WiiU, the future of hardcore gaming?

[darkewaffle]

Doesn't matter. It sold like crazy which is good for Nintendo, but I know many games who feel the Wii was the worst console of the generation. Very few great titles in comparison to the others. It may be a financial success, but that doesn't mean it'll be well received by gamers.

I think it was correct the first time and you've got it a little backwards. If it's a financial success, who cares what some vocal minority thinks?

People, especially the kind of people who come here, mistake Wii hate for being much more prevalent than it is because they aren't the kind of consumer the Wii targetted and plenty of them even 'frown upon' those kinds of gamers. Just look at the posts here and in the PC gaming forum; a lot of posters here are superduper elite hardcore proashell gamers. Which is fine. But when so many of them get together in one place (internet forums) they begin to think there's a lot more of them than there really are and they start to think their opinion is much more prevalent than it really is.

 

[Monster_Munch]

Yeah it's the same before every new COD game comes out. All the hardcore guys talk about how bad it will fail, and it goes on to set new sales records.

 

[Beev]

Yeah it's the same before every new COD game comes out. All the hardcore guys talk about how bad it will fail, and it goes on to set new sales records.

I don't think I have ever, ever seen anyone say the newest iteration of ANY best-selling series will fail, though a lot of them certainly deserve to. Black Ops deserved it, MW3 deserves it, etc. The series will taper off eventually, but no one here is naive enough to think the dumb-masses won't gobble up the newest CoD for at least a few more years.

 

[badb0y]

How much is the controller going to cost?

 

[purbeast0]

SNES didn't not have better looking games than the Genesis. I know as I owned both. In fact, some games on the SNES had limited mature/gore content (i.e., Mortal Combat on the Genesis was better for that reason). While SNES had arguably a better library of games, the graphics were almost identical between the 2 consoles.

im gonna stop you right there broseph...

Mortal Kombat (with a K not a C) had MMUUCCHH better graphics on SNES than Genesis. It also had MMUCCHH better sound than the Genesis one. It wasn't even comparable.

The SNES replacing blood with sweat had nothign to do with hardware limitations, it had to do with violence.

The Genesis only had better controls than the SNES one, as well as the code to see blood, which looked like total cass when compared to the arcade version, again, cause the graphics on genesis were inferior to the snes in every way.

 

[purbeast0]

I think it was correct the first time and you've got it a little backwards. If it's a financial success, who cares what some vocal minority thinks?

People, especially the kind of people who come here, mistake Wii hate for being much more prevalent than it is because they aren't the kind of consumer the Wii targetted and plenty of them even 'frown upon' those kinds of gamers. Just look at the posts here and in the PC gaming forum; a lot of posters here are superduper elite hardcore proashell gamers. Which is fine. But when so many of them get together in one place (internet forums) they begin to think there's a lot more of them than there really are and they start to think their opinion is much more prevalent than it really is.

it was a financial success to NINTENDO and NINTENDO only. they made $$$ on the hardware. when you have 50+ million out there, of course you are making money. on top of that, the Nintendo brand games are by a long shot the highest selling ones on the wii. nothing else even comes close.

the major issue that i think the "hardcore" gamers (and most people on this forum, which could fall into both categories) is that the Wii had absolutely no 3rd party support. No "hardcore" third party devs really made any money on the exclusives they put out on the Wii, and that caused for the Wii to really only have great Nintendo brand games and a bunch of mini/party games. no third party dev is going to spend the time making a version of their game for the wii when the chance of them not making much money is pretty good.

just look at the list of top selling wii games, it is extremely obvious ...

http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com/brow...nre=&boxart=Both&results=50&order=Total+Sales

i'm not saying that is a bad thing for nintendo or anything, i'm just saying, that is why most "real/hardcore" games don't give a shit about the wii for anything other than if they want to play Nintendo First party "real" games.

and by this point if you don't know what I'm referring to when throwing the term "real" or "hardcore" around, don't even bother responding to me please.

 

[smackababy]

im gonna stop you right there broseph...

