|
Ramagamma posted:It's not nice to see a company like Nintendo do so poorly with the Wii U. However, it'll be worth it if it leads to Platinum Games realizing making Bayonetta 2 a Wii U exclusive was indeed the most loving retarded decision in video-game history. Odd are pretty good that it was "Bayonetta 2 on Wii U" or "game does not get made" so...
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 08:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 00:18 |
|
|
Crowbear posted:Graphical horsepower, actually getting third party games, non-retarded marketing, new features that people actually care about. Woah, woah now. Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. Sony and Microsoft both have made plenty of loving dumb marketing decisions and introduced features that have bombed.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 09:28
|
|
|
Crowbear posted:They have, but Sony has recently hired a competent marketing firm and in theory integrated streaming and video sharing is a great feature. I'll believe it from Sony after I see a good E3 press conference from them. I like a fair number of the PS4's announced features but I actually use a fair amount of the WiiU's features too on the rare occasion I boot it up. They're going to need more than just that to really make it work and they've got a lot to prove. Same for the 360 successor too. There's a lot of stuff I would theoretically have loved on the 360 which them bungled hard. I really want to see some actual proof before I believe it. Cameron posted:Old post, but my opinion: The same problems coming around again like they had with the GameCube. Motion controls suck for the most part, the kiddie games, lackluster graphics, even for a system that's more powerful that the 360, and there are just no killer games on the console. The age of trying to sell games to kids is gone. The meat of the gaming fanbase is teens now. The kids that liked Nintendo grew up, but Nintendo stayed the same for too long. Nintendo games are pretty regularly among the highest selling games in any year they come out, so this is pretty demonstrably untrue. The gaming market is ridiculous diverse these days and a lot of the people who buy Nintendo games or other 'unlikely' huge sellers are a meaningful part of it. In fact adult women actually represent a greater percentage of the gaming market than teenage boys. There is a reason Sony and Microsoft are also trying to change their demographics. Teens are a significant part of but by no means the 'meat' of the industry. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 09:43 on May 17, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 09:36
|
|
|
Meme Emulator posted:Is this true for the console market, or just demographics as a whole? I was always under the impression that consoles were still male dominated, and PC/phone gaming shored up the market for women. I believe it takes into account PC/phone, but even without that the market is not teen focused. There's a reason something like Just Dance is one of the absolute best selling games every time it comes out. The huge billion sellers like Call of Duty are probably disproportionately teens but they're also only a part of the whole. Kids represent a huge chunk of the market, as do adults in theirs 30s who grew up on games, and it counts for both genders. Skylanders and Pokemon certainly have their share of adult players but they're not selling crazy gangbusters off just that. The industry can't survive as a teen-focused thing and they know it. That is why Sony and Microsoft are both diversifying, even if they do it unsuccessfully. The industry needs to keep growing to sustain itself. Nintendo is one of the few companies who legitimately makes all-ages all-gender games, and that's a big part of their staying power even beyond the pure nostalgia of the name. If you buy a Nintendo game, you're getting something basically anyone can play for all the good and bad that comes with that. Sony and Microsoft have some great franchises, but they're in a fairly narrow band. If you don't like realistic violence and shooting you're really limited in options. Both of them are trying to diversify but nobody's really hit 'gold' yet aside from maybe Little Big Planet. Third parties are doing that (Rayman Legends and Sonic All-Star Racing Transformed for example), but both of those are on the PC as well, and the PC (especially with Steambox) is shaping up to be a pretty serious competitor this generation. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 11:29 on May 17, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 10:52
|
|
|
Ramagamma posted:Ultimately, I'd rather Bayonetta 2 was never a thing than a product exclusive to a console which isn't selling enough units to justify that kind of exclusivitivity. That doesn't make any sense at all. You would rather the game not exist than exist just because it's on a system you don't want to buy. At absolute worst, if the WiiU is a Virtual Boy flop, you can buy one super cheap once it flops completely and use it to play Bayonetta 2, something that wouldn't be an option otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 11:12
|
|
|
