This is a retarded thing to say because it implicitly states that the Wii can't have good games and any "good" games on it are automatically inferior.
I concur. I never heard the term "Good for PS2" last generation.
He's talking about FPS though, a genre that has been explored very little on the Wii. From what I've heard about concessions that had to be made to the gameplay (a slower, more methodical pace as opposed to hair-trigger firefights due to the nature of the controls), "good for Wii" seems to be more justified here.
The real problem with the Conduit was that they made the framerate awful for multiplayer. I would *much* prefer fugly graphics to choppy frames per second, especially if I'm using a pointer to maneuver around.
I sold it back and picked up CoD:WAW, which was a big improvement. To tell you the truth, I think the reasons reviewers didn't harp on this more was because they either didn't play much MP or they attributed the bad performance to the hardware instead of the software.
The 360 and PS3 have had more FPS games so are going to get more hits even when you average it out due to outliers. Looking at Gamerankings, you have 15 Wii FPS games and 55 360 FPS games though the 360 number includes downloadable games. Only two of the Wii FPS games have an average rating of over 80 percent compared to twenty-one for the 360. The ones that actually got good reviews were the ones that sold well. Ignoring quality when talking about average sales just seems insane.
Besides, FPS developers tend to be complete graphics whores, so much so that most even neglected the PS2 in favor of the Xbox, it's pretty obvious most were always going to go with the HD systems.
That has to do with developers, not consumers. "First person shooters have so far sold FAR better on the 360, PS3 and PC" suggests they went with the HD consoles because their games sold better on them than they would on the Wii, not that the Wii FPS games don't sell because they neglected the Wii for various other reasons.
It seems like every month, we talk about why FPS game X didn't do so well on the Wii and it always boils down to something like, "Ohh it's just not very good" or "Ahh the marketing wasn't there" or some such other excuse. While they all may be true, this sounds awfully like the complaining various fanboys have always made for why certain games or genres for their favorite platform don't succeed as much as they were hyped (several platform exclusives on the PS3 like Lair or Heavenly Sword, various non-hardcore-focused titles on the 360 like Viva Pinata, shooters/FPS on the Wii, etc.). Just putting it out there.
Anyway, I disagree that this has to do with developers. While they can certainly shoulder some of the blame, especially when it comes to game quality ... there are plenty of bad/mediocre titles on all systems that sell quite well. Wasn't Transformers high on the NPD list or something? I really do think that low sales of Mad World and the Conduit have more to do with the vastly different type of audience that owns a Wii than a 360 or PS3. I know a lot of people that own a Wii, and it's not to play games like the Conduit on it.
Frankly, that's not a bad thing so I don't know why certain gamers are so defensive about it (maybe not so much here, but on places like NeoGAF and commentors on Joystiq/etc.). The 360 currently lacks a lot of the fun, family-friendly, local multiplayer titles that the Wii has in spades. That doesn't make it a "bad system", just that it has different strengths and weaknesses in the games portfolio. This is why owning multiple platforms is usually the best idea for those who can afford it. I think the time of having "one system that rules them all", a la the PS1 and PS2 ... is gone.
This is a retarded thing to say because it implicitly states that the Wii can't have good games and any "good" games on it are automatically inferior.
I concur. I never heard the term "Good for PS2" last generation.
He's talking about FPS though, a genre that has been explored very little on the Wii. From what I've heard about concessions that had to be made to the gameplay (a slower, more methodical pace as opposed to hair-trigger firefights due to the nature of the controls), "good for Wii" seems to be more justified here.
That was exactly the point they were making. While the Conduit seems to execute very well on implementing FPS controls and design on a new console like the Wii, which has not had fifteen years of iteration time for the genre - that does not make it a good game overall.
Apples to apples, the Conduit is worse than some HL2 mods. Which is why 'the first true FPS on the Wii', which is their own branding on the box, means nothing because in a vacuum it's particularly mediocre.
The 360 and PS3 have had more FPS games so are going to get more hits even when you average it out due to outliers. Looking at Gamerankings, you have 15 Wii FPS games and 55 360 FPS games though the 360 number includes downloadable games. Only two of the Wii FPS games have an average rating of over 80 percent compared to twenty-one for the 360. The ones that actually got good reviews were the ones that sold well. Ignoring quality when talking about average sales just seems insane.
Besides, FPS developers tend to be complete graphics whores, so much so that most even neglected the PS2 in favor of the Xbox, it's pretty obvious most were always going to go with the HD systems.
That has to do with developers, not consumers. "First person shooters have so far sold FAR better on the 360, PS3 and PC" suggests they went with the HD consoles because their games sold better on them than they would on the Wii, not that the Wii FPS games don't sell because they neglected the Wii for various other reasons.