Mortal Kombat (with a K not a C) had MMUUCCHH better graphics on SNES than Genesis. It also had MMUCCHH better sound than the Genesis one. It wasn't even comparable.

The SNES replacing blood with sweat had nothign to do with hardware limitations, it had to do with violence.

The Genesis only had better controls than the SNES one, as well as the code to see blood, which looked like total cass when compared to the arcade version, again, cause the graphics on genesis were inferior to the snes in every way.

The SNES was revolutionary because it allowed for coprocessors to be added on the the game cartages. This is what gave us all the amazing games on SNES and what kept it looking amazing against 32-bit era disc based platforms.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Doesn't matter. It sold like crazy which is good for Nintendo, but I know many games who feel the Wii was the worst console of the generation. Very few great titles in comparison to the others. It may be a financial success, but that doesn't mean it'll be well received by gamers.

Yeah, but this is the hypocrisy; The people that bought the Wii are gamers. Those that say otherwise are deluded, whether they like it or not these new gamers are still gamers.

 

[Beev]

The SNES was revolutionary because it allowed for coprocessors to be added on the the game cartages. This is what gave us all the amazing games on SNES and what kept it looking amazing against 32-bit era disc based platforms.

Mode-7, motherfuckers! :thumbsup:

 

[purbeast0]

Mode-7, motherfuckers! :thumbsup:

Mode-7 is the shit ... and is why Super Mario Kart is the only good Mario Kart game!

 

[DivideBYZero]

Mode-7, motherfuckers! :thumbsup:

Mode 7 was in the original hardware. In reality the carts that came with co-pros were rare and only the Super FX was relatively widly used.

 

[darkewaffle]

it was a financial success to NINTENDO and NINTENDO only. they made $$$ on the hardware. when you have 50+ million out there, of course you are making money. on top of that, the Nintendo brand games are by a long shot the highest selling ones on the wii. nothing else even comes close.

the major issue that i think the "hardcore" gamers (and most people on this forum, which could fall into both categories) is that the Wii had absolutely no 3rd party support. No "hardcore" third party devs really made any money on the exclusives they put out on the Wii, and that caused for the Wii to really only have great Nintendo brand games and a bunch of mini/party games. no third party dev is going to spend the time making a version of their game for the wii when the chance of them not making much money is pretty good.

just look at the list of top selling wii games, it is extremely obvious ...

http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com/brow...nre=&boxart=Both&results=50&order=Total+Sales

i'm not saying that is a bad thing for nintendo or anything, i'm just saying, that is why most "real/hardcore" games don't give a shit about the wii for anything other than if they want to play Nintendo First party "real" games.

and by this point if you don't know what I'm referring to when throwing the term "real" or "hardcore" around, don't even bother responding to me please.

9/25 of the top selling Wii games are not published by Nintendo.

9/25 of the top selling PS3 games are published by Sony.

7/25 of the top selling 360 games are published by Microsoft.

Arguing that 3rd party games don't sell on the Wii is like arguing that first party games don't sell on the PS3 or the 360. Not to mention the number of games sold on the Wii nearly doubles the amount of games sold on the PS3 or 360. So even though 3rd party titles do have a do have a noticeably smaller market share of games sold on the Wii, it's part of a substantially bigger market.

And anyone that plays a game is a real gamer. If you really want to define a hardcore gamer, call a spade a spade. A hardcore gamer is normally some arrogant geek who will blast the Wii for having crappy graphics and in the same sentence argue that Planescape is the best game ever and graphics don't make a game. It's a wildly hypocritical, hypercritical, vocal group of relatively few people.

 

[Beev]

And anyone that plays a game is a real gamer. If you really want to define a hardcore gamer, call a spade a spade. A hardcore gamer is normally some arrogant geek who will blast the Wii for having crappy graphics and in the same sentence argue that Planescape is the best game ever and graphics don't make a game. It's a wildly hypocritical, hypercritical, vocal group of relatively few people.