Ramagamma posted:This in no way would help Platinum games though and they arn't a studio that deserves or can reasonably handle a flop. They've handled plenty of flops before. Platinum games are the definition of great games that sell poorly. Especially with Metal Gear Rising under their belt, they're going to be fine even if Bayonetta 2 didn't sell a single copy. It also isn't like they're footing the bill themselves and need it to survive.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 11:20
|
|
|
Toady posted:It's a combination of factors leading to the negativity over Nintendo, including lack of games, lack of profitability, poor marketing, and missing features such as decent online services. By the time they get their first-party games out, the buzz will be about the first console generation updates in eight years. It's hard not to be skeptical of the company's leadership. People said the exact same thing about every previous Nintendo system since... christ, I remember people saying it back when the Genesis came out and Genesis Does What Nintendont. This is why this topic actually needs its own thread instead of just being something that can be reasonably discussed in the WiiU thread. There are certainly different factors in play and the WiiU is pretty unlikely to get the Wii niche, but Nintendo Is Doomed is something that tends to come more from people desperately wanting Nintendo to be doomed than actual evidence. That isn't to say that the WiiU is in great shape, because it isn't, but anyone who seriously thinks that Nintendo is going to go and start making games for other systems because they're SO DOOMED is being extremely premature. They're unlikely to get the #1 niche this upcoming generation unless the PS4 and Nextbox spectacularly poo poo the bed but that isn't the same as failing miserably. A lot is going to depend on how and when Nintendo actually decides to change their marketing for the drat thing, which will probably coincide with 'actually getting games besides New Super Mario out.' If they do that and it still fails to sell then they've got pretty serious cause to be concerned, but even then they're pretty unlikely to get out of the console biz. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 18:26 on May 17, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 18:17
|
|
|
Toady posted:Fans often cite the N64 and Gamecube to dismiss criticism of Nintendo's current position, but the situation today is entirely different. After all, I remember when Nintendo's profitability was a go-to argument back then: "Nintendo may be in last place, but they're the only one not selling at a loss!" It really isn't entirely different. It's certainly not a good position but a lot of that is marketing fuckups. The fact that people think the WiiU is a Wii add-on is a lot more problematic than anything else on that list and shows that Nintendo has done a terrible job of marketing the system, but not in a way which is impossible to recover from. The strength of their franchises is immense and if they can do something with those franchises in conjunction with a good marketing push, the strength of the system or the crappy online is going to matter a lot less. I really don't think anyone thinks the WiiU is going to beat the PS4/Nextbox/PC, but what it can do is carve a niche for itself as a secondary system or casual system if it manages to market itself properly. It's just completely failed at that so far. The name alone was a mistake, and one they should have known to avoid after the exact same thing happened with the 3DS. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 21:10 on May 17, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:His tweets were deleted, but that's probably because some people get absolutely loving dumb when it comes to video games and were threatening him bodily harm. I'd say it is more likely because it's really really stupid to do that for any company you're likely to have a relationship with in the future. Nobody wants to be the guy who had to eat crow if the WiiU magically bounces back.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
While Apple (and to a lesser extent Android) have the potential to be serious competitors, I do think it's pretty silly to say that they're the sole kings of casual gaming. Multiplayer is a big appeal of Nintendo's games, as shown by them forcing it into even Super Mario Bros, and while Apps can do multiplayer, they're not as welcoming to just "pop in Mario Kart and play"-style stuff. That, combined with the pricing issues that Apps have, give other systems meaningful niches to play around in.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 21:01
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:Lack of Backwards Compatibility is gonna cost them at least one sale (mine, obviously). The Virtual Console might actually be worth a drat if it was half as good as the PSN's PSOne Classics. When I got a new PS3, I had a ton of games I could download instantly at no extra cost. If my Wii tanks then that's it. Those games that I paid real money for are gone forever. Someone earlier said the whole console market may be in trouble - and I could see that. The next generation seems like it's long on horsepower, short on innovation. And the Wii U doesn't even have the horsepower. What do you mean? The WiiU is fully backward compatible. Likewise, Nintendo will replace the games on a lost system, it's just a more annoying process.