It seems like every month, we talk about why FPS game X didn't do so well on the Wii and it always boils down to something like, "Ohh it's just not very good" or "Ahh the marketing wasn't there" or some such other excuse. While they all may be true, this sounds awfully like the complaining various fanboys have always made for why certain games or genres for their favorite platform don't succeed as much as they were hyped (several platform exclusives on the PS3 like Lair or Heavenly Sword, various non-hardcore-focused titles on the 360 like Viva Pinata, shooters/FPS on the Wii, etc.). Just putting it out there.
Anyway, I disagree that this has to do with developers. While they can certainly shoulder some of the blame, especially when it comes to game quality ... there are plenty of bad/mediocre titles on all systems that sell quite well. Wasn't Transformers high on the NPD list or something? I really do think that low sales of Mad World and the Conduit have more to do with the vastly different type of audience that owns a Wii than a 360 or PS3. I know a lot of people that own a Wii, and it's not to play games like the Conduit on it.
Frankly, that's not a bad thing so I don't know why certain gamers are so defensive about it (maybe not so much here, but on places like NeoGAF and commentors on Joystiq/etc.). The 360 currently lacks a lot of the fun, family-friendly, local multiplayer titles that the Wii has in spades. That doesn't make it a "bad system", just that it has different strengths and weaknesses in the games portfolio. This is why owning multiple platforms is usually the best idea for those who can afford it. I think the time of having "one system that rules them all", a la the PS1 and PS2 ... is gone.
Transformers was high only because it came out on every system. No individual system did well. Also how are the developers not to blame when only two fps titles (MP3 and CoD :WaW) averaged above an 80 on the Wii, and both of those had good sales. Bad games selling poorly? What a shocker. Conduit sold poorly because it was a mediocre shooter regardless of system. Riddick was a solid shooter(I'm hesitant to call it that) with decent reviews(82 average) and it sold poorly on the "shooter" systems. MadWorld was a very niche game. To chalk the sales of certain games to markets when games like RE have sold very well is a very shallow and quite frankly ignorant view as the markets on all systems are far more complicated than you're making them out to be.
Rakai on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]XBL: Rakayn | PS3: Rakayn | Steam ID
The PS1 and PS2 weren't really "one console to rule them all". PC gamers thought of themselves as the master gaming race, western RPG companies and most simulation companies avoided the PS1 and PS2, strategy games were almost nonexistent even including the JRPG strategy games, and PS2 fanboys made fun of the Xbox for having a bunch of shooters. Pretending that the PC doesn't count doesn't make sense to me. It might be more divided nowadays than before, but it never was the be all and end all of gaming. The only console that might have been was the Atari 2600, but that was only from lack of any possible competition except later in its life.
To chalk the sales of certain games to markets when games like RE have sold very well is a very shallow and quite frankly ignorant view as the markets on all systems are far more complicated than you're making them out to be.
I think we need to define what "sold very well" means. No doubt that some shooters/FPS titles have "sold well" on the Wii, if you mean recouping their costs. But compared to the install base (Wii is much larger than the 360), you'd expect that even mediocre FPS games would "sell well" in terms of actual sales volume compared to similar titles on the 360/PS3. They haven't. I don't think that's a bad thing, which I find it odd that you're trying to "defend" it. It's just a sign that yes, the markets on the systems are complicated and heterogenous.
I just found it amusing that folks in this thread seemed to be hinting that if there were a Halo-like/quality FPS game on the Wii, that the sales would be epic and on par with that of the top FPS/shooters on the 360/PS3/PC, etc. It's that "if you build it, they will come" mentality which just isn't true in many cases.
The PS1 and PS2 weren't really "one console to rule them all". PC gamers thought of themselves as the master gaming race, western RPG companies and most simulation companies avoided the PS1 and PS2, strategy games were almost nonexistent even including the JRPG strategy games, and PS2 fanboys made fun of the Xbox for having a bunch of shooters. Pretending that the PC doesn't count doesn't make sense to me. It might be more divided nowadays than before, but it never was the be all and end all of gaming. The only console that might have been was the Atari 2600, but that was only from lack of any possible competition except later in its life.
Apologies, I should have been clear. I did mean that the PS1 and PS2 were one console to rule them all. Obviously the PC is not a console, and yes the audiences are quite different. I didn't mean to imply the PS1/PS2 were the be-all-end-all of gaming ... just of console gaming. The best of almost any genre could be found on those systems. That's not the case this time around.
I just found it amusing that folks in this thread seemed to be hinting that if there were a Halo-like/quality FPS game on the Wii, that the sales would be epic and on par with that of the top FPS/shooters on the 360/PS3/PC, etc.
You're really saying that's not true? That just seems really counterintuitive.
Is there much evidence that Wii owners differ significantly from PS2 owners?
