Nintendo says it's responsible for 99% of 2008 industry growth

BECAUSE STATISTICS ALWAYS HELP.

Honestly scores don't matter. Unless your Patcher or something.

When were scores brought in the last generation or the one before that? Like never...So basically your point is. "I HAVE ZE NUMBERS SO MY EGO CAN LOOK BETTER".

If we looked at scores then the Virtua Boy or the 32X would of been the worst consoles ever.

You starting to sound/look like a broken record.

You keep commenting on the Wii being the Video Game Crash of 1982.

...Are you fucking kidding me?! Lmao. Unless Nostradamus or have a time machine. Bring some proof just other than numbers and percentages.

the biases of metacritic are more than apparent, i think.

yes, because only critics are allowed to have opinions over which games are good and bad and have never been accused of overrating a game or two in the past year

*cell phone* Niko! eez your cuzin!

Excuses, excuses.

Xera, I think you never heard anybody bringing up scores last generation because you were still curled up in the Nsider forums agreeing with everyone else about how gameplay is the onl that matterz and graphcs are not best or needd.

Am I wrong?

what? Do you enjoy having every action game be a God of War clone? Having every FPS be a HALO/Call of Duty clone?

Graphics ARENT everything. I can turn on my PS1 and still enjoy a game of Metal Gear Solid or even Test Drive 6. You wanna know how those games look by todays standards? Eat a lot of fiber and you'll get the idea.

Never heard of the NSider forum.

And I grew playing the Arcades. Hell Nintendo is not my favorite company lmao. It's SNK and Capcom. Show how much you know huh?

And no Graphics aren't everything because I play fighting games a lot. Do they matter of course they do, but they can't outshine gameplay. They have to be balanced in order to have a good experience. You can't have one thing over the other.

I find a powerful fallacy in the claim that Wii is focusing on gameplay over graphics, in the simple fact that Wii's core gameplay is terrible. Waggle is an uncertain, unintuitive 'button', DIRECTIONAL waggle is an imprecise joke, and IR pointing is jumpy as hell unless you turn off all the lights and block every window in the room.

I find a flaw that the Wii was gameplay over Graphics.

Was that in..like E3 2006?

I thought it was a different experience. Not "Hey gameplay matters more".

Clearly games like MP3 and even Monster Hunter 3 differ. Hell even Mario Galaxy to an extent.

Mario Galaxy was a fine game. It would have been better without waggle or pointing.

oh you mean that stuff in Mario Galaxy you were never forced to use but were there if you felt like it? That waggle and pointer? Yep, really detracted from the experience

Yeah, the waggle that triggered the second most-used action in the game, which could easily have been mapped to a button.

yeah, reading my last comment I realized how fevered and rushed it was. But really dude? Mario is one of the Nintendo games with the least intrusive motion controls. What? Afraid you're going to get carpal tunnel from flicking your wrist? The only time it got a little annoying is spinning up those long flower stems. Besides, it added a sense of momentum to the game. The more a flicked, the quicker Mario spun. I'd rather give a few quick flicks than repeatedly mash the B button

The fact that it had so little bearing on gameplay is proof of its innecessity. If you want an example of where waggle has a more invasive, more degenerative effect on gameplay, look no farther than Metroid Prime 3. Go try a morph-ball quick-jump, and grapple lasso attack, a hundred times each and record how many are successful.

Oh yes the defenders of Nintendo always says the same thing.

Graphics do not matter.
Metacritic is biased.
All the PS360 have is shooters.

The Wii is not a success because of what we now call hardcore gamers. It's been a success because it appealed to non gamers.

The Wii have outdated hardware by comparison and thus have cheaper development costs. This allow developers the chance to be more risk and make game they wouldn't try on the PS360. This is why you get more shovelware (appeal to userbase and cheap dev cost) than you get games that take chances like no more heroes & zack and wiki. Conversely that is why the PS360 don't have as much variety with games like de blob & boom blox. The dev cost to make the same game would be much higher and the game have a bigger chance to failure on those platform because the demographic isn't nearly as casual.

In short wii developers can take more chances on making games that are different. This also mean that they can make more crappy games as well.

PS360 can't take as many chances because it cost more money to develop games for. If one game fail it can ruin the company where it's not like that on wii. Developers can only afford to take enough risk as to do a popular title or genre in a unique way. You only see this from the big developers like EA, Sony, MS, Ubi and activision.

The wii isn't the home of the most Godawful games, the wii is only the most famous console with lots of godawful games.

Besides it's not like is the Nintendo wants bad games on purpose.

