Editorial On "Is Wii Next-Gen?" (answer: no)

[fearsomepirate]

Yeah, games like Madden and Splinter Cell were real shovelware titles

I'd consider a game that consists of little more than franchise updates to be "shovelware," no matter hos many mouthbreathers will buy it. And did you actually play any of the Splinter Cells on Gamecube? They were ports of the PS2 versions, had bad framerates, awkward controls, major bugs (almost game-killing in Chaos Theory), and broken graphics. Splinter Cell on Cube was certainly not million-seller material. And driving games? Is anyone surprised that R:Racing Evolution and Auto Modellista sold poorly?

And last I recall, the Gamecube has been around for 5 years. What's your excuse for the other 4?

After the first year, the reputation was pretty well set, and things largely did not improve in terms of 3rd-party software quality. The 3rd party offerings didn't really improve. Why should I get excited about Ghost Recon 2 when Ghost Recon 1 was such garbage? Oh, surprise, GR2 on Cube is garbage, too.

Your claim that there is no incentive to make a good game unless your bad games are selling like hotcakes is ridiculous, and not true. The successful companies are the ones who figure out what the market wants, design games that the market will buy, and advertise them in ways that that will attract the market. It just so happens that on Gamecube, a lot of publishers didn't understand the market. It is simply not true that "Nintendo fans only buy Nintendo games," as the long list of million-selling Player's Choice titles on the N64 shows.

I think what happened in the current generation is that the third parties by and large just didn't get it. They didn't understand how to sell games to Gamecube owners. There were some exceptions. Factor 5 got it (and before you say that Rebel Strike should have sold better, remember that 60% of the game was boring and pointless). Sega got it. Sometimes, Ubisoft and EA got it. Namco got it right with Tales of Symphonia. Yuke's got it. The developers at Capcom got it, but the execs didn't. Free Radical got it with Timesplitters 2 (didn't get it with Future Perfect--multiplayer levels were awful). Activision got it sometimes. But a lot of them were just plain clueless.

And you completely don't understand the point. The standard of comparison on Nintendo platforms is Nintendo software. If Wii games have worse graphics, worse controls, and worse content than the 1st-party offerings, I don't expect them to succeed. And that has nothing to do with PS3/X360.

 

[Blade]

Fearsome is making the points that I would. The GameCube got shafted by 3rd-parties.

Think of the type of 3rd-party support that PS2 got. Even Xbox. Launch, post-launch, and years into the system's lifespan.

There are some factors that must be accounted for (small memory cards, the GCN's middle ground in the hardware race, Sony/MS buying exclusives, 1.5GB discs, etc) but in general, developers sealed the system's fate. Not gamers.

If the GameCube had all of the PS2's 3rd-party support, plus Nintendo's games, it would have probably crushed the life out of the Xbox.

 

[thenefariousone]

Fearsome is making the points that I would. The GameCube got shafted by 3rd-parties.

Think of the type of 3rd-party support that PS2 got. Even Xbox. Launch, post-launch, and years into the system's lifespan.

There are some factors that must be accounted for (small memory cards, the GCN's middle ground in the hardware race, Sony/MS buying exclusives, 1.5GB discs, etc) but in general, developers sealed the system's fate. Not gamers.

If the GameCube had all of the PS2's 3rd-party support, plus Nintendo's games, it would have probably crushed the life out of the Xbox.

True to a point.

If any console was getting that kind of support, it would have been the number one system.

A combination of nintendo's conservativeness with hardware and the audience of their consoles put them where they are today. They're making lots of money, so it's not exactly a bad place to be.

Why would 3rd party developers go through the trouble and expense to cater to nintendo's console and the "unique needs of that audience" when they can get better sales for cheaper on the other two consoles?

Example: If a new adventure game was released for a current gen console, the console that makes the most business sense is (in order):

1)ps2
2)xbox
3)gamecube

If the adventure game isn't better than mario or zelda, it won't sell well on GameCube. That's an extremely high standard to hold games to. There are even cases of games like Eternal Darkness that don't sell well there even if they get killer reviews.

As long as it's decent, it would have sold okay on the ps2 or xbox. PS2 has the larger numbers, xbox has a more willing audience.