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:I really only care about innovation in the software, to be honest. Buttons and joysticks and stuff are fine for the control interface. They're reliable, precise, easy to use, and give nice tactile feedback to your hand. I haven't yet seen any of these "innovations" that make me want to give them up. And an extra screen? Who cares, I can only focus on one screen at a time anyway. There are several games which make very good use of alternate configurations to do things which you couldn't with buttons-and-dualstick. Even as far as shooting games go, the Wiimote or Move have in several cases been kind of superior to their dual-stick counterpart. (As well as the classic mouse-and-keyboard argument.) Likewise, having a dual screen or a second screen makes some games infinitely more playable. Something like Etrian Odyssey would be a lot more tedious if you frequently had to open the map up and having your inventory on the pad in ZombiU allowed it to do things which you couldn't with a regular controller which specifically involved dividing your attention. And there are many games which end up requiring awkward button combinations because of the limited number of buttons available because they have to devote certain button to certain things. Even several Vita games manage to have a better control scheme because they can include touch-screen buttons to compensate. Not to mention something like Dance Central or DDR or whatever which just requires its own distinct kind of play style. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 23:58 on May 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 19, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
abigserve posted:Is anyone actually still excited for new Mario/Smash/Zelda games? Galaxy 2, for instance, only sold about 7 million copies and TP was poorly received. I feel like the pull of these franchises is greatly over-estimated. The 3D Marios have always been less popular than the 2D Marios. The entire point of Super Mario Land 3D was to try to create a bridge between the 2D and 3D games to try to get the 2D players to try the 3D games. They've flat-out said this was their goal with it. Even despite that "only 7 million copies" is kind of insane considering that most games would kill to sell 7 million copies on a single system. Twilight Princess' sales numbers were exactly on-par with the expected Zelda numbers. In fact it sold better than any Zelda aside from TOoT. Skyward Sword didn't do as well but it continued to have roughly the same sales numbers as a Zelda franchise game can expect (and which is still remarkably good by most standards.) Their biggest flop in recent memory was Other M, which sold horribly even for the Metroid franchise, which itself is consistently one of Nintendo's lowest performers. It sold over a million but only after being given a huge discount, which itself is already really rare for a Nintendo product. It's also one of the few games Nintendo has ever admitted to just flat-out failing. Nintendo franchises are basically the most consistent performers out there besides Call of Duty or Halo. Even when they underperform they still do extremely well by most standards, just not by Nintendo standards. To give another example: For all that New Super Mario Bros U. is underperforming at the moment, it still looks to be doing better than both Gears of War Judgment and God of War Ascension. This isn't good for Nintendo because a high-quality 2D Mario game should be selling significantly better than that but by most standards it would be performing really well. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 07:17 on May 20, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 06:53
|
|
|
WendigoJohnson posted:Nino Kuni had a big rear end story, loads of exploration, and this was ontop of traditional RPG gameplay. You can have a big rear end story and have heavily explorable areas in a platformer as well. There was also quite a few hours of voice work too. Except... there's an entire franchise of Mario games dedicated to having big explorable areas and silly stories. They're even putting out a new Luigi-themed one rather soon. People's suggestions for the main Mario games keep boil down to "make it something besides Mario" and that ignores that people want a Mario game when they buy a Mario game. They don't want Skyrim: Mario Edition unless it's specifically marketed as Skyrim: Mario Edition. There's certainly room for the Mario platfomers to change and grow but the solution isn't and shouldn't be "make them story-heavy exploration games." They certainly could do with adding some interesting new ideas to the game, but what they don't need to do is go all Sega and start stapling storylines and RPG elements on in an attempt to copy whatever is popular. It took Sega forever to learn that, hey, what people want is a loving Sonic game. Nintendo doesn't need to repeat that mistake. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 09:13 on May 20, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 09:09
|
|
|
Toady posted:It's not a lot compared to other Mario games like NSMB which sold 30 million. It is, however, directly in line with what every previous 3D Mario has sold. Even Mario 64, which was otherwise the most successful of the 3D Marios, did maybe half that taking in the DS re-release as well. It isn't an argument in favor of "3D Mario games are selling less." It's an argument in favor of "3D Mario games have always sold less even at the height of their popularity."