I don't care about the Wii (or Wii U's) graphical capabilities. It's not a shitty system (to me) because of that. It's a shitty system (again, to me) because of the shitty shit shit shitty ass shit motion control gimmicky bullshit. Add to that the lack of non-Nintendo branded good games and it's just a useless system for me.

 

[purbeast0]

9/25 of the top selling Wii games are not published by Nintendo.

9/25 of the top selling PS3 games are published by Sony.

7/25 of the top selling 360 games are published by Microsoft.

Arguing that 3rd party games don't sell on the Wii is like arguing that first party games don't sell on the PS3 or the 360. Not to mention the number of games sold on the Wii nearly doubles the amount of games sold on the PS3 or 360. So even though 3rd party titles do have a do have a noticeably smaller market share of games sold on the Wii, it's part of a substantially bigger market.

And anyone that plays a game is a real gamer. If you really want to define a hardcore gamer, call a spade a spade. A hardcore gamer is normally some arrogant geek who will blast the Wii for having crappy graphics and in the same sentence argue that Planescape is the best game ever and graphics don't make a game. It's a wildly hypocritical, hypercritical, vocal group of relatively few people.

my point was that the Wii has no third party support, which you basically just agreed with, so yea, at least we are on the same page.

and no, arguing 3rd party sales not selling on wii is like arguing that first party don't sell on PS3 or 360 is not even remotely close. not at all. it just means that PS3 and 360 don't have to rely solely on first party titles to get good game sales on their consoles.

360 hardly even has any first party games when compared to nintendo, and they sell well. the goal is to get as many 3rd party devs on board as possible so that you can make more $$ off of them. nintendo though, having such a large first party gamebase, they don't have to worry about that as much because again, they are making $$$ on EVERYTHING ... hardware and software.

and again, instead of trying to understand what i mean by "real" or "hardcore" games you just chose to instead try and pick apart the stupid terminology instead of understanding what i was getting at.

third parties are not dying to flock to the Wii anymore afer seeing shitty sales on their software, and regardless what they said at E3, I see third party devs doing the same thing with the Wii U.

Hell, the fuckin EA guys thought they would be able to call plays on the controller in 2 player mode so that the opponent couldn't see the plays being picked. they didn't even know that there will only be 1 controller per console, and they are going to be making games for it. so their big gimmicky exclusive idea isn't even possible at this point.

i also don't blast the wii for graphics at all, i actually think that the first party games have pretty good graphics for what the wii is. it sucks i cant even hook a wii up to what i game on though because all it has is VGA and HDMI.

i blast the wii because it hardly has any good games on it, other than first party titles, which i'm pretty bored with at this point because i've been playign mario, zelda, etc, for 20+ years now. after that it is just a buncha waggle control mini/party games, again, shit i don't care about. has absolutely nothing to do with graphics or horse power of the console. oh and i also think the motion controls are awful.

 

[Fardringle]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. If you don't like Wii games/controls, don't play them. It's very simple. But, as darkewaffle said, despite the noise that "real gamers" make about the situation, the fact is that you are very much in the minority and frankly, I suspect that Nintendo doesn't care what you as a self-proclaimed "real/hardcore gamer" thinks because there are many millions of people who like the Wii and that makes it a very successful and profitable system.

It's true that there aren't as many big third-party games for the Wii as there are for other consoles, but again, who cares? Developers who make a good game profit from it regardless of the platform. Part of the problem is that there are more garbage games for the Wii than there are for other consoles because it's easy to throw together a low quality game when your target is the casual gaming market. That doesn't mean it's going to be a good game, or even that it will sell at all, just that it's easy to do which is why there are more of that type of game for the Wii. "Real" gamers like to throw this out as evidence that everything on the Wii is garbage, but it's a ridiculous argument since there are plenty of very good games as well.