 

[mckmas8808]

True to a point.

If any console was getting that kind of support, it would have been the number one system.

A combination of nintendo's conservativeness with hardware and the audience of their consoles put them where they are today. They're making lots of money, so it's not exactly a bad place to be.

Why would 3rd party developers go through the trouble and expense to cater to nintendo's console and the "unique needs of that audience" when they can get better sales for cheaper on the other two consoles?

Example: If a new adventure game was released for a current gen console, the console that makes the most business sense is (in order):

1)ps2
2)xbox
3)gamecube

If the adventure game isn't better than mario or zelda, it won't sell well on GameCube. That's an extremely high standard to hold games to. There are even cases of games like Eternal Darkness that don't sell well there even if they get killer reviews.

As long as it's decent, it would have sold okay on the ps2 or xbox. PS2 has the larger numbers, xbox has a more willing audience.

Man that was a really really great point. I agree 100%.

 

[Blade]

Good post. I can level, but I don't fully agree.

Basically, you (or the developers in this case) stereotyped the Nintendo platform as "for children."

The fact of the matter is, Sony had won the last generation at that point, and the PS2 was out over a year before the GCN/Xbox. Had the GameCube been a year ahead of the PS2/Xbox [with the same hardware] I wouldn't be too surprised if it won the battle.

It's why I still think that the X360 will overcome the PS3 and probably the Wii as well, this gen. Head starts, and strong 3rd-party backing with better 1st-party offerings.

 

[fearsomepirate]

xbox has a more willing audience.

After Azurik and Bloodwake, anything looks like pure gold. A big part of this is marketing. I have a suspicion that if Eternal Darkness had some gruesome demon or zombie on the cover, it would have sold a lot better.

And spelling "magic" with a "k" makes it look like a cheesy D&D knockoff RPG, and those are rarely all that good.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Basically, you (or the developers in this case) stereotyped the Nintendo platform as "for children."

I'm confused here as to how Nintendo supporters keep fighting against the stereotype that their platform is 'for children', yet they use 'unique audience' as part of the reason to explain why the gamecube got shafted.

So what is it exactly that you (not you specifically, Blade) would like? The 'childish' label changed to 'unique'? Does that really make any material difference in anything that's being discussed?

If developers have to make unique games targetted towards a specific audience in order to get their games to sell on a Nintendo platform and those unique games are going to be compared against Nintendo first party games and therefore held to a higher standard, I think that answers the 'lack of third party support' question right there.

I don't think it matters if the Nintendo consumer is stereotyped as 'Childish' or 'Eccentric'. Pretty much as soon as they are stereotyped or singled-out from the rest of the console consumers in any way, they are demonstrating themselves as a subset rather than a sample of the population.

 

[sfried]

I don't think it matters if the Nintendo consumer is stereotyped as 'Childish' or 'Eccentric'. Pretty much as soon as they are stereotyped or singled-out from the rest of the console consumers in any way, they are demonstrating themselves as a subset rather than a sample of the population.

But haven't they been aiming at "non-gamers" who are usually "30-year olds who don't play videogames"? I don't see that as childish.

In fact, I could go on to argue that videogames themselves are rather childish...

 

[swaaye]

What about the fact that most people own more than one of the consoles? I don't have PS2, but have GC and Xbox. Having more than one is pretty darned popular with adult gamers who have $$. Kids even can have more than one fairly often. A new one for Xmas each year lol.

 

[Blade]

I'm confused here as to how Nintendo supporters keep fighting against the stereotype that their platform is 'for children', yet they use 'unique audience' as part of the reason to explain why the gamecube got shafted.

My point: Their platform is as much for children as it is for adults. It's just a computer in a stylish little cubic shell. Nintendo clearly wasn't catering to only children when they published N64 greats like GoldenEye, Zelda:OOT/MM, and Super Mario 64. Nor Pikmin, nor SSBM, nor Eternal Darkness. The "kiddie" moniker is entirely based on game/film analogies, in which animated characters are pretty much entirely relegated to family-friendly movies. Some people would just prefer to play more realistic looking titles, and that's their God-given right... but these same people will cast aside fantastic games just for their graphics. The interactivity, the gameplay (which is the X-factor to gaming) gets thrown out at times.