Of course! Sorry, I thought that was obvious and common knowledge. There are various studies/surveys/etc. that show that the Wii audience is different than from previous generations.
In NPD's Gamer Augmentation 2009 report released today, the industry-tracking group revealed new figures that show 28 percent of all console video gamers are female in 2009, up from 23 percent last year. NPD attributed the five-point rise to the Nintendo Wii, which it believes has attracted a large number of new female gamers. It reports that Wii usage has increased by 19 percent from 2008 for all demographics.
Wii: The best-selling of the three systems, appeals to boys age 6-11 and women age 25-34. Usage of Wii by women 35+ is much higher than with the Xbox 360 and PS3. Games such as Wii Fit, Guitar Hero and Rock Band appear to have engaged an older female gamer like never before.
Usage of Wii by the 18-24 age group, considered the core/hardcore gaming segment, is low for both genders compared to the other two consoles. However, Wii has been successful in broadening the gaming market to a wider demographic audience.
If you search, you can probably find other studies and information. Sorry, I get access to all sorts of data and reports. Maybe I shouldn't assume that what I see is necessarily public.
But yeah, there are more women owning a console than before, thanks in large part to the Wii. And I think we all have a few examples of parents/grandparents buying a Wii for themselves, even though they never would have bought a PS1 or PS2 before.
Apologies, I should have been clear. I did mean that the PS1 and PS2 were one console to rule them all. Obviously the PC is not a console, and yes the audiences are quite different. I didn't mean to imply the PS1/PS2 were the be-all-end-all of gaming ... just of console gaming. The best of almost any genre could be found on those systems. That's not the case this time around.
This is opinion, not fact. Many people on this forum may agree with you, I do not.
But yeah, there are more women owning a console than before, thanks in large part to the Wii. And I think we all have a few examples of parents/grandparents buying a Wii for themselves, even though they never would have bought a PS1 or PS2 before.
Anecdotal information like that is less than worthless. What you cited compares it to the 360 and PS3, not the PS2.
More women owning the console than before does not mean less man are owning the console than before.
I remember reading that a majority of the Wii owners own a PS2. I can't find it right now.
Couscous on
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Is there much evidence that Wii owners differ significantly from PS2 owners?
Of course! Sorry, I thought that was obvious and common knowledge. There are various studies/surveys/etc. that show that the Wii audience is different than from previous generations.
In NPD's Gamer Augmentation 2009 report released today, the industry-tracking group revealed new figures that show 28 percent of all console video gamers are female in 2009, up from 23 percent last year. NPD attributed the five-point rise to the Nintendo Wii, which it believes has attracted a large number of new female gamers. It reports that Wii usage has increased by 19 percent from 2008 for all demographics.
Wii: The best-selling of the three systems, appeals to boys age 6-11 and women age 25-34. Usage of Wii by women 35+ is much higher than with the Xbox 360 and PS3. Games such as Wii Fit, Guitar Hero and Rock Band appear to have engaged an older female gamer like never before.
Usage of Wii by the 18-24 age group, considered the core/hardcore gaming segment, is low for both genders compared to the other two consoles. However, Wii has been successful in broadening the gaming market to a wider demographic audience.
If you search, you can probably find other studies and information. Sorry, I get access to all sorts of data and reports. Maybe I shouldn't assume that what I see is necessarily public.
But yeah, there are more women owning a console than before, thanks in large part to the Wii. And I think we all have a few examples of parents/grandparents buying a Wii for themselves, even though they never would have bought a PS1 or PS2 before.
Both of those sources kind of suck because 1) Girls are becoming gamers more and more across all systems [for example,
It reports that Wii usage has increased by 19 percent from 2008 for all demographics.
And
Extreme gamers purchased an average of 24 titles in the 2008 holiday quarter. However, the study reported that the demographic only makes up 4 percent of all gamers.
], and 2) Ever since shit like the internet became mainstream, Nielsen has begun to suck more and more.
But I have to agree with you. The really awesome games sell really well on the Wii, and the mediocre and niche games don't sell as well. I never thought anyone would make that point. Also, casuals, olol.
The average Wii gamer is a hardcore gamer, Nintendo of America's Cammie Dunaway told the Electronic Gaming Summit today.
Seventy-nine percent of Wii gamers are male, most older than 18 with an income of $50,000 or more and more than half game for five or more hours a week, Dunaway said.
While the people who buy Wii tend to be pretty typical for gaming, the other household members who play Wii aren't, she said.
About 45 percent of the other household members who play Wii are female, with 38 percent 25 or older. Sixty-five of these gamers play at least two hours a week, while only 32 percent play five or more a week.
