Nintendo: NSMB Wii has sold 2 million in US

Are you sick, dieing or something? Are you being held captive somewhere? Do you need help?

Or is this fake Tmac?

Someone got laid...

I've been like this for months now, constantly saying I'm getting a Wii for christmas and have been preparing for it by buying games and accessories beforehand. I got to play this at a friend's a few days ago and it was pretty fun.

According to VGChartz, its been doing between 900k and 1.2 million per week in the weeks since it's come out, and i don't think they've documented it's Japanese launch yet. Not sure.

but that's WW though. Forget how US factors in.

Guys, it's a Christmas miracle!

It's a Chanukah Miracle!!!

Don't be playa haten yall. I understand this type of game is not for everybody anymore(the game field has long ago changed), but to those who wanted and did buy NSMB for $50, I'm sure are very satisfied and have no buyers remorse. I know I love the game.

I'm pretty sure Shiggy already has those things
maybe next on his list is a Hawaiian island perhaps?

I havn't played this yet, but I ALWAYS hate ice levels in games. Not because their hard or anything...they just piss me off.

I HATE ICE!

I have to agree with Mogster. Ice levels are normally more frustrating as usually developers make it so the platforms have no grip and you can have so many accidental deaths due to momentum.

Doesn't matter if it is Zelda or Mario or Okami (last 3 games with ice levels I've played), they are the weaker parts of the game in my opinion.

This game offers $50 much more well spent than the majority of games out there. Few games offer a fair, but difficult experience anymore, especially Nintendo games. This game is both fun and challenging, which is something to interest most hardcore gamers. There is nothing wrong with a 2D game.

Exactly, but god forbid the idiots understand this.

I mean, if the graphics were of Wario Land Shake It quality, if it had online multiplayer, more levels (76 doesn't cut it), and/or a robust level designer, then it would be a different story. But this is basically 50 dollars for a DS game.

See, I don't understand why posts like these get downvoted so quickly.

I own NSMB Wii. It's a fun game.

As Aang said, though, Nintendo could have done much more with the game than they did. As it stands, it's wasted potential, and do ya know why?

...because, apparently, most of y'all are okay with wasted potential.

That was a quick downvoting. I'm sure it's a great game, but like aang said, it's basically a DS port. You really think something like NSMBW is worth the same amount of money as Mario Galaxy? Splosion Man is 1/5 the price, and actually has a separate set of levels built for co-op, and online. Not to mention it's a fantastic platformer. Am I really supposed to think NSMBW is worth 5 times more than that just because it has a mario stamp on it?

I understand that it's a bit too expensive for what it is, but please tell me, why should online play have anything to do with the price? Would whether or not it has online play effect your purchase? It shouldn't. This is a game you play together. With people. In the same room. This is a proper social game, not some crap where you argue with 9 year olds down a microphone. This is how MP gaming should be done.

Wait, why is it wasted potential? You never really elaborated.
Sure, it doesn't have the most levels or the best graphics, but when it comes to graphics it's a 2D platformer meaning they really don't matter, and those 76 levels included are some of the best designed levels ever which is what counts. 90% of the levels that would be made by the players are almost guaranteed to be half-assed SMB World 1-1 copies, of which the world does not need more. And really, the co-op is fun because your sitting in the same room as one another playing and interacting with each other in real life, not online where you might as well be talking to a really smart (or dumb, in most cases, if you view it that way) computer.
It's true that if well implemented these features may have made a better game, but look at Super Smash Bros Brawl. It was filled to the brim with features, but if the gameplay's broken (or in this case, worse than it's predecessor's), it ain't gonna work, and the gameplay in NSMBW is down to a T.

Yeah. I'll have to agree with that. They only charge you $50 because they can. When you pay $60 for complicated, innovative, graphically stunning games with great story... It's hard to justify the $50 price point for a much simpler game.

Just look at Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age: Origins, Borderlands etc.
Don't tell me that those NSMBW budget was anywhere close to those games, yet, they are only $10 more.

"if it had more levels (76 doesn't cut it), then it would be a different story"

My god, GTFO with that attitude.

Why should a game be devalued just because it's 2D? You guys are so concerned with bullet point features and big budget graphics that you forget this is simply a quality game, easily worth $50. No one can make a fun, polished, tightly controlled platformer like Nintendo can. They are not easy games to create. And multiplayer in Mario is a pretty big deal, online or not.