I never use "unique audience" as a reason for anything. I had to buy an Xbox to get the games that developers refused to put on GCN! I'm an average, well-informed gamer! I'm not some esoteric subset of the community! I'm highly anticipating the Wii, dying for Gears of War, and my DS and PSP get equal playtime. I own a Dreamcast, I play mostly shooters and city-building games on my PC. I adore the puzzle genre, as well as the party genre. I bought over 35 GCN games!

It's all about image.

So what is it exactly that you (not you specifically, Blade) would like? The 'childish' label changed to 'unique'? Does that really make any material difference in anything that's being discussed?

There was nothing unique about the GameCube! It offered basically the same experience of the PS2, but with better graphics and smaller discs. Less online play. No backwards compatibility. These are rational reasons why it didn't get the same support. Clearly it shone when they let it (Capcom's offerings are an example) but it didn't get nearly the support it deserved. Companies like Konami and Square were far, far too PS2-centric; delivering 90% of their best known franchises exclusively to the PS2! No wonder the Xbox failed so badly in Japan. Only Tecmo gave a shit.

If developers have to make unique games targetted towards a specific audience in order to get their games to sell on a Nintendo platform and those unique games are going to be compared against Nintendo first party games and therefore held to a higher standard, I think that answers the 'lack of third party support' question right there.

Agreed. That said, the ideal situation would be for all games to sell well, regardless of the competition. Make little Jimmy buy Super Mario Sunshine and Jet Set Radio Future! (like I did...)

If you look back at the SNES (or the modern PS1/PS2) you'd see that Nintendo/Sony published a lot of great software that sold just as well as 3rd-party stuff. The basic idea is... the more the merrier. If the GameCube got PS2-like support, I would have bought a good 10-15 more games during its lifespan. At least. More money for the 3rd-parties.

I don't think it matters if the Nintendo consumer is stereotyped as 'Childish' or 'Eccentric'. Pretty much as soon as they are stereotyped or singled-out from the rest of the console consumers in any way, they are demonstrating themselves as a subset rather than a sample of the population.

Yes, so don't single them out.

Oh wait, we're talking about the Wii now. Uhhhhh... hmm. The Wii is clearly for all age groups, and subsets. Something for everybody.

 

[Powderkeg]

I'd consider a game that consists of little more than franchise updates to be "shovelware," no matter hos many mouthbreathers will buy it. And did you actually play any of the Splinter Cells on Gamecube? They were ports of the PS2 versions, had bad framerates, awkward controls, major bugs (almost game-killing in Chaos Theory), and broken graphics. Splinter Cell on Cube was certainly not million-seller material. And driving games? Is anyone surprised that R:Racing Evolution and Auto Modellista sold poorly?

Did you ever play Kirby Air Ride?

It's a complete crap game. Total garbage. 64% average in reviews.

It also outsold all but 5 3rd party games.


Luigi's Mansion averaged a mere 79% in reviews, yet is the 5th best selling game on the Gamecube.
Pokemon Colosseum was a 75%. #7 best selling Gamecube game.




Now, you can make any excuse you want, but when crap like Kirby sells over a million copies, and 2 of the top 7 highest selling games average below an 8 in reviews, it's proof that Nintendo fans aren't concerned about how good a game is, they only care about whose name is on the box.



You know what kind of "shovelware" couldn't compete with Kirby in sales?

SSX3, Prince of Persia, Viewtiful Joe, and Tiger Woods. 4 of the top 10 highest rated games released on the system.

So go ahead with your excuses. Tell me again how Nintendo fans prefer quality games like Kirby over shovelware like 4 of the top 10 rated Gamecube games released.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Hmm?

The reason ports didn't sell well on the GC was because many of them were poorly done. This will probably only be magnified during this generation due to the hardware differences between the Wii and its competition.

That removes 'straight ports' from the equation. So third party developers then have to develop specialized games for the Wii, and those games will most likely mimic the first party games that are top sellers on the platform. So we're back to developing unique games that will be in competition with Nintendo first party games.