Personally, I dislike FPS/war type games. I have not yet seen a single XBOX 360 or PS3 exclusive title that has made me wish that I owned either console. I have owned my Wii for a couple of years and it still gets played on a very regular basis, both by me and my wife and by our kids. Even after more than two years, the kids still consider it a reward to be able to play with the Wii after they do their chores and homework. Their cousins have an XBOX and a PS3 and they frequently ask if they can come play with our Wii because the games are more fun and they like the motion controls a LOT more than a game pad. I also like the motion controls a lot. I have a very bad back and knees and can't exercise normally. It's not a significant workout, but the very fun and well designed Fit and Sports games give me and the kids an incentive to get up and move around instead of creating butt-shaped dents in the couch. While there are some games where motion controls don't work as well, in the games that it is designed for, the motion controls are great. (There's a reason why Sony and Microsoft decided to create motion controls of their own - many people happen to like them.)

My family is exactly the target market for the Wii, as are about 50 million other homes in the world, and it is an ideal system for us. Just because you feel neglected because a single console for the very first time is catering to a different market, doesn't make it a failure in any way.

 

[purbeast0]

nobody said it was a failure, you guys are going off on tangents that have absolutely nothing to do with the thread.

the thread title and this thread is about whether WiiU is going to be the future of hardcore gaming or not. that is what is being discussed here.

so basically you all stating that there is no third party support for "real" games other than the first party games, and the big third party games are good party games. yes, i agree with that as well.

you yourself are stating that your family is the target market for the wii, and stated that you don't find any games on the xbox360 and ps3 that make you wish you had a ps3 or xbox360. you enjoy games like wii fit and sports, that is great. nobody is knocking you for it.

so basically you are supporting the argument that most of us in this thread are stating, that the Wii U will NOT be the future of hardcore gaming, if the Wii is any indication of what the Wii U is going to be.

 

[Fardringle]

OK, then. No, the Wii U will not be the future of hardcore gaming, nor is it intended to be, although it has the potential to do so (at least for a while) if developers decide to start producing those types of games for it before the new XBOX and Playstation are released.

I have to wonder if the single controller limitation was just for the prototype box used at the convention since that would make it virtually useless for a very large portion of the current Wii target market, and I doubt that Nintendo would do that unless they really do intend for the new Wii to be a "hardcore gaming" box and not just a new Wii.

 

[Tom]

explore the archives to see what people thought about the Wii to see if it's worth discussing Nintendo here.

Then read the thread about the PS3 and/or the PSP and the gushing praise, or the same for the Vita, and given Sony's failures of late, you'll see why there's nothing to learn about Sony here either.

 

[darkewaffle]

my point was that the Wii has no third party support, which you basically just agreed with, so yea, at least we are on the same page.

and no, arguing 3rd party sales not selling on wii is like arguing that first party don't sell on PS3 or 360 is not even remotely close. not at all. it just means that PS3 and 360 don't have to rely solely on first party titles to get good game sales on their consoles.

360 hardly even has any first party games when compared to nintendo, and they sell well. the goal is to get as many 3rd party devs on board as possible so that you can make more $$ off of them. nintendo though, having such a large first party gamebase, they don't have to worry about that as much because again, they are making $$$ on EVERYTHING ... hardware and software.

and again, instead of trying to understand what i mean by "real" or "hardcore" games you just chose to instead try and pick apart the stupid terminology instead of understanding what i was getting at.

third parties are not dying to flock to the Wii anymore afer seeing shitty sales on their software, and regardless what they said at E3, I see third party devs doing the same thing with the Wii U.

Hell, the fuckin EA guys thought they would be able to call plays on the controller in 2 player mode so that the opponent couldn't see the plays being picked. they didn't even know that there will only be 1 controller per console, and they are going to be making games for it. so their big gimmicky exclusive idea isn't even possible at this point.

i also don't blast the wii for graphics at all, i actually think that the first party games have pretty good graphics for what the wii is. it sucks i cant even hook a wii up to what i game on though because all it has is VGA and HDMI.

i blast the wii because it hardly has any good games on it, other than first party titles, which i'm pretty bored with at this point because i've been playign mario, zelda, etc, for 20+ years now. after that it is just a buncha waggle control mini/party games, again, shit i don't care about. has absolutely nothing to do with graphics or horse power of the console. oh and i also think the motion controls are awful.