"The real break-through, the real magic of the Wii console is that it brought new consumers into the game," she said. "We in the industry have a choice to make, do we want to appeal to the few or to the masses? Do we want to sell to more people or sell more and more and more to less people? Do we want to be inclusive or do we want to be expansive? At Nintendo we definitely believe in the power of the expanded audience.
"We hope everyone will join us in showing everyone just how much fun video games can be."
I consider myself a hardcore gamer and I'd rather play something like The Munchables, De Blob, or Klonoa any day of the week over Halo, Assassin's Creed, or Grand Theft Auto.
More women owning the console than before does not mean less man are owning the console than before.
Nope, and I'm not saying that it was. But it's certainly changing the general demographic. The reports are saying that, yes, the Wii demographic is different than the PS2 one.
The average Wii gamer is a hardcore gamer, Nintendo of America's Cammie Dunaway told the Electronic Gaming Summit today.
Seventy-nine percent of Wii gamers are male, most older than 18 with an income of $50,000 or more and more than half game for five or more hours a week, Dunaway said.
While the people who buy Wii tend to be pretty typical for gaming, the other household members who play Wii aren't, she said.
About 45 percent of the other household members who play Wii are female, with 38 percent 25 or older. Sixty-five of these gamers play at least two hours a week, while only 32 percent play five or more a week.
"The real break-through, the real magic of the Wii console is that it brought new consumers into the game," she said. "We in the industry have a choice to make, do we want to appeal to the few or to the masses? Do we want to sell to more people or sell more and more and more to less people? Do we want to be inclusive or do we want to be expansive? At Nintendo we definitely believe in the power of the expanded audience.
"We hope everyone will join us in showing everyone just how much fun video games can be."
I'm not sure why you cited this, because it just validates what I was saying before. Sure, a majority of the Wii owners may still be regarded as "hardcore" gamers. I never said otherwise. But how does that compare to the PS2, PS3, and 360 demographic? A much higher percentage of the 360/PS3 are "hardcore", and I would say the same for the PS2 as well (especially earlier in its lifecycle).
See the parts I just bolded. Those are numbers I'm sure MS and Sony would love to claim with the 360 and PS3 right now, but can't. And we see it in the types of games that are offered and purchased.
Anyway, I'm puzzled at why folks like you seem to be so defensive. Again, this is not a bad thing. In fact, I've meant Wii fans in the past that are proud that their console has gone beyond the typical hardcore gamer demographic much sooner than usual (not waiting till that $100 price point). It means bringing in more folks to the platform. Why fight it?
More women owning the console than before does not mean less man are owning the console than before.
Nope, and I'm not saying that it was. But it's certainly changing the general demographic. The reports are saying that, yes, the Wii demographic is different than the PS2 one.
The average Wii gamer is a hardcore gamer, Nintendo of America's Cammie Dunaway told the Electronic Gaming Summit today.
Seventy-nine percent of Wii gamers are male, most older than 18 with an income of $50,000 or more and more than half game for five or more hours a week, Dunaway said.
While the people who buy Wii tend to be pretty typical for gaming, the other household members who play Wii aren't, she said.
About 45 percent of the other household members who play Wii are female, with 38 percent 25 or older. Sixty-five of these gamers play at least two hours a week, while only 32 percent play five or more a week.
"The real break-through, the real magic of the Wii console is that it brought new consumers into the game," she said. "We in the industry have a choice to make, do we want to appeal to the few or to the masses? Do we want to sell to more people or sell more and more and more to less people? Do we want to be inclusive or do we want to be expansive? At Nintendo we definitely believe in the power of the expanded audience.
"We hope everyone will join us in showing everyone just how much fun video games can be."
I'm not sure why you cited this, because it just validates what I was saying before. Sure, a majority of the Wii owners may still be regarded as "hardcore" gamers. I never said otherwise. But how does that compare to the PS2, PS3, and 360 demographic? A much higher percentage of the 360/PS3 are "hardcore", and I would say the same for the PS2 as well (especially earlier in its lifecycle).
See the parts I just bolded. Those are numbers I'm sure MS and Sony would love to claim with the 360 and PS3 right now, but can't. And we see it in the types of games that are offered and purchased.
Anyway, I'm puzzled at why folks like you seem to be so defensive. Again, this is not a bad thing. In fact, I've meant Wii fans in the past that are proud that their console has gone beyond the typical hardcore gamer demographic much sooner than usual (not waiting till that $100 price point). It means bringing in more folks to the platform. Why fight it?
I think because it seems to me that there's a tacit implication in your threads that games for the Wii are in general not as good as games on the HD systems. The implication may not actually be there, but I certainly see where the feeling is coming from.
More women owning the console than before does not mean less man are owning the console than before.
Nope, and I'm not saying that it was. But it's certainly changing the general demographic. The reports are saying that, yes, the Wii demographic is different than the PS2 one.
