You could be 126 and still have just as much freedom to town a switch as an 11 year old.

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

What will define the Wii U's excellency - what always has defined Nintendo's consoles excellency - are the Nintendo first-party games. Don't kid yourself: no matter how many multi-platforms get released on the Wii U, it'll be the first-party that'll set the console apart from Sony's and Microsoft's next systems.

Tell me, with the Wii's relative lack of 3rd party support (existant, but smaller than the other consoles'), would you still consider its library lacking? Or the console a failure, software-wise?

Madmangamer364

I don't disagree with that at all. I've said numerous times that you can pretty much link the success of Nintendo's consoles almost directly to the strength of its first party lineup. The Wii is Nintendo's most successful console is because, quite frankly, it has Nintendo's best lineup of games on a console to date.

Still, my opinion on that matter has almost nothing to do with this topic, which is about the Wii and the way various figures in the video game industry have felt about it. The greatness of games like Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, and various other first party games did little to change the sour attitude many have had towards the Wii, and chances are that similar games won't give the Wii U any better of a perception. If anything, it is because of these titles that have allowed many to get Nintendo systems labels like "kiddy" and "casual" over the years, and as unjustified and quite frankly, childish as they may be, there are those who have taken these terms to heart.

To answer your question, I do find the Wii's library lacking in certain areas, and that's despite the fact that I own more Wii games than any other console I own. There are various genres and ideas that simply weren't taken advantage of as well as they should have been. That's taking nothing away from what the Wii is and has accomplished, though, but that's also not giving the Wii U any passes because of what its predecessor has been able to accomplish or not accomplish. Much like with any other system, the Wii U has to reach that point of excellency, and even then, who knows how the Wii U can truly go? Each gen of systems take their own unique identity, and based on what we know, it's not unreasonable to see the Wii U as a major success or a colossal failure, depending on what you're looking at. My point is really neither of the extremes, but at the moment, it is a huge step backwards.

This may be late and a little, but, I imagine you with a tmnt voice due to your avatar, not consciously, but still. It's kinda funny imagining a tmnt talking big time about the wii. Anywho, despite our evident differences in the wii u now, I think we can all agree that 3rd party does better this time. killer freaks from outter space is a start...I think, but I'd really like 3rd party games that try to push the wii/wii u's unique abilities to the max, I really hope Play station doesn't rip-off again. That's annoying.

I see trilogy for brand spanking new going for 29.99 at gamestop. (at least last time I checked)

When I was saying that they were taking it more seriously, I was really meaning that they were puting more serious titles on it rather than just spending two minutes to make a wii sports rip-off or something that is just a gimmick that is trying to gain a few dollars, I wasn't really meaning in the sense of them making quality exclusives.

And yeah...sorry for the uber-long read, I at least hoped that people would've thought it was insightful. I had just puked out some bile that had been building up since middle school. Basically I'm dissatisfied with how the wii has been treated by 3rd parties and other game related media, which affected who would buy the wii, which affected the sales of certain games on the wii, which affected the devs choices and opinions with the wii, which affected how the wii looked. Again, not saying good 3rd party support doesn't exist on the wii, just that it shouldn't be so low for the reasons that they were for. I wish I had the money to get all those good-looking games like the RPG triplets (saying that merely for convenience), the TvC game, Epic Mickey, and many others that I cannot currently remember right now, despite seeing that some have some average or relatively lower reviews, I still think they might have some good things about them.

There are a lot of games out on the the wii right now, and many of them are in different genres. In terms of sales, critical success, quality (this depends on your own opinion, obviously) which genre do you think is the best, and what is the best game in the genre that you think did best.

You don't have to use all of the criteria (you can choose based on critical success and your opinion and exclude sales for example, you can do any one (or two) or these combinations) but whatever game and genre you choose, please give reasons why you feel that way.

And no, it's not because I think that it's a "baby's toy" or anything else biased like that, it is because of the lack of variety of quality games. I notice that unless it is made by Nintendo or one of their own, it's quality isn't good. There are exceptions of course, but the majority of 3rd party games that aren't ports from 360/PS3 usually suck. It's not just my opinion, just look at meta critic: Wii games seem to always get the highest amount of 'Bad' games by the end of each year.

I, by no means, believe this to be the fault of the system itself, but of the developers. The wii isn't the strongest system out there, but that doesn't mean it can't do much either. It has proven this many times with mainly Nintendo-published and/or developed games. It has had beautiful graphics, just look at TLZ: Skyward sword and Twilight princess, not only were they good-looking but also they were MASSIVE. Metroid prime 3, SSBB, SMG 1&2, MH3 show that the wii can have good graphics, but most games, like the COD ports, show either bad or 'good enough' graphics. (tell me with a straight face that you could gawk at the COD graphics). Just look at the XBOX (1), which seems to me to have similar tech specs to the wii according to wikipedia (which means that it may or may not be true) and I've seen some good graphics on the XBOX, but I hardly see that on the 3rd party Wii games.