How is 9/25 no third party support? That's over 1/3rd. Again, that's like saying the PS3 and 360 have no first party support, it's strictly a matter of numbers. If 9/25 is supposedly no third party support, then 9/25 is no first party support for the PS3 either. Which is of course untrue. Third parties have a weaker position on the Wii, but it's far from insignificant.

Sales of third party titles is a matter of chicken and the egg, do they not sell as well because there are fewer games? Or are there fewer games because they don't sell as well? There's no definite answer. If Activision really expected CoD to sell as well on the Wii as it does on the PS3/360 then they're dramatically misjudging the demographic. To sell well on the Wii you can't just put out the standard fare because it simply isn't suited for most Wii consumers. That is what keeps third party support weak on the Wii, the fact that they have to change their formula to be successful because they're selling to different customers.

I don't think that's unique to the Wii either. Developers are having a hard time really support motion controls at all, if you look at the game lists for the Kinect and the PSMove they aren't too impressive, though the Move does have some redeeming games. Point being, I think developer support is weak for motion control across the board. This just has a more amplified effect on the Wii because the motion control is a much more significant component to the Wii than the Kinect or the Move are to their respective consoles.

I think the Wii U can get past this as long as it's sold differently and introduced to developers differently. Let developers treat it like the PS3 and the 360, a normal system. Let Nintendo put out games to take advantage of the special controller and lead by example. Package the Wii U with one normal controller so that devs have something comfortable to work with, because that's what they'll want, at least initially. Developers don't want to put out a game and then have to re-think how it will all work on motion controls, which was the only option on the Wii really because you couldnt count on everyone having a gamecube controller or classic pad and using the remote/nunchuk for a normal gamepad is not especially comfortable (to me at any rate).

Hardcore, casual, real, fake, etc are all just labels. They just don't mean anything.

 

[Beev]

explore the archives to see what people thought about the Wii to see if it's worth discussing Nintendo here.

Then read the thread about the PS3 and/or the PSP and the gushing praise, or the same for the Vita, and given Sony's failures of late, you'll see why there's nothing to learn about Sony here either.

Nintendo is nothing but a gimmick company now, and they have no place in my home. That is my opinion, and it would still be my stance if no one else supported it, because it's how I feel. Microsoft's conference was nothing but Gears3, Halo, and garbage about the Kinect. Sony actually showed something, plus their exclusives just rock. Last year, when Sony was doing nothing but pushing the Move I hated on them, too.

If Nintendo would actually release a regular console with regular controls then I'd probably be interested. There are plenty of ways to innovate that don't piss me off and make me swing my arms around everywhere. The WiiU isn't aimed at me. That's fine. I don't think Nintendo should have to cater to me. My kind of gamer isn't where the money is. If I were Nintendo I would probably make the same decisions they did, because I like money.

 

[TheVrolok]

It's pretty neat Tech, but honestly, I'd prefer it for non-gaming purposes.

 

[Doppel]

Nobody here has ever seen a real-time rendered game approach anything even close to real-life graphics. It will be many years before it's more or less indiscernible so there is plenty of remaining room to improve graphics. I can slap two moving boxes on a 1080P screen in 3d they still look like two boxes.

 

[Gung-Ho]

This guy must not have heard of 4K(movies are starting be shot for it, soon theaters will be upgraded to use it, eventually it will make its way into the consumer market).

We will eventually get to true photo realistic graphics in real time. Its just how long its going to take for the technology and artists to be capable of doing it.

We won't "be done" until I can plug ethernet into the back of my head and download the Intersect.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

yeah 1080p is nowhere near the limits of human visual perception

 

[Farmer]

What the fuck did they do with the boatloads of money they made off of Wii? Make this shit?

yeah 1080p is nowhere near the limits of human visual perception

If you are talking about diffraction limit, that totally depends on the pixel pitch, not necessarily the resolution.