The average Wii gamer is a hardcore gamer, Nintendo of America's Cammie Dunaway told the Electronic Gaming Summit today.
Seventy-nine percent of Wii gamers are male, most older than 18 with an income of $50,000 or more and more than half game for five or more hours a week, Dunaway said.
While the people who buy Wii tend to be pretty typical for gaming, the other household members who play Wii aren't, she said.
About 45 percent of the other household members who play Wii are female, with 38 percent 25 or older. Sixty-five of these gamers play at least two hours a week, while only 32 percent play five or more a week.
"The real break-through, the real magic of the Wii console is that it brought new consumers into the game," she said. "We in the industry have a choice to make, do we want to appeal to the few or to the masses? Do we want to sell to more people or sell more and more and more to less people? Do we want to be inclusive or do we want to be expansive? At Nintendo we definitely believe in the power of the expanded audience.
"We hope everyone will join us in showing everyone just how much fun video games can be."
I'm not sure why you cited this, because it just validates what I was saying before. Sure, a majority of the Wii owners may still be regarded as "hardcore" gamers. I never said otherwise. But how does that compare to the PS2, PS3, and 360 demographic? A much higher percentage of the 360/PS3 are "hardcore", and I would say the same for the PS2 as well (especially earlier in its lifecycle).
See the parts I just bolded. Those are numbers I'm sure MS and Sony would love to claim with the 360 and PS3 right now, but can't. And we see it in the types of games that are offered and purchased.
Anyway, I'm puzzled at why folks like you seem to be so defensive. Again, this is not a bad thing. In fact, I've meant Wii fans in the past that are proud that their console has gone beyond the typical hardcore gamer demographic much sooner than usual (not waiting till that $100 price point). It means bringing in more folks to the platform. Why fight it?
I think because it seems to me that there's a tacit implication in your threads that games for the Wii are in general not as good as games on the HD systems. The implication may not actually be there, but I certainly see where the feeling is coming from.
No, the reason why he's drawing criticism (people perceiving a flaw in your logic and attempting to point it out to you is not being "defensive") is that he is trying to compare the success (or lack there of) of a new IP that received mediocre reviews to established franchises from well known developers whose games have been selling millions long before this generation came into play. It's like saying there's no market for platformers on the HD systems while ignoring moderate successes like PoP and ME, because they'll never pull Mario Galaxy numbers.
Rakai on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]XBL: Rakayn | PS3: Rakayn | Steam ID
I think another problem with the argument is the word trickery of "the demographic on the Wii is different than the PS2" because the Wii's brought in new people. If you ignore those new people, I think the demographics would match up pretty well between the two.
It's like saying there's no market for platformers on the HD systems while ignoring moderate successes like PoP and ME, because they'll never pull Mario Galaxy numbers.
If they release Ape Escape on PS3... ok that's a bad example. But I'd buy it.
Does anyone have any sales numbers for LittleBigPlanet, BTW? I guess I just kinda assumed it'd sold 1.5 mil plus, but I don't see it on this list.
I think because it seems to me that there's a tacit implication in your threads that games for the Wii are in general not as good as games on the HD systems. The implication may not actually be there, but I certainly see where the feeling is coming from.
Nope, that's not what I'm trying to imply at all. But I can understand where that feeling comes from, since that is apparently a feeling among some Wii owners (primarily those of the Kotaku-commenting/NeoGAF-posting variety). There are plenty of great titles for the Wii.
No, the reason why he's drawing criticism (people perceiving a flaw in your logic and attempting to point it out to you is not being "defensive") is that he is trying to compare the success (or lack there of) of a new IP that received mediocre reviews to established franchises from well known developers whose games have been selling millions long before this generation came into play. It's like saying there's no market for platformers on the HD systems while ignoring moderate successes like PoP and ME, because they'll never pull Mario Galaxy numbers.
Blargh. That's not my argument. Read my posts again. Or are you purposely ignoring the whole demographic part because you don't know how to respond to it?
How about I present the same argument in reverse? Many folks have claimed that casual, family-friendly titles on the 360 just won't ever do well because that demographic is just "too hardcore". There are lots of examples of games like Lips, Scene It, VP: Party Animals that haven't done well. Even if you take a game like Viva Pinata, which got rave reviews and decent word-of-mouth, it still arguably didn't sell as much as it might have on something like the Wii.
I think there's truth to this. The 360 has that perception of being the "shooter-box", whether it's actually correct or not, and a demographic that's not very broad. So it will take a lot of time and effort to broaden the audience. Until that happens (if it happens), I can see that even the best casual/family-friendly titles may not do very well, whereas a similar one would likely do extremely well on the Wii.