Again, it's not that the Nintendo consumer is childish, it's that they are different.

Blade, you seem to be trying to make the point that the Nintendo consumer isn't different, unique, or a subset.. but Nintendo has pretty much admitted this fact with their position on hardware, and their attempts to target a different audience (Non-Gamers).

Whether their consumer base is made up of children or of 30+ adults who are traditional non-gamers, both conditions result in atmosphere that brings increased risk to 3rd party developers.

 

[swaaye]

Hmmm. What if the reviewers aren't really hitting the spot for what these buyers really want? I'd like to refer to how Doom3 can get 90%+ while Dark Messiah receives 67%. Doom3 is not a fun game, especially for the majority. I enjoy Dark Messiah infinitely more, but it gets trashed by the "pro reviewers".

I'd say the reviewers are out of touch and don't actually reach the majority at all. I'm an over-the-top super ridiculous 20yr+ intense gamer and I ignore reviews most of the time. Peer reviews on certain forums go way farther in convincing me to buy a game. That, and its content (whether it be good or not, actually) and gameplay style. Like, for example, how I played the awful Terminator games on Xbox even though they sucked. The universe fascinates me, so I played em.

I would honestly say that I've enjoyed more averagely-rated reviews than "top notch quality" games.

Obviously that Kirby game was enjoyable enough to sell. Or maybe droves of ignorent parents bought it for their kids. Man I'm glad I'm not marketing games. Sure seems to be a bitch.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Did you ever play Kirby Air Ride?

It's a complete crap game. Total garbage. 64% average in reviews.

It also outsold all but 5 3rd party games.

Now, you can make any excuse you want, but when crap like Kirby sells over a million copies, and 2 of the top 7 highest selling games average below an 8 in reviews, it's proof that Nintendo fans aren't concerned about how good a game is, they only care about whose name is on the box.

If you're going to run that argument, you ought to compare the other platforms too. I think there's been plenty of highly rated titles on PS2 at least that haven't sold well, and weak titles that have sold well. I can't see that this is a phenomenum limited to GC.

 

[pc999]

Really this time seems that none of the things that all you blame for the bad performance of third party games is happening.

For one you have big companys giving exclussives (eg RS in a lot of them) or time exclussives (Rayman), reworking completely the games for Wii (Madeen/Sims) or adding the controls and improving/optimizing the rest of the game (Marvel Alliance).

Every major company is working on the Wii and (so it seems) they intended to go with much higher qualitity ports than in GC, many of them even giving special work and even on the Nintendo forums people seems very interested. It seems to be a very prosperous future between third party and Nintendo.

 

[Blade]

Blade, you seem to be trying to make the point that the Nintendo consumer isn't different, unique, or a subset.. but Nintendo has pretty much admitted this fact with their position on hardware, and their attempts to target a different audience (Non-Gamers)

You're pretty close, but just a wee bit off about my point. Either that or just disagree. Fair enough.

Allow me to reiterate.

The Nintendo [Wii] consumer is a gamer. The Wii consumer is a non-gamer. The Wii consumer is young, the Wii consumer is old. The Wii consumer might have played and loved every Zelda game, or never picked up a controller before. The Wii consumer is male, female, and everything in between.

You can apply the same logic to any console, but I'm trying to make it clear in this context. Nintendo is not reinventing the wheel with the Wii. They're marketing it as "different" so that it stands out from the crowd. Gameplay-wise, it's not too far removed from PS3/360... just weaker in terms of hardware.

Nintendo targets all audiences. "Non-gamers" is but a recent addition. There's not much of a difference between GCN and Wii titles in pure gameplay.

 

[Arwin]

It always seems that way at the beginning of a Nintendo Console's career, but then later ...

But this time the signs are really good though. Most promising is that the Wii really isn't trying to compete for the same market this time, and that might actually work rather well. And I think a lot of third party devs are seeing the opportunities. But if the Wii doesn't take off, support could drop really soon again.

Still, I expect the Wii to do quite well. Probably the biggest concern here is that Wii owners are only going to buy Nintendo software. But I think they'll be fine. I just saw that Fifa07 is the top selling title for the DS in one of the shops/chains over here, in front of all the Nintendogs games (which do indeed seem rather popular here). (In case you're interested, Tekken is the firm leader on the PSP - thank god, as it deserves the recognition ).