Because it isn't. ;3

The Atari 2600, Sega CD, Sega 32 X, The Atari Jaguar, the VB, were worse than the Wii. Hell even the 5200.

The 2600 gets a pass seeing as it brought "Home consoles" even though the Mangavox Odyssey did first.

Did you miss the last two generations bit, Xera077? He put a qualifier in there and you ignored it.

No because he said 007.

Clearly at not that person.

So unles Xera007 shows up, then why bother answering the question.

Also what about the Gizmondo? That was suppose to come out in those two console generations you specified or the N-Gage?

Ooh, he WENT there, that's a point for Xera077. I'll take my Wii over an Ngage any day.

You look familiar. Whats your gamertag?

(WALL OF TEXT ALERT)

Leo,

Personally, I can't understand their frustrations and I was once a Nintendo loyalist (though, given how vehemently I attack the system, you couldn't tell it now). They'll incessantly defend all the pertains to the Wii as if there are no faults with the system; they've defended Nintendo's hardware implementation, they'll defend developer/publisher ideology of broadening consumer appeal to focus almost completely on "casual" gamers to the detriment of the core, and they've even defend "casual gaming" tastes despite them being, largely, the worst forms of lowest common denominator entertainment. The MOMENT an Xbox 360 or PS3's mentioned, or a developer preference of either/both system(s), we have to endure the tired, "Same games, better visuals" argument or how developers are suffering because they're ignoring the Wii and it's extremely large "casual userbase".

Most of us knew the Wii wasn't going to be a normal mapping or polygon pushing powerhouse of a system and we were/are okay with that; given how abysmal Gamecube sales were, it's understandable the company wanted to take a conservative approach with its future system in case the novelty of motion control didn't take off. If you fail, you don't want an expensive one because you may not have the chance to recover from it.

What we don't agree with Nintendo on is completely failing to modernize the Wii's hardware. Moving your processors from 130 nm to 90 nm, then giving them the higher clockspeed allowed from that smaller manufacturing process isn't a mind blowing improvement; it happens in the PC world all the time (for videocards, usually every 6 months). Nintendo could've at least pumped up Broadway to include two threads (or even utilize a similar concept to Intel's hyperthreading where two threads can be executed at once); they didn't. Nintendo could've used programmable pixel shaders instead of fixed function hardware without changing Hollywood's performance. If the XBOX could do it in 2001, why not the Wii in 2006? Both changes don't add performance to hardware, it just makes it much more efficient overall and aids in hardware optimization (you're squeezing everything thing you can from what you have). It's why ATI and NVIDIA moved to unified shaders; they weren't more powerful than separate pixel/vertex shaders (they're actually weaker in both ares), but they were the next step in efficiency after programmable shaders were the norm from halo products to the very bottom because they're much more flexible. $250 is steep for what's literally an overclocked Gamecube. Instead of frowning on Nintendo for being cheapskates, people are praising them for it.

If I or anyone else says, "Screw mini-games, screw peripheral-based titles, and screw the people who buy them" I'll be given 1/2 stars in no less than 45 seconds and get 15 responses as to why I'm an elitist asshole or a "whiny core gamer" who's completely detached from reality. I can understand people having different tastes than I do; life without variety or differences wouldn't really be worth living. I can appreciate someone liking sports games, JRPGs (there's nothing wrong with JRPGs or enjoying them, they're just not my thing), or racing sims because I play games they don't like and I don't get any flack for it.

What I cannot and will not appreciate is an audience that will buy vapid mini-game after mini-game, terrible peripheral game after peripheral game (think Wii Fit and yes, I'll go there, Guitar Hero and Rock Band both), while completely ignoring even universally accessible "core" titles, and then dragging everyone's development schedule down to their level. It's partly why I can't enjoy a spoof like Airplane or The Naked Gun in cinema today; there's no incentive to make such films when abortions like Epic Movie can be thrown together cheaply, within 8 weeks (filming and editing), and will pull in massive amounts of money because the lowest common denominator laps it up like bees collect nectar. Replace "The Naked Gun" with Mass Effect (I still say it should've been docked 15% metacritic score for identi-planets) with "Wii Play", and that logic holds true for gaming.

I can't blame developers for releasing shit when 90% of the Wii's audience goes nuts for it, but god forbid I (or people like me) have an unfavorable view of people who buy products that barely meet the qualifications of being called software.

Then there's the aforementioned inverse: Wii fanboys will piss on anyone who mentions something favorable about the Xbox 360 and/or the PS3. "It's the same thing, it just looks better." "HD gaming is killing developers." "Only the Wii's innovative" so on and so forth.