If you can understand, and agree with, that reasoning ... then apply it in reverse to the Wii, with the specific FPS/shooter genre in mind. Again, I'm not saying that this is a bad thing necessarily for either the 360 or Wii ... just the way it is. Both Nintendo and MS are trying to appeal to audiences that are a bit atypical for the existing demographic, and naturally it's not going to be that simple.
I think another problem with the argument is the word trickery of "the demographic on the Wii is different than the PS2" because the Wii's brought in new people. If you ignore those new people, I think the demographics would match up pretty well between the two.
I completely disagree. While I'm sure there's a bit of an overlap between the two install bases, Nintendo is still marketing towards the audience they've always done so, families. Whereas the PS2 was targetted towards the late teen/early 20's audience. Just look at the 5 best selling games on each platform.
Wii:
Wii Play (22.3 million)
Wii Fit (18.2 million)
Mario Kart Wii (15.4 million)
Super Smash Bros Brawl (8.4 million)
Super Mario Galaxy (8 million)
PS2:
Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (17.5 million)
Gran Turismo 3 (14.9 million)
Grand Theft Auto III (14.5 million)
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (12 million)
Gran Turismo 4 (10.1 million)
The idea that you can directly translate one games sales across to another system is utterly ridiculous.
Brainiac 8Don't call me Shirley...Registered Userregular
edited July 2009
Man alive...I leave for the weekend and look at the mess you guys have caused.
Wii is nothing but womenz and old menz...teh casuals...harcorez love the shooterbox...I swear, I didn't think The Conduit would cause such a stir.
On another note, I am with MaximumZero, I am much quicker to own and play a game like De Blob, Katamari Damacy, or Hotel Dusk than I am most of the stuff considered 'hardcore'.
Man alive...I leave for the weekend and look at the mess you guys have caused.
Wii is nothing but womenz and old menz...teh casuals...harcorez love the shooterbox...I swear, I didn't think The Conduit would cause such a stir.
On another note, I am with MaximumZero, I am much quicker to own and play a game like De Blob, Katamari Damacy, or Hotel Dusk than I am most of the stuff considered 'hardcore'.
I can kinda get behind this myself, although possibly for different reasons (I put hundreds of hours into games like Gran Turismo and the original Unreal Tournament, which pretty much burned me out on racing games and FPS... the only games in my 360 collection of nearly 20 games that could even remotely be considered FPS are Bioshock and Mirror's Edge, and Mirror's Edge is really more of a platform game). Considering that the one 360 game I'm really jonesing to play right now (and can't, because I have no money for points) is Monkey Island, I can safely say that I am very much a niche, non-mainstream gamer. For better or for worse.
...probably for worse.
Norfair on
0
Brainiac 8Don't call me Shirley...Registered Userregular
edited July 2009
Which is why it both saddens and angers me that gems like Another Code R will never see a release here.
But on the other hand, I will get my hands on a copy of Tatsunoko vs. Capcom, which I never thought would see the light of day on these shores.
I can't fathom why anyone ever gets rid of consoles unless you aren't going to be able to make payments on your house. Unless the gen is over there will be more games that you wish you could've played on it.
This isn't just to Sleep, in a number of threads I keep seeing people say "man too bad I got rid of X system."
I learned this early when I watched my idiot friend win a Playstation, trade it for an N64, trade back for a Playstation, buy a Gamecube, trade it for a PS2, trade the Playstation and PS2 for an XBox...
Kinda pisses me off that six months after I ditch the Wii we finally start seeing some games I'd actually want to play.
I have made that mistake a couple of times, and have always regretted it.
For the most part, I've learned that once I have spent money on a system, to go ahead and keep it, as there will eventually be something you want to play on it.
Posts
Switch - SW-3699-5063-5018
NPD only counted one week, correct? June 23-30.
VGSales has this NPD as covering May 31 to July 4, 2009.
He's talking about FPS though, a genre that has been explored very little on the Wii. From what I've heard about concessions that had to be made to the gameplay (a slower, more methodical pace as opposed to hair-trigger firefights due to the nature of the controls), "good for Wii" seems to be more justified here.
I sold it back and picked up CoD:WAW, which was a big improvement. To tell you the truth, I think the reasons reviewers didn't harp on this more was because they either didn't play much MP or they attributed the bad performance to the hardware instead of the software.
It seems like every month, we talk about why FPS game X didn't do so well on the Wii and it always boils down to something like, "Ohh it's just not very good" or "Ahh the marketing wasn't there" or some such other excuse. While they all may be true, this sounds awfully like the complaining various fanboys have always made for why certain games or genres for their favorite platform don't succeed as much as they were hyped (several platform exclusives on the PS3 like Lair or Heavenly Sword, various non-hardcore-focused titles on the 360 like Viva Pinata, shooters/FPS on the Wii, etc.). Just putting it out there.