The question is, then, why? Why do the Wii games 'suck'? (not all of them of course) I'll tell you why, it's because of the developers. When the Wii was first coming out, people were all complaining that it would have the worst graphics at the time. I saw this not only on the internet, but also in my own personal life, in school there would always be some 'awesome' game coming out for the 360/PS3, which I learned meant that it was just another bloody/gory, M-rated game with the absolutely 'best' looking graphics (which meant it was bloodier/gorier). That means that a new trend was going on, it meant that developers had found a gold mine, and it was named "graphics" So they looked at the HD and then the Wii, they saw the Wii as a 'toy' and decided to treat it as such. This discrimination didn't stop as just the developers and consumers, no, even game informer magazine (the most popular game reviewing magazine) had shown dislike for Nintendo's 'toy' but not directly, probably due to try and play it safe. What they did was relatively subtle. As you and I probably know, the Wii didn't start out with many 'hardcore' games, it was mainly 'casual' games. Because of this, seeing one that would come out for the Wii would be strange, apparently too strange for gameinformer, ever notice that a lot of the multi-platform games that could potentially be good (potentially) that were coming out for all systems, were somehow "accidentally" left out for the wii in Game informer's listings? I noticed this, and first thought that it was just a typo, as I did the second one, and then the third, by the fourth I thought something was up.

Why would game informer do that? That's ridiculous! Nintendo is too big to try and mess with, true, but they didn't do this because it was Nintendo (at least I don't think it was, never saw any relation between Nintendo and their evident disliking for the wii) But that wasn't the cause I don't think. Then what was it? It was the fact the Nintendo decided to not go with the flow. Nintendo has never been one for M-rated games, they've never made one ever (at least I've never seen one that they made, but they did, however, publish some m-rated games. Geist or Eternal darkness anyone?) so when the mainstream went into the M-rated era, Nintendo would suffer. Game Informer, it seems to me, has always been one to go with the flow (which I believe is a big part of the reason why they are so popular) Their reviews show some evidence as well. They seemed to always give a lower score to games that weren't part of the popular m-rated crowd, this may be partially due to the fact that devs didn't give much effort on the wii as mentioned above, but I also think it was because they were biased against games that weren't M-rated (or teen at least) mega popular (ones where they would get negative backlash from if they gave a lower score to, like little big planet and mario). If you were able to read it, their review for "Dewy's adventure" they had first given around a 7.5, but in their "second thought" section gave it a 6.5 instead, the reviewer themself said that it was because it was a E-rated game, and ended saying "Maybe I shouldn't be so open minded" a comment they said after saying they were not trying to be biased towards the E-rated game because it was E-rated in the initial review. This may have possibly been this one reviewer, but the fact that they allowed this review to be published despite the obvious bias shows that the rest don't seem to really care to stop it.

There's a lot more on Game informer that I could say, but this isn't about Gameinformer. Look at games made by EA, Ubisoft or some other ones. They've made it big on PS3/360 with games like "Dead space" (fun game by the way) Assassin's creed (also good), Bioshock (I love this game), and many other M-rated games. This is good, this means they've made some money, this means busines is good, this means they can put forth some money and effort towards their games, especially on ones where developement would be cheaper, like the Wii, right? Wrong. Look again at the roster or these 3rd party games for the Wii. You probably never even knew that they did. Have you played "My sims", how about that "Brothers in arms" game (I forgot the subtitle, forgive me, I'm human) or maybe "Academy of champions" or "farcry: vengence" or maybe you heard of those cabela games for the Wii? "Animal planet: vet life"? "Icarly" "Over the hedge: Hammy goes nuts" Many of these you probably didn't hear of (if you did then you get out a lot) and many of these games were either exclusive to Nintendo systems or were for just about everything out there (the true multi-platform games that reach out as far as they can, like those horrible game-movies) There are also countless others, a good some, might I say, published and/or developed by these companies that are making big bucks off of the 360/PS3. So this cannot mean that they don't have the funds or skill, this means they lack the inspiration, they lack the will, they didn't put forth the time or effort. They just wanted to make a quick buck so shoved out games like "Food Network: Cook or Be Cooked" or "Critter Round-Up" or "We Cheer 2" or "Water Warfare" without any real imagination or effort. Who want to play rubik's cube on the Wii when you could just get one in real life? These kind of games consequetly had poor reviews in general, and didn't sell that much most of the time (ironic, isn't it), but they did more than just waste Wii-game shelf space, they affected the image of the Wii, they made the Wii out to be some 'child's preschool toy' than an actual gaming console, and this isn't because Nintendo wished it to be, quite the contrary they wanted to retain their 'hardcore' crowd while getting new people into gaming. (they could've done a better job at this in my opinion, but still)