Comment eaten, argh.

GTFO with that attitude. 76 levels is like a 700% increase over 99% of every other game this generation.

"Just look at Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age: Origins, Borderlands etc.
Don't tell me that those NSMBW budget was anywhere close to those games, yet, they are only $10 more."

And yet Im having more fun with NSMBW.. Strange.

Are you out of your mind? WiiWare? A game this big would take up so much space, and you could probably forget about multiplayer. Is $50 a little steep? Sure, but LBP is a $60 game and it's still somewhat a "2-d Platformer". Yes, it has user-generated content, but we all know the Wii isn't capable of that.

I look at it this way: This is one of the top-10 Wii games, ever. Therefor it is worth the $50. As a side note, I traded Zelda (got it as a gift and never liked it) and The Conduit (beat single-player and couldn't stand the online) as a deal with GS to get the game for $10 on release day (now they seem to be out of stock everywhere).

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/1191-Left-4-Dead-2-New-Super-Mario-Bros-Wii

@shag

Exactly.

I never fully take what yahtzee says seriously. I always see his point, but I also see his videos as FUNNY. The complaints are valid, but not a serious problem that makes me refuse a game outright. He's bashed several great games, and I'm damn sure despite what he says: He's had fun with a good number of them. But as a comedian critic, he has to bash down every aspect of a game... he can only compliment games that are perfect, made by valve (kinda' perfect), or games completely ignored/hated that he wants to advertise.

I don't seriously know what you guys got a problem with NSMBWii... and I seriously don't understand why you keep bringing up "It's just a DS port".... that's funny, I played the DS version, and it was nowhere near the co-op fun like this was. In fact, the DS version had no use of the co-op, the game would hardly change if it was played by two people - it would just be played faster.
Not only that, but the stages are different... and the graphics are improved (if you're into that)... and oh wait, it's a completely different game! WOW!
It just has the same title with "Wii" tacked on the end. Even Miyamoto says in several vids and interviews about it that he made sure it was better than the not-so-co-op-interactive DS version, since the DS version is where most of his disappointment was in (obviously not in those words, but whatevs).

...if you're going to complain about prices, the one thing Nintendo's guilty of is how their first-party games have never dropped the $50 price tag except on rare sales!
...friggin' that Pokemon on the Wii is still $50, and that thing is OOOOLLLLLDDD...

NSMBWii is a great game. It's not being defended by fandom, it's being defended by those who had a great time playing it. ...then there are those who only watched videos and reviews who bash on it. Or even better: The ones who played it for less than 30 minutes/1 hour with a group of elitist friends who judge it every second of the way...
If the people buying this game say it's worth the $50, it's worth the $50.
If there are those in few number who say it's not worth the $50: Guess what, these people are found in EVERY GAME. Don't act as if this is so special.

See, it's this kind of thing that keeps me from visiting Joystiq and enjoying the community like I used to.

I posted my opinions - that this game, while fun (hey, forgot to read that part, did ya?), could have been much more than Nintendo allowed it to be, or that other co-op games like Borderlands provide an on-par experience - and what happens? I get downvoted into oblivion. My posts are misconstrued or lumped in with more extreme posts. I'm made to look like I hate systems or games that I actually like.

It's frustrating, yo

Well you see Fun DMC, that's how it works. I can praise a game all I want but if one little thing like the price bothers me, then my opinion is wrong, and that's that.

"This is a game you play together. With people. In the same room. This is a proper social game, not some crap where you argue with 9 year olds down a microphone. This is how MP gaming should be done."

I'm still surprised people don't get this.

First off, I'm not sure if you realize this, but you can play with friends in the vast majority of online games.

With that said, many of us simply don't have the opportunity to conveniently play with our friends in the same room. It's as simple as that - oftentimes, it's a hassle, and that's where an online element for a game like this would make sense.

Of course playing in the same room is the perferred way to play, but it's also not possible a good bit of the time - something folks who like to make your argument seem to forget.

"GTFO with that attitude. 76 levels is like a 700% increase over 99% of every other game this generation."

When each level lasts around an average of five to ten minutes (ten if you tend to lose a lot), that 700% increase suddenly becomes smaller.