Anyway, I disagree that this has to do with developers. While they can certainly shoulder some of the blame, especially when it comes to game quality ... there are plenty of bad/mediocre titles on all systems that sell quite well. Wasn't Transformers high on the NPD list or something? I really do think that low sales of Mad World and the Conduit have more to do with the vastly different type of audience that owns a Wii than a 360 or PS3. I know a lot of people that own a Wii, and it's not to play games like the Conduit on it.
Frankly, that's not a bad thing so I don't know why certain gamers are so defensive about it (maybe not so much here, but on places like NeoGAF and commentors on Joystiq/etc.). The 360 currently lacks a lot of the fun, family-friendly, local multiplayer titles that the Wii has in spades. That doesn't make it a "bad system", just that it has different strengths and weaknesses in the games portfolio. This is why owning multiple platforms is usually the best idea for those who can afford it. I think the time of having "one system that rules them all", a la the PS1 and PS2 ... is gone.
- Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit
Steam: JC_Rooks
Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC
I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
That was exactly the point they were making. While the Conduit seems to execute very well on implementing FPS controls and design on a new console like the Wii, which has not had fifteen years of iteration time for the genre - that does not make it a good game overall.
Apples to apples, the Conduit is worse than some HL2 mods. Which is why 'the first true FPS on the Wii', which is their own branding on the box, means nothing because in a vacuum it's particularly mediocre.
Transformers was high only because it came out on every system. No individual system did well. Also how are the developers not to blame when only two fps titles (MP3 and CoD :WaW) averaged above an 80 on the Wii, and both of those had good sales. Bad games selling poorly? What a shocker. Conduit sold poorly because it was a mediocre shooter regardless of system. Riddick was a solid shooter(I'm hesitant to call it that) with decent reviews(82 average) and it sold poorly on the "shooter" systems. MadWorld was a very niche game. To chalk the sales of certain games to markets when games like RE have sold very well is a very shallow and quite frankly ignorant view as the markets on all systems are far more complicated than you're making them out to be.
I just found it amusing that folks in this thread seemed to be hinting that if there were a Halo-like/quality FPS game on the Wii, that the sales would be epic and on par with that of the top FPS/shooters on the 360/PS3/PC, etc. It's that "if you build it, they will come" mentality which just isn't true in many cases.
Apologies, I should have been clear. I did mean that the PS1 and PS2 were one console to rule them all. Obviously the PC is not a console, and yes the audiences are quite different. I didn't mean to imply the PS1/PS2 were the be-all-end-all of gaming ... just of console gaming. The best of almost any genre could be found on those systems. That's not the case this time around.
- Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit
Steam: JC_Rooks
Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC
I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
You're really saying that's not true? That just seems really counterintuitive.
That said, The Conduit looked so bland and generic.
Well you see casuals
Of course! Sorry, I thought that was obvious and common knowledge. There are various studies/surveys/etc. that show that the Wii audience is different than from previous generations.
For example, just recently there was a study that showed women flocking to the Wii. Here's a quote:
There's another study back from February as well:
If you search, you can probably find other studies and information. Sorry, I get access to all sorts of data and reports. Maybe I shouldn't assume that what I see is necessarily public.
But yeah, there are more women owning a console than before, thanks in large part to the Wii. And I think we all have a few examples of parents/grandparents buying a Wii for themselves, even though they never would have bought a PS1 or PS2 before.
- Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit
Steam: JC_Rooks
Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC
I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
This is opinion, not fact. Many people on this forum may agree with you, I do not.
More women owning the console than before does not mean less man are owning the console than before.
I remember reading that a majority of the Wii owners own a PS2. I can't find it right now.
Both of those sources kind of suck because 1) Girls are becoming gamers more and more across all systems [for example, And ], and 2) Ever since shit like the internet became mainstream, Nielsen has begun to suck more and more.
But I have to agree with you. The really awesome games sell really well on the Wii, and the mediocre and niche games don't sell as well. I never thought anyone would make that point. Also, casuals, olol.
Vindication is kind of nice, though.
http://kotaku.com/5010227/nintendo-wii-gamers-are-hardcore-gamers
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
I've never even heard of that shit.
I picked it up on a whim as it was $20 and it's actually really fun.
It's like a mix of Pac-Man and Katamari Damacy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeL16SaxQec
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
It's a niche thing like Katamari, with a weird style and weird gameplay.
maximumzero is what we call niche hardcore, the same category you can put those level 9999 Disgaea players into.
I'm not gonna lie.
That looks pretty interesting, possibly even fun. Just not really sure what the hell's going on.
I'm not sure why you cited this, because it just validates what I was saying before. Sure, a majority of the Wii owners may still be regarded as "hardcore" gamers. I never said otherwise. But how does that compare to the PS2, PS3, and 360 demographic? A much higher percentage of the 360/PS3 are "hardcore", and I would say the same for the PS2 as well (especially earlier in its lifecycle).