 

[Corwin_B]

It seems to be a very prosperous future between third party and Nintendo.

And Nintendo seems to understand a few things on their own. For example, they moved some stuff like Metroid Prime 3 from the launch lineup in order to make room for 3rd party games. Red Steel and COD3 will be the showcase FPS for the Wii launch, not a Nintendo title.

Basically, with the underpowered and easy to develop for Wii, Nintendo is giving an incentive for developers to make titles for the platform that in all likelihood won't oversell the Nintendo titles, but will be able to sell enough to make a decent buck. Sort of a platform between the more expensive competition next-gen platforms and handheld development. Not a bad proposition for an editor, in an industry where it's generally "hit or miss".

 

[mckmas8808]

The fact of the matter is, Sony had won the last generation at that point, and the PS2 was out over a year before the GCN/Xbox. Had the GameCube been a year ahead of the PS2/Xbox [with the same hardware] I wouldn't be too surprised if it won the battle.

It's why I still think that the X360 will overcome the PS3 and probably the Wii as well, this gen. Head starts, and strong 3rd-party backing with better 1st-party offerings.

Dude the Dreamcast came out before the PS2, so your theory just blew up right
there.

 

[iNoV]

Did you ever play Kirby Air Ride?

It's a complete crap game. Total garbage. 64% average in reviews.

It also outsold all but 5 3rd party games.

Luigi's Mansion averaged a mere 79% in reviews, yet is the 5th best selling game on the Gamecube.
Pokemon Colosseum was a 75%. #7 best selling Gamecube game.

Now, you can make any excuse you want, but when crap like Kirby sells over a million copies, and 2 of the top 7 highest selling games average below an 8 in reviews, it's proof that Nintendo fans aren't concerned about how good a game is, they only care about whose name is on the box.

You know what kind of "shovelware" couldn't compete with Kirby in sales?

SSX3, Prince of Persia, Viewtiful Joe, and Tiger Woods. 4 of the top 10 highest rated games released on the system.
So go ahead with your excuses. Tell me again how Nintendo fans prefer quality games like Kirby over shovelware like 4 of the top 10 rated Gamecube games released.

Funny you should mention Viewtiful Joe, you do realize that the GC version outsold the PS2 version even with the PS2s larger install base. You don't need to sell a million copies to have a successful game. And on top of that critical success is not guarantee of commercial success. But you already proved that with your lists. And didn't prince of persia not sell as well as hoped on all systems?? wasn't that the reason for the darkening of the sequels??

Really this time seems that none of the things that all you blame for the bad performance of third party games is happening.

For one you have big companys giving exclussives (eg RS in a lot of them) or time exclussives (Rayman), reworking completely the games for Wii (Madeen/Sims) or adding the controls and improving/optimizing the rest of the game (Marvel Alliance).

Every major company is working on the Wii and (so it seems) they intended to go with much higher qualitity ports than in GC, many of them even giving special work and even on the Nintendo forums people seems very interested. It seems to be a very prosperous future between third party and Nintendo.

I agree, really this time 3rd parties don't have an excuse, i mean the power may be missing if the competitors but the reduced costs should really offset that issue.

You're pretty close, but just a wee bit off about my point. Either that or just disagree. Fair enough.

Allow me to reiterate.

The Nintendo [Wii] consumer is a gamer. The Wii consumer is a non-gamer. The Wii consumer is young, the Wii consumer is old. The Wii consumer might have played and loved every Zelda game, or never picked up a controller before. The Wii consumer is male, female, and everything in between.

You can apply the same logic to any console, but I'm trying to make it clear in this context. Nintendo is not reinventing the wheel with the Wii. They're marketing it as "different" so that it stands out from the crowd. Gameplay-wise, it's not too far removed from PS3/360... just weaker in terms of hardware.

Nintendo targets all audiences. "Non-gamers" is but a recent addition. There's not much of a difference between GCN and Wii titles in pure gameplay.

There's not much difference in nintendo's aim's with the consoles either, just the execution that is diffrent.