I'm not saying that all 3rd party games for the Wii are effortless and uninspired, there are some that are quite enjoyable (or at least had effort put into it) and even got good reviews (but sadly, due to consumers' infected perception of the Wii and it's games, these games didn't always get good sales) like The Conduit (publisher Sega) No more Heroes (publisher Ubisoft) Tatsunoko vs. Capcom (Capcom) and the recent trio of RPG's that have either come out or coming out (you know which ones I speak of) Madworld (Sega again) Red Steel 2 (Ubisoft again) A boy and his blob (IDK publisher), there are even some fun ports (COD ports admittedly, as well as Guitar Hero, and some others)but these are rarities. Most 3rd party Wii games are uninspired or had little effort into them or are just bad. This may not be due entirely to lack of caring from developers to the Wii, but as said before, the Wii would most likely be cheaper to developer for, it is also the most popular console of this generation, so that means that the devs/pubs who are brand new and don't have much money, or devs/pubs who are having some finicial troubles so they try to make a game for the Wii to try and reduce costs and get some money in, of course this doesn't work too well, for their games sucked still due to lack of funds and/or time. These kind of devs/pubs would flock to the Wii (most likey) and try to get some starter cash. Resulting in poor results for us Wii owners who are (still or were) looking for a great slew of good games.

Though this problem has died down somewhat in reccent times with the release of some more 3rd party games that have much praise (and probably sales) like the three afore mentioned RGP's Xenoblade chronicles, Last story, and Pandora's tower. Also some other games like Conduit 2, Monster hunter 3, Epic Mickey and many others. Many of which have critical and/or financial success (Note: I have not played all of these games, but heard they were great and wish to get many of them) So this article may be just a few years late, but I digress, I needed to get my two cents in, and I got it in. I think that you may think I'm a ranting, raving, paranoid Nintendork by now, but I'm not as bad as it sounds.

This was not made to attack any specific people or peoples. All names I used in here were for reference only. I do not hate Gameinformer, PS3/360, 'hardcore' gamers, Ubisoft, Activision, EA, or any other group or company referenced in this writing. I actually like most of these things I referenced, I just think that some follow a little too closely to what is the 'big thing' these days, which is M-rated games it seems, with hyperrealistic graphics, blood and gore, and commonly (but not always) some way of (S)ecretly-(E)moted-(X)enomorph appeal. I do not have anything against this trend per-say (if that is how you spell it) but I get kinda tired of seeing it everywhere. I mean, if you go into a 360/PS3 section of a store, a seemingly good 70-90% of the games are M-rated, especially the popular ones. I don't dislike M-rated games (In fact some are my favorite games, like Bioshock, Resisdent evil, Halo, TES, Half-life, and many others) but I just think that there are too many these days. This wouldn't be too much of a problem if they exibited more originality (again, I'm not saying their bad, just that they seem to be a little linear now) or some diversity, it seems devs don't want to put much effort in any game lower than T-rated (which seems to be almost non-existant this generation, hm, that's kinda weird). This is especially true on the Wii, since most of its games don't get anything much higher than an E10+-rating (not saying T-rated and up don't exist, just that they're scarce) and since almost no one puts much effort in these kind of games, the wii game library suffers. On Metacritic there is an average metascore for all of the games of one console in one year, and if I can remember correctly (I could be wrong) the Wii always has the lowest amount of 'good' games and has the most amount of 'poor' or 'bad' games.

I'm glad to see that the Wii-U won't seem to be having this problem, with games like Bioshock: Infinate, Assassin's Creed 3, Darkness II, Darksiders II, Aliens: Colonial Marines, and some others lining up. This significantly large amount of M-rated (and for many of them, popular) games means that the devs are taking this one seriously, which hopefully means that we won't be getting all those half-attempted games and large amounts of ports. Though I still think that games in general still need a little more diversity if this is true. Games like TLZ: Skyward Sword are a nice breath of fresh air, (a game that doesn't try to get popularity with hyper realistic graphics and the absolutely most bad*** gameplay around like those on PS3/360 (again, have nothing agaisnt anyone, it just all blends together after a while) but focuses on depth and how to give us an enjoyable time) I hope that this gives some people something to think about. I also hope that the trend of bad***, M-rated games dies down a little bit, I'd like some quality diversity every now and then too. And I hope that others gamers do, too, or else this trend won't die down as quick.

Hope you all had fun reading this (or was at least mildly interested) and now have thought about someting that you hadn't before! Ciao!