See the parts I just bolded. Those are numbers I'm sure MS and Sony would love to claim with the 360 and PS3 right now, but can't. And we see it in the types of games that are offered and purchased.
Anyway, I'm puzzled at why folks like you seem to be so defensive. Again, this is not a bad thing. In fact, I've meant Wii fans in the past that are proud that their console has gone beyond the typical hardcore gamer demographic much sooner than usual (not waiting till that $100 price point). It means bringing in more folks to the platform. Why fight it?
- Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit
Steam: JC_Rooks
Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC
I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
No, the reason why he's drawing criticism (people perceiving a flaw in your logic and attempting to point it out to you is not being "defensive") is that he is trying to compare the success (or lack there of) of a new IP that received mediocre reviews to established franchises from well known developers whose games have been selling millions long before this generation came into play. It's like saying there's no market for platformers on the HD systems while ignoring moderate successes like PoP and ME, because they'll never pull Mario Galaxy numbers.
If they release Ape Escape on PS3... ok that's a bad example. But I'd buy it.
Does anyone have any sales numbers for LittleBigPlanet, BTW? I guess I just kinda assumed it'd sold 1.5 mil plus, but I don't see it on this list.
Blargh. That's not my argument. Read my posts again. Or are you purposely ignoring the whole demographic part because you don't know how to respond to it?
How about I present the same argument in reverse? Many folks have claimed that casual, family-friendly titles on the 360 just won't ever do well because that demographic is just "too hardcore". There are lots of examples of games like Lips, Scene It, VP: Party Animals that haven't done well. Even if you take a game like Viva Pinata, which got rave reviews and decent word-of-mouth, it still arguably didn't sell as much as it might have on something like the Wii.
I think there's truth to this. The 360 has that perception of being the "shooter-box", whether it's actually correct or not, and a demographic that's not very broad. So it will take a lot of time and effort to broaden the audience. Until that happens (if it happens), I can see that even the best casual/family-friendly titles may not do very well, whereas a similar one would likely do extremely well on the Wii.
If you can understand, and agree with, that reasoning ... then apply it in reverse to the Wii, with the specific FPS/shooter genre in mind. Again, I'm not saying that this is a bad thing necessarily for either the 360 or Wii ... just the way it is. Both Nintendo and MS are trying to appeal to audiences that are a bit atypical for the existing demographic, and naturally it's not going to be that simple.
- Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit
Steam: JC_Rooks
Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC
I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
I completely disagree. While I'm sure there's a bit of an overlap between the two install bases, Nintendo is still marketing towards the audience they've always done so, families. Whereas the PS2 was targetted towards the late teen/early 20's audience. Just look at the 5 best selling games on each platform.
Wii:
Wii Play (22.3 million)
Wii Fit (18.2 million)
Mario Kart Wii (15.4 million)
Super Smash Bros Brawl (8.4 million)
Super Mario Galaxy (8 million)
PS2:
Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (17.5 million)
Gran Turismo 3 (14.9 million)
Grand Theft Auto III (14.5 million)
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (12 million)
Gran Turismo 4 (10.1 million)
The idea that you can directly translate one games sales across to another system is utterly ridiculous.
Wii is nothing but womenz and old menz...teh casuals...harcorez love the shooterbox...I swear, I didn't think The Conduit would cause such a stir.
On another note, I am with MaximumZero, I am much quicker to own and play a game like De Blob, Katamari Damacy, or Hotel Dusk than I am most of the stuff considered 'hardcore'.
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
I can kinda get behind this myself, although possibly for different reasons (I put hundreds of hours into games like Gran Turismo and the original Unreal Tournament, which pretty much burned me out on racing games and FPS... the only games in my 360 collection of nearly 20 games that could even remotely be considered FPS are Bioshock and Mirror's Edge, and Mirror's Edge is really more of a platform game). Considering that the one 360 game I'm really jonesing to play right now (and can't, because I have no money for points) is Monkey Island, I can safely say that I am very much a niche, non-mainstream gamer. For better or for worse.
...probably for worse.
But on the other hand, I will get my hands on a copy of Tatsunoko vs. Capcom, which I never thought would see the light of day on these shores.
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
This isn't just to Sleep, in a number of threads I keep seeing people say "man too bad I got rid of X system."
I learned this early when I watched my idiot friend win a Playstation, trade it for an N64, trade back for a Playstation, buy a Gamecube, trade it for a PS2, trade the Playstation and PS2 for an XBox...
I have made that mistake a couple of times, and have always regretted it.
For the most part, I've learned that once I have spent money on a system, to go ahead and keep it, as there will eventually be something you want to play on it.
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!