People fail to realize the extra processing power available to the Xbox 360 and PS3 can have an impact on immersion and gameplay outside of visuals. Both systems are capable of executing much better AI than what the Wii will ever be able to (F.E.A.R., while not a great port, is a good example) and they're capable of having far more NPCs on screen. Dead Rising's a perfect example of how having extra NPCs can change the feel of a game and your strategy in playing it; it's always overlooked, though.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the difficulties Xbox 360 and PS3 developers are currently experiencing come from having to program for modern technology without having been given enough time to ease into the current environment gradually. They're growing pains; they aren't pleasant and they're, sometimes, downright painful. Wii developers don't have the same issues simply because they're working with familiar hardware that has minimal changes between it and its predecessor.

It's not because they're ignoring the Wii because, let's be honest, the games that are selling well on the Xbox 360, PS3, and PC sell POORLY on the Wii. Everyone loves to cite Zack & Wiki as a success (I know what Capcom's said, Mr. Khan and Samfish), but the game, to date, has sold 540,000 units globally. No More Heroes, a game that would've done infinitely better on the other two systems due to its graphic violence and over the top humor, sold a paltry 390,000 worldwide to date. Wii Fit, on the other hand, has sold 14.57 million in its 7 months. There's more potential for financial success on the Wii on paper, but so does a strictly communist or capitalist system; it doesn't translate well in reality.

There will be casualties along the way, but such is the nature of progress (as it has been for every previous gaming generation). However, those that endure and survive, will prosper in the future. Multi-core and multi-threading processing aren't going to change substantially; you'll have more cores to work with, more threads, and you might even see features like Hyperthreading being used, but the concepts of what people are learning now will still be relevant. It's harder to learn how to go from using one core to two, but not quite as hard as going from two to four. It's like going from steam power to an internal combustion engine; the technology doesn't drastically change in execution once you take the plunge, all you simply can do is refine it. There's no need to play catch up.

And yet, Wii fanboys fail to realize that. Yes, the Wii is cheaper to developer for. Yes, it is easier to develop for; such is the nature of old technology. However, Nintendo will inevitably have to take the multi-core and/or multi-threaded plunge (face it, graphics processing hasn't made many changes to rasterization, it's just gotten much faster), and when it does, it's going to have the same problems 360/PS3-centric devs currently have. Nintendo's forsaking preparation for an inevitable future in the name of short-term success. The Wii's an evolutionary dead end, not because it's under powered, but because (again) Nintendo failed to modernize it. If you say such a short-sighted approach is often the recipe for disaster, you're called a graphics whore. So yeah...can't understand why Wii fans gets so overly defensive when one calls out the definite disadvantages of their system of choice just as we do with the other two system (relative to each other).

Holy shit!

I don't defend Nintendo due to some rabid fanboy-ism, I defend them because they have no obligation to appeal to me, and I can respect that. As a company, they are making (pardon me, but the phrase applies) SHIT TONS OF MONEY, and who am I to tell them to stop because I want a harder Zelda? I play my Xbox more often, no doubt, but again, that's not out of fanboy-ism, but because I enjoy the games on it. I can like both, how 'bout them apples?

Blank-Mage,

There's nothing wrong with liking both or all three (or four, if you factor in the PC as a platform on its own). I've never said or hinted that someone should buy one system exclusively; blindly subscribing to just one system ultimately hurts you, the gamer, by limiting your choices. You might not experience some truly fantastic games. By buying two, three, or four platforms you are practically ensuring that all of your gaming needs are fulfilled in some way. Is that for everyone? No, most people are perfectly happy with just one system and anything beyond that is excessive. I think that's something everyone can agree with on some level.

What I disagree with you on is obligation for a specific reason: the Gamecube. Third parties avoided the console like the plague (no doubt due to Nintendo's abuse of them during the SNES and N64 generations) and casual gamers, the crowd every publisher/developer feels should be priority number one on the Wii, overwhelming rejected the system in favor of the PS2; while the system has tons of shovelware, it also currently has the largest library of "core" games available to any console still be manufactured to balance it out (in essence, it's got everything and something for everyone). Without Nintendo's core, the Gamecube would've folded up quicker than the Dreamcast in terms of longevity. They/we were the only ones buying Gamecubes and we were the only ones supporting Nintendo, not just as console manufacturer, but also as a publisher.