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 09:15
|
|
|
WendigoJohnson posted:It didn't come out on the Wii-U it came out on the PS3 and DS. It came out on the DS because that was the system around when it was released. It was released in 2010. This has absolutely nothing to do what will sell because the DS was a well-established thing by that point and could support niche games.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 09:24
|
|
|
WendigoJohnson posted:I never said about stapling RPG elements to anything. Just the exploration aspects and having actual personality to the characters. Characters with personality can do a lot for a game, take Poker Night at The Inventory 1 and 2 for example. It's just a poker game but having fully voiced characters who talk with each other adds a whole other level of enjoyment to what is underneath just a simple game. Nobody wants to know about Mario and Luigi or what drives them except maybe you and horrible fanfiction writers. They are intentionally silly cartoon plumbers who fight turtles. Rayman Origins had less cutscenes, characterization and plot than the previous Rayman games, not more, and that was part of what made it work. It just embraced beautiful graphics and simple gameplay. They can give the characters more personality but they sure as gently caress don't need cutscenes and voice acting to do it. Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon just came out and manages to give Luigi boatloads of personality without anything more than body language. So did Luigi's Mansion classic. So did, for the most part, all of the Mario RPGs. Beyond a certain point what you're asking for isn't them to do something, it's asking them to change Franchise A into Franchise B. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 09:57 on May 20, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 09:46
|
|
|
fivegears4reverse posted:A little story isn't too bad though. I don't need it to get dramatic all the time or delve into Mario and Luigi's motivations, but you can't ignore that a lot of folks felt let down by the removal of almost all extra story content in Galaxy 2 after the first game gave us the Rosalina story. Hell, I like Galaxy 2 slightly more as a game because it featured better level design, but Galaxy 1 was ultimately more memorable to me because of it's teensy little narrative it presented. Except that a lot of people complained about how story-'heavy' Galaxy 1 was as well. I've never actually heard anyone complain about Galaxy 2 lacking story until just this moment and I don't think it's a significant complaint. I do think there are several franchises Nintendo has which feel weird without voice acting. Skyward Sword desperately needed it and Fire Emblem's kinda-there-kinda-not voice acting is just bizarre, but the last thing a Mario platformer needs is voice acting, cutscenes and in-depth storylines. I mean seriously, this talk about banter... when would it occur? In the single player game where Mario is alone? In the crazy 4-person multplayer where people are so busy loving each other over and jumping on each other's heads? Or are we going to have to put up with Mario doing the same thing as half the protagonists out there and talking over a mushroom radio so he has someone to play off of? It works in the Mario RPGs because they're completely different kinds of games and are designed to take advantage of it, and even then the lack of voice acting is generally for the best. Do you really want to listen to Charles Martinet doing two slightly different voices talking at each other for 10 hours? ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 10:11 on May 20, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 10:07
|
|
|
Toady posted:I don't know what you mean when you say Super Mario 64 did half that. It sold 11.6 million, and Super Mario Galaxy sold 10.7 million. Sales nearly halved for Super Mario Galaxy 2. Super Mario 64 did half of New Super Mario Bros, not Galaxy 2. Nintendo's own numbers for Super Mario Galaxy in the same time period were roughly the same. Super Mario Galaxy had a longer tail because it was out longer before the Wii started to die off but in the same time frame it sold the same amount. Part of the reason for every Super Mario game's immense sales are the long tail which keeps the game selling throughout the system's life. NSMB did't sell in one huge chunk, it sold lots of copies over a long period of time. The same trend follows for almost every Mario game. This is also part of the reason they keep selling at full price despite that being ridiculous in this era of 3-months-to-bargain-bin for 90% of games. It's also a good example of how bad Other M failed that it actually managed to get massive discounts. The fact that NSMBWU is on sale as we speak is not a good sign for Nintendo, even if it's just at one retailer. I guess you could argue that New Super Luigi Wii U getting a retail release is to blame for that but I don't feel comfortable saying it isn't a coincidence. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 21:45 on May 20, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
Quest For Glory II posted:He's citing the official sales numbers reported by nintendo. Yeah, my mistake there. VG Chartz had similar-but-still-wrong numbers and I found the source after I posted that.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
I don't think the game industry is going to crash but I really have to wonder how sustainable AAA development is. The smart companies are already shying away from it unless they've got a sure thing. At the same time low-budget and indie really isn't something that anyone should want to be the sole source of games. There needs to be an area for mid-tier and mid-budget games. If Nintendo was smart they'd do everything they could to become this area but we'll see. I think both Sony and Microsoft are in a good position to do that as well if they can actually get people to look at low-budget games as anything but lazy or "I'll wait until they're $5." ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 00:09 on May 21, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 21, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