Mind you, I myself think 76 levels is fine for a game like this - especially given that you're given incentive to replay each level. Acting as though this game has more content than most simply based on the number of levels, though, is off.

Consider 'Splosion Man. Fun game. Lacks the charm of NSMB Wii, sure, but for $10 I got 100 levels (50 designed specifically for multiplayer) and an online element. You think for a $50 investment, you'd get much more than that (regardless of whether or not 'more' falls under the category of more levels, or this, or that, or whatever).

Y'all should see my posts on GoNintendo about this game. I'm practically raving over it - I acknowledge that it's a fun game. In fact, it's one of the best games on the system. I just think that, considering what you can get for $50 and $60 nowadays, Nintendo could have more advances with what is essentially a formula they've used in the same exact way for years. MP is a huge advance, for me - it's what makes the game so good - but I feel as though they could have really shown other devs, and folks like me, what they're really capable of as developers had they truly flexed the Wii's muscles with the game, or added more features, or included an online element, or what have you.

I wish they'd do away with the downvote system already. It used to be useful, because folks around here had some sense of restraint and used it against people whose only opinions existed on extreme ends of the fanboy spectrum. Nowadays, if folks around here disagree, the first thing they do is click the little (-) button next to someone's name.

"but I feel as though they could have really shown other devs, and folks like me, what they're really capable of as developers had they truly flexed the Wii's muscles with the game"

As much as I am a fan of the Wii, I have to say...
Nintendo has never really flexed the Wii's muscle. At all.

Well, the closest thing we got was Super Mario Galaxy. But who knows, if they're making a sequel, maybe they knew that they could push the game further than anyone expected.

...it seems almost obvious that Nintendo is refusing to push the Wii to its limits, practically doing their own version of what 3rd party devs are doing "not putting a large amount of love and care into their games while still getting tons of profit"... except Nintendo's version is obviously higher with the amount of money they have left over in their several pockets.
As if the money they're spending to make these games is chump change, though it looks like a huge sum of money when compared to other devs.

I don't really mind, though. It feels like Nintendo's been using the Wii as an experiment all this time.

I don't mind funding the experiment as long as the conclusion benefits greatly. 'Sides, the experiment is pretty fun as it is.

@Soshi: Mario Galaxy was the 'closest thing'? Come on - that game made incredible use of the hardware (and let's face it, there isn't all that much hardware to make use of). If it isn't the best-looking Wii game, it's surely still the *joint* best-looking Wii game... (Among others, Resident Evil: Darkside Chronicles looks really great, but it's sort of hard to compare graphics with such different styles... and if you compare sheer imagination as well as just the visual quality, um, somehow I think Galaxy wins.)

@general comments: I didn't buy this game, largely because I don't want to play a 2d platformer - yes, HERESY. But that's just a personal choice. Charging $50 for the game is perfectly reasonable. There are 'only' 76 levels but you can bet each of those levels had more professionalism, effort, testing, and rework in than some other entire ($10) games.

Similarly, I'm sure the game development budget was a lot less than Mass Effect or whatever else was quoted - but I also doubt it was cheap. Nintendo's casual games and their oldschool games (like this one) are better than everyone else's because the other developers see the genre and think 'hey, we can make a game real cheap here' - while Nintendo put the effort (and money) in to really polish it.

Best all year? Dunno about that. Borderlands is pretty awesome when you're playing with others.

Borderlands is good, but I can't really share that experience with my 7 year old brother and 76 year old grandmother at the same time.

Agreed.

With all the crap out there, it is a great that an awesome game is selling well.

Yeah, but whymog wasn't talking about his siblings or his elders, he was talking about his friends. I happen to think there were other games that also deserve recognition for exceptional co-op modes. But hey, my opinion doesn't match up with that of the hivemind, so I guess it's downvoat tiem amirite

reply fail, meant for whymog.

So many people like NSMBW *BECAUSE* you can compete against your friends. It's what adds to the chaotic sense of fun.

A good point, and that's fun and all. My point is f you're competing, that's not co-op. It's vs, or a race, or whatever. Co-op means working together. Cooperatively.

This is one of the best games to play with your family, and it is for all ages. People have too much fun to care if they are finishing the levels or not.