I understand "core" gamers are no longer than majority of the Wii's userbase and I understand there's a lot of money to be made off of mini-games or peripheral bundles (though I've been more than clear on how I feel about them). What I don't understand is being given the cold shoulder, being thrown a bone or two while I watch the "I'll pay top dollar for Wii Fit" crowd drag a system that has the most gameplay potential being drug down to the level of a parlor gimmick and then being told by people I should be content. To me, mini-game collections and peripheral bundles are the absolute worst "innovations" that've come out of this gen and they, to me at least, aren't progressing in a healthy direction as a hobby or industry. On some level, Nintendo needs people like us because we are less likely to say, "To hell with you" when the next novelty, the next gimmick comes out; casuals come and go, the core will always remain. 2009's a reasonably good start to warming relations again, but should it have taken 3 years?

I have an Xbox 360, a PS3, a gaming rig, and a Wii; I want each platform to succeed, but I completely disagree with Nintendo approach in regards to their console and I feel that, by focusing only on short term successes (as lucrative as they might be), they're only going to fuck themselves over in the future. Get-rich-quick schemes only work for so long (if they work) before that pile of money you're rolling in simply vanishes.

My point is, Nintendo sells games. I can't fault them for doing what's profitable, because as a rule corporations exists to profit. Anyone who thinks differently is naive. (Sorry, fanboys.) They're not going to pander to us out of loyalty, because 'loyalty to core gamers' doesn't hold up well in a boardroom meeting. At least, not when the members of said meeting are rolling in cash from ignoring core gamers.

When casual games become less profitable, they'll revert to core games again, and I'll buy them. I don't hold grudges, because frankly, it's retarded to 'punish' Nintendo for wronging you. Can you blame them? If they make a 20 million dollars selling Wii Fit and 5 million dollars selling Metroid? Just wait until the hype is over, and you can count on seeing more of the games you want.

Here's an idea! If you're a Nintendo fanboy, just prove to Nintendo there's more money to be had with core games. Buying a 360 is not infidelity. Supporting the competition may bring about the change in Nintendo you're looking for, and you can have fun doing it with games like GOW2 and Valkaria Chronicles. And when they change their tune, you get more core games from them! Win/win, baby!

Blank-mage,

Yes, Nintendo is a business. However, their short sighted goals of "Hey, how can I make as much money as quickly as possible?" is going to severely bite them in the ass when they inevitably have to catch up to more modern hardware and it competitors aren't have the same difficulties because they bit the bullet early. That cheap, easy development they're currently enjoying will completely evaporate when they make the jump and the other two will be far more prepared for what the future brings. A console isn't a handheld and being an evolutionary throwback only works once every few generations. If a company risks falling too far behind for too long, the inevitable game of catch up they have to play to have a competitive product may be never ending. At its price point, the Wii's only competitive in regards to its motion controls; beyond that, it's got nothing on the other two (in library, features, or in online multiplayer).

I vote with my wallet all the time (which is why my libraries for the PC, Xbox 360, and PS3 dwarf that of the Wii); it's also why games like No More Heroes, Super Mario Galaxy, and MP3 were day one purchases (just as Madworld and The Conduit will be). However, if I buy a new copy of (say) Zack & Wiki 2: Mo' Treasure, 50 Cannibals while twenty people behind me are demanding Wii Play or Wii Fit what kind of message does that send to a developer? Even if I try talking some of them into buying something worthwhile, only a few will actually reconsider their purchase. They know what they want, and good games don't fall into that category. Obviously there's more money to be had separating money from people whose gaming tastes are equal to that of movie goers who voluntarily watch the near quarterly release of another Friedberg/Seltzer abortion.

The core's migrating away from the Wii because, let's be honest, the last three years have been nowhere near as good as they have been on the other platforms and Wii developers/publishers have made it more or less clear they'll just be throwing us a bone rather than actually focusing on us (with a few exceptions like Sega or Capcom). It certainly doesn't help that, if you have an unfavorable view of "casual" games or "casual" gamers, fifty people step in line to defend them; yes, people have different tastes, but that doesn't make all of those tastes acceptable or good. Instead of saying, "Eh...it's okay I guess" we should be saying, "Fuck mini-games, fuck Wii fit; that's not what we paid $250 to play. Give us something worthwhile or we're putting your little white box on Ebay where you make no money and we'll be taking our business elsewhere." Maybe if other core gamers were actually vocal and made their opinions known, maybe if they actually tried talking people out of making bad purchases, perhaps they'd be getting steady releases of what they want to play instead of one title here or there. Indifference has no where near the same effect as condemnation.

But, until people get off their asses to do that, I'll be playing Overlord on my Xbox 360, Uncharted on my PS3, and Crysis (playing around with HDR and SSAO settings all day really strains the eyes) on my gaming rig while the Wii collects dust. The only reason I have the system is that I have a faint hope people, consumers especially (publisher and developers to a slightly smaller degree), will pull their heads out of their asses.