ThisIsACoolGuy posted:I feel really silly then, I thought Galaxy 2 looked amazing v Galaxy did look amazing but it was more due to art design than pure processing power.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2013 05:06
|
|
|
juicecube posted:How did skyward sell anyways? I always thought the motion plus requirement to be a bit of an odd choice. Try telling a casual wii gamer the new zelda requires a morion plus attachment or a new controller with one built in. They just glaze over and carry on playing mariokart It did around 4 million, which is about average for a Zelda game but well below Twilight Princess and TOoT which both did closer to 7. (Discounting TOoT's re-releases but counting the Gamecube TP.) It's basically on par with Majora's Mask which had a similar "you need this gimmick to play" with the N64 Expansion Pack. The most poorly received Zelda in recent memory was Minish Cap which IIRC barely broke a million. After that was Spirit Tracks which did about half of what Phantom Hourglass did. The worst overall reception for a console Zelda was Twilight Princess GC but that's not really a fair competition because most people bought it on the Wii as opposed to just not wanting it. Edit: Excuse me, I was wrong here. The worst overall console release was Four Swords Adventure which was also the worst Zelda release period. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 06:00 on May 21, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 21, 2013 05:48
|
|
|
Proletarian posted:poo poo dude, there were games on the N64 that didn't save on cart. gently caress you, Castlevania 64.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2013 10:01
|
|
|
Destructable environments generally have a lot of design problems. It's partially system power and partially just that they're a lot of effort for very little payoff unless the only thing you're going for making a battle look more destructive. They could be done on modern systems there just really isn't a lot of reason to. It isn't about focusing on setpieces so much as... like, destructable environments are one of those buzzwords that sounds cool and usually is kind of dull in practice. Even in a sandbox environment, there's only so much fully destructable environments offer before they actually detract from the experience. What'd be more significant with the new generation isn't stuff that is going to be so obvious. Faster loading time, more enemies onscreen, more enemies onscreen actually capable of functioning, less slowdown, larger areas to explore... all that kinda cool stuff which isn't bright and shiny but will have a tangible effect on how games can be designed. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 11:12 on May 21, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 21, 2013 11:05
|
|
|
sandpiper posted:Well I've just been playing the Otogi series and they really add to a hack and slash surprisingly well, as in slamming a demon into a post, wall, rock or whatever with a sword slash and the object crumbles away, and the debris actually doing damage/even setting them on fire if they crashed into a lit torch or something. Being able to slash your way right through walls, having airborne combat where you spike an enemy down towards the ground and they hurtle and crash, leaving an actual three dimensional crater on the ground that just stays there and taking extra damage from having been slammed into something. Yeah, but those sorts of things haven't gone away and good setpiece design can even take them into account. Otogi is a fun game largely because they put a lot of work into each setpiece, and there are still plenty of games that do that. Metal Gear Rising comes to mind as a recent example. A real true destructible environment runs into the Red Faction problem basically. It's incredibly cool when you're fooling around destroying thing but it's really hard to make the rest of the game particularly engaging. Man, I want to replay Otogi now and I don't know if it's even backwards compatable.  OatmealRaisin posted:Come on next gen Dynasty Warriors I wouldn't hold out hope for that particular franchise to change.
ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 11:32 on May 21, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 21, 2013 11:29
|
|
|
Longanimitas posted:Seriously, why DON'T we have a Pokemon MMO? I would spend all of my hours playing it. A Pokemon MMO honestly would not be a good thing. Pokemon, as it is designed, would not translate 1-for-1 into an MMO because MMOs have very different design priorities. You can't just go "make Pokemon but multiplayer" and have it work. You'd basically have to design an entirely new game from scratch which would have little to with Pokemon as it exists aside from having characters and Pokemon. Even if you just one-for-one copied the basic Pokemon design, you run into other design problems. The competitive aspects of Pokemon are casual enough that they could be ignored and younger or more casual players can enjoy the game on their own level. Many people have no idea a lot of the deeper mechanics exist, they just catch Pikachu and steamroll the game. At the same time they are massively in-depth enough that someone who wants to invest a ton of time and effort into it can. Trying to appeal to both groups in an MMO would be a recipe for disaster. Even on top of this, a modern MMO is almost certainly going to have to be a F2P thing because the subscription model is rapidly dying out. So on top of all the fun design problems you're going to have to be reconcepting Pokemon as a profitable F2P game or else sticking with the outdated and much-hated subscription model. Either way that's a load of trouble. It would be proftable because it is Pokemon but if it can sustain that profit is a much larger question. It's really difficult to think of anything good that would come of a Pokemon MMO. People say they'd play a billion hours but what do you expect to do in it? Raid groups against Mewtwo? Camping the same area of forest as 900 other people trying to make sure you're the guy who catches the shiny Pikachu when it spawns? Basically the only thing that really makes sense is battling other players over the internet and you can do that now anyway. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 13:11 on May 21, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 21, 2013 13:01
