is that this year the Wii hashad two AAA and two AA exclusives (3 if you count pro evo due to its gameplay mechanics).

IF you have no interest in the Wii sell it. You should beable to get the asking price for it. Especially at christmas time. They are talking a shortage again. Fact is I owned a Wii for about 9 months. Sold it to a friend for his kids to enjoy at christmas. Only game I miss is Wii Bowling.

[QUOTE="Zhengi"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"][QUOTE="Zhengi"]

How have they not? They've released Zelda, Paper Mario, Battalion Wars 2, Fire Emblem, Metroid Prime 3, Super Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Bros Brawl, and Mario Kart since launch. What has Sony released? Uncharted, Heveanly Sword, Ratchet and Clank, and Folklore. Anything else I'm missing? Those games don't even compare to the quality and quantity of games that Nintendo has released for the Wii.

So the real question is how has Sony done more than Nintendo?

hakanakumono

Are you kidding? Uncharted doesn't? Ratchet and Clank? They are both known for being very good games. You're also forgetting Siren and Little Big Planet.

Just because they have produced more games does not mean nintendo does more for gaming in general.

Nintendo has focused on casuals this generation, which is imo (and the opinions of many) working against gaming, not for it.

I mentioned Uncharted and Ratchet and Clank. Neither one of them even come close to SMG, GOTY for 2008. They're not bad games, but if those are your only examples, then you've failed. Those don't match up to the quality of Nintendo's first party games. And Siren is a fine game, but how many games is that? 5 Sony games vs. 8 Nintendo games. Where's the quantity and quality? Sony definitely can't match Nintendo.

And LBP isn't even out yet. And between now and then, Nintendo is releasing other games like Warioland and Animal Crossing. They're not exactly slacking off. No can Sony even compare to Nintendo's line up.

I also find it funny how you keep focusing on Nintendo's casual games. You're making it seem like Sony has never made the Eye Toy games or the Sing Star games. Bunch of hypocrites. Sony won with the PS1 and PS2 because they went after the casuals as well. Now that Nintendo does it, they're the big bad wolf trying to destroy the gaming industry. :roll:

Sony didn't win the PS2 because of casuals, they wont he market because the high quality third party support continued from the playstation to the PS2. The wide variety of PS2 games outmatches any other console in history in its selection, possibly second to the snes though. THe PS2 casuals, yes, but it also had anything else a gamer could possibly want and MULTIPLES of it. THAT is what sold the PS2. And I'm sure after the previous generation, looking back on the PS1's amazing library saturn and 64 owners might have bought a PS2 (like me - I had N64, first console I ever owned ^^;) to play PS1 games.

Of course sony has some casual titles, but that is not their main focus. Their main focus is clearly to provide high quality installments in their successful series'. Nintendo, on the other hand, is shifting its focus to casual gaming. Sony makes gaming for everyone, nintendo makes gaming for some.

Completely wrong. If you believe that there are 100+ million hardcore gamers who bought the PS2, then why aren't they swelling up the ranks of the PS3 and 360? Why aren't they moving over and outselling the Wii right now? From the breakdown given by the NPD, the percentage of people who own a PS2 also own this console: 18% Wii, 17% 360, and 12% PS3. I think those are the numbers. Sony went right after the casuals and Nintendo is following that strategy. Do 3rd party games help? Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that Sony went after the casuals.

And how do YOU know what Nintendo's main focus is? They've released more games for gamers than casual games. The only casual games they've released are Wii Sports, Wii Play, Wii Fit, Big Brain Academy, and Warioware. Wow, that's 5 games. Nintendo has totally changed their main focus, especially considering they've released Zelda, Paper Mario, Battalion Wars 2, Metroid Prime 3, Fire Emblem, Super Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Bros Brawl, and Mario Kart Wii. In fact, you've got the whole philosophy wrong. Nintendo is actually the one who makes gaming for everyone. Their gaming portfolio shows it.

[QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"]

and why exactly shouldn't brawl be listed as one of the best exclusives this year?

Are you aware of the review scores?

Stevo_the_gamer

Very aware that an inexperience Gamespot reviewer reviewed it (Ah, besides the point).

More people reviewed the game than just Gamespot: http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/928518.asp?q=smash%20bros

More people reviewed the game than just Gamespot: http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/928518.asp?q=smash%20bros

Rocky32189

Guess you learn something new every day . . . . .

[QUOTE="Rocky32189"]

More people reviewed the game than just Gamespot: http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/928518.asp?q=smash%20bros

Stevo_the_gamer

*lol cat*

Guess you learn something new every day . . . . .

You're too young to remember Nintendo's draconian NES development regulations. They make the money on their systems, period - their relationship with third parties was always callous. The difference is, in this era, with the money coming from casuals / non-gamers (who frankly don't have a refined taste in games due to inexperience) Nintendo has even more incentive to limit the hand of the third parties.

They're not fighting a war with SEGA this time - and the reality is, they're not fighting a war with Sony or Microsoft. They've said it numerous times, the Wii is a toy, the Wii isn't a videogame system, and for them it's about making record profits while they can on the latest popular gadget. That's it - and it comes at the cost of the core fans.

What's the harm? What's the benefit? Sony and Microsoft take huge losses to secure third parties, provide the powerful hardware and software toolsets those companies need, provide the online infrastructure, et cetera to create modern games, and then secure the audience for guaranteed game sales. Nintendo has done none of that - they'd have to put their money where their mouth is - and when corporate profits matter more than your long time customers, that's not going to happen.

subrosian

That was a different Nintendo, under Yamauchi, and they've been trying to fix that problem for a long time now. They now have the platform and the perfect time to do it--why wouldn't they?

If they truly believed the Wii wasn't a videogame system, they would never have been trying to cater to us at all. E3 wouldn't have seemed so strange, Reggie wouldn't have made those awkward comments afterward, and Nintendo wouldn't have apologized later. What you're saying they think is only what you think.

It's obvious what the benefit would be, and it's obvious that it's worth the effort. You just don't think they care because they're evil and tainted. This isn't politics, not everyone has to be corrupt.

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]

[QUOTE="Rocky32189"]

More people reviewed the game than just Gamespot: http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/928518.asp?q=smash%20bros

Shinobishyguy

*lol cat*

Guess you learn something new every day . . . . .

its an awesome game, but definitely a dissapointment compared to all the hype and the long wait time. They should have added more characters and less clone characters. Also i would have loved if their level creator was actually good and not sum cheap trash they added in at the last second. And maybe if they actually worked on the online, it wouldnt be so bad. having me wait 6hrs in the waiting room without a game is not fun and friend codes are idiotic. They should have usernames and a lobby where u can see which games are being hosted and the connection strength and the rules and then you can chose for yourself. Voice chat wouldnt hurt either.

its an awesome game, but definitely a dissapointment compared to all the hype and the long wait time. They should have added more characters and less clone characters. Also i would have loved if their level creator was actually good and not sum cheap trash they added in at the last second. And maybe if they actually worked on the online, it wouldnt be so bad. having me wait 6hrs in the waiting room without a game is not fun and friend codes are idiotic. They should have usernames and a lobby where u can see which games are being hosted and the connection strength and the rules and then you can chose for yourself. Voice chat wouldnt hurt either.

II_Seraphim_II

There are no clones in Brawl.

...

...

....

Just about everything else is true, though. :P