|
|
|
abigserve posted:I'm not sure why they didn't build it with the same or similar specs to the XBone and PS4. Someone please enlighten me because a Nintendo console that gets all the next generation games and and the next generation nintendo games and has a gimmick (touchscreen) seems like it'd be a loving slam dunk. Nintendo is a video game company. Sony and Microsoft are electronic giants. As such they have more flexibility with what they can do, their manufacturing capabilities, the costs they can eat, the infrastructure they have in place, and so-on. Beyond that they also bet on the tablet which adds a lot to the price. That isn't to say Nintendo can't do better than they are, but Sony and Microsoft have a lot of synergy and existing assets they can leverage in a lot of ways. Things like the Blu-Ray Drive in the PS3 exist as much because Sony is trying to push a new technology as anything else. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 05:28 on May 22, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 22, 2013 05:24
|
|
|
LDometriax posted:To answer your question, No. Someday people will stop quoting VGChartz. Someday. (VGChartz makes up their numbers. Literally makes 'em right up.)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2013 11:04
|
|
|
CapnAndy posted:Price estimates for the next gen consoles: Xbox One $399 undiscounted, PS4 $349. The Wii U's going to have to take a massive price cut or it's dead in the water. Fortunately, seeing who wrote that article, we can say firmly that those are the two prices the X-Box One and PS4 will most certainly NOT be.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2013 17:41
|
|
|
Fallom posted:Nobody's celebrating it, everybody wants the WiiU to do well. How do people consistently get that wrong? Man, we've had people in this very thread flat-out say they want Nintendo to fail, either because they think that means they'll start going third party or because they dislike the company. You're underestimating how deeply people get entrenched in the console war. zarron posted:I do expect to see $399 to be the limit for the XB1/PS4. However as people said above if they happen to manage a $349 or even with a $199 with a 2 year sub. Nintendo is hosed and HAS to drop the price almost immediately to sell for holiday season. If Microsoft shoves their system out the door at $200, they've basically won unless their system sets children on fire, but it seems unlikely.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
Edmund Honda posted:Had a look at the NPD numbers for sales in America. Pretty sad reading right now. The Wii U hasn't ever outsold the 360 or PS3 over a single month. In total it's been outsold since launch 3:1 by the 360 and around 2:1 by the PS3, and even marginally by the Wii. One problem with looking at NPD is that the more successful Nintendo games tend to do well in a way which doesn't chart there. They have long tails and continue to sell over their entire lifetime, in comparison to most games which are severely frontloaded . THat isn't to say the WiiU is secretly doing well, but that this also isn't a great metric. A big game that sells systems would do a lot for them. It wouldn't be all they need but their #1 problem at the moment is that the name recognition is in the toilet. They have to fix that before we can even begin to judge where they stand elsewhere because as it stands not even all hardcore gamers know the WiiU isn't a Wii add-on.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
Toady posted:What people? I don't recall anyone in this thread saying they want Nintendo to fail. Some do feel that they'd be more successful as a third-party developer. I don't really want to look back through 27 pages (plus all the discussion in threads before) but there've been multiple people who've either said it or implied it. The same goes for every system mind you, you see it in the X-Box One and PS4 threads too. Console fans get loving crazy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2013 19:24
|
|
|
J Detan posted:I think a huge problem with the name recognition is right when they launched, THQ's Udraw tablet was in stores. I know I saw more than one confused mother try to get that in Wal Mart. I don't believe it. That would mean someone bought the UDraw.  But it's a bunch of factors. The Wii U name really sounds like an add-on, the fact that it uses the Wii controllers only contributes to that. It was a ridiculous marketing misstep, especially after the same thing happened with the 3DS.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:Well that's my point exactly, I'm not saying there should be some kind of great innovation, just less gimmicks and sequels since that approach is a kind of spastic reaction to the fact that there's only so many workable game genres you can invent. Ni No Kuni works exactly because it has fairly generic gameplay reminiscent of retro RPG's without being a tired sequel or reboot of an earlier franchise. So why are sequels bad but generic games good? There's a serious problem with new IPs being unable to break into the market, but sequels are not inherently bad things. Many of the most amazing games of every generation have been sequels because a sequel can refine and adjust what came before. They can get excessive but you have to get into Assassin's Creed territory of yearly games with minimal changes and that would be bad even if they were putting out new IPs with similar gameplay.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2013 21:06
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:As an example: New Super Mario Bros heralded the Death of Mario. They were not bad games, they might even be considered pretty good games, but they simply rehashed and diluted the Mario formula since nothing truly new can really be invented for Mario that will attract people in the same way Super Mario World did (this has been said before here, but y'know). They have the musty smell of repetition which turns people off and destroys the console-selling magic of a franchise like that. Everybody knows that New Super Mario Bros U, unlike most of its predecessors up to and including Galaxy 1, is not a game really worth buying a console for. It lacks a certain subjective quality that is necessary to keep Nintendo afloat because it's what sells their consoles. These games still sell well when taken on their own, but do not sell the console. There's no enthusiasm, no kid-hypnotism, no word of mouth. They do though. When marketed well they sell systems like nothing else. Look at Animal Crossing, which is basically the definition of minor upgrades to the same formula. It's saved two Nintendo handhelds and sold millions of copies. Super Mario Bros. U is argued to be one of the best Mario games in years and its sales are likely due more to the WiiU's lovely marketing than people not wanting to play it. The Mario franchise gets lots of takes on the subject matter. You've got Paper Mario, Mario RPG, Mario Land 3D, Mario Galaxy/64-style games, and the 2D New Super Mario games, and that's just games that have platforming. They don't completely reinvent the formula but that can also be a good thing. (Looking at you, Sonic the Hedgehog.) Shibawanko posted:And yet there is nothing inherently bad about a simple platform game, or a simple uncomplicated RPG game, or racing game. Secret of Mana or Final Fantasy VI weren't innovative games, they just took an existing formula and did it particularly well (alright FFVI is a sequel, but not in terms of story or characters) and gave it an entirely new universe and characters. Mario Kart was also not a particularly original game, but excelled in execution and some subtle twists. Ni No Kuni also does this, and I think this kind of game is what fits Nintendo best in terms of brand. Secret of Mana was a sequel too and arguably inferior both to its predecessor and its sequel. Mario Karts basically created the kart racing genre but most people will argue that at least some of the later games are superior to it in every way. In almost every example you mentioned there, the sequels are the games people remember most fondly. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Jun 4, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2013 21:27
|
|
|
Alteisen posted:The problem with Mad World and well any M-Rated game on the Wii is that it tried to drat hard, the focus was constantly the excessive gore and cursing with the narrative second, that might appeal to edgy 16 year olds but most people probably wanted something with a little more meat. Mad World, in all honesty, wasn't really a good game. It was about 2 hours long and the mechanics were very simplistic and uninteresting while the plot was a somewhat-stylish knockoff of Escape From New York. People are quick to blame the Wii but Mad World isn't really the kind of game that would have been successful on any platform. It just was a flawed game which had an interesting concept it failed to live up to. I don't regret playing it but I can't imagine that a ridiculously short and ridiculous simple game would have been met any better at a $60 price point on the PS3/360. Edit: I mean people freaked the hell out over how short Metal Gear Rising was and it was basically a better, longer and more plot-heavy game in every way while also being attached to a popular existing franchise AND it was only running the timer while you were actually playing. Can you imagine what the response would have been to a game with minimal replay value and no length? ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Jun 4, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
Alteisen posted:That I can agree with, it was the most un-platinum game ever, wonder if it was due to the limitations of the controller. Even that wouldn't explain the short length or the general lack of effort put into... basically the entire thing. It felt like something they had to rush out the door. Anarchy Reigns is also fairly simple but in a much more Platinum kind of way.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2013 21:38
|
|
|
AngryCaterpillar posted:The Wii U is Ralph Wiggum. So you mean it will become inexplicably popular and eventually be elected president?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 04:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 00:18 |
|
|
Toady posted:Who? I mean, I've followed this thread since the start, and, at most, people have said a major failure could cause Nintendo to behave differently, but I don't take that to mean hope that Nintendo fails. For one just off the topic of my head, the topic creator flat-out said in another thread they only created this one because they have anti-Nintendo bias and enjoy talking about their failures. v  vAs I said, I don't want to go through 27 pages + a bunch of other threads to track down names. It's the same for every system on the planet. There are people who want it to fail entirely because of the name it has attached. Christ, I've seen people want Apple/Valve/ect to fail for no reason beyond the name branding. (Even if there are perfectly legitimate reasons to dislike all companies as well.) ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Jun 5, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 21:30
|
|