Editorial On "Is Wii Next-Gen?" (answer: no)
- Thread starter fearsomepirate
- Start date
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
I'm still not sure which is the case...
I see what you are saying, but I think it's slightly flawed. That logic can be applied to both the Xbox and PS. They all have consumers that fit your above categories. But there's a difference as to what the console attempts to cater toward. Sony likes to attract RPG fans, Xbox likes to attract FPS fans. This doesn't mean either manufacturer disregard other groups, and it doesn't mean fans of other genres won't enjoy their product. But there's points of emphasis here, and Nintendo is clearly putting the emphasis on attracting a group of gamers that is different from their competitors.
Ok, so you agree that all consoles try to appeal to everybody, but what about the point of emphasis? They have to do something to actually stand out from the crowd, they can't just hope that marketing will take them there when their hardware is inferior.
I don't see Nintendo's 3rd party efforts or "mainstream" efforts (if you will.. it's a poor label but the best I can come up with right now) as anything more than lipservice, rather than their main focus. I see it the same as I see Xbox's RPG efforts as lipservice to provide a bit of variety from their otherwise FPS laden lineup.
Nintendo generally has a pretty good track record with arcade racers. Nintendo's managed to build themselves a brand trust--that the occasional dud sells well is proof of how much the brand is trusted, not how idiotic and single-minded the fans are. I would say that if you buy a Nintendo-published game off the shelf, there's about an 80% chance it's good. Kirby is a statistical outlier--that rare Nintendo game that actually sucks. It was also hyped up for being LAN-capable and the first Kirby game for the Gamecube. The real question is why F-Zero GX sold so poorly. Bad marketing?
It was also a launch title and something a graphics tech demo. What else were you supposed to do? Wait four years for RE4?
Proving...what? That Nintendo knows the kiddies love Pokemon. Pokemon is like Madden. Update the franchise, sell 5 million units.
Do you know how hard it is to play an SSX game with a functionally useless D-pad and minus a shoulder button? Extremely. That's why I sold my copy back. Despite the great graphics and production values, the d-pad makes it too difficult to play.
...which didn't even sell 1m copies total in NA. How this is Nintendo's fault, I do not know. Apparently, Ubisoft didn't know how to market the game. Viewtiful Joe was received well commercially, exceeding Capcom's expectations to the point where they decided to immediately kill off the franchise by porting it to PS2. So apparently, the Cube userbase was a lot more discerning than the PS2 userbase when it came to that game. And why wasn't VJ2 nearly as successful? Simple reason: Cross-platform games are perceived as inferior. Many, many VJ1 fans assumed that VJ2 would be dumbed down for the PS2. They were right.
Like I said, it's because they don't know how to design or market a game, but not necessarily both. Now, if Nintendo fans don't ever buy 3rd-party games, and it's just so darn impossible for a 3rd-party game to succeed on a Nintendo problem, why did...
...all make the Player's Choice list on N64, which required selling over 1 million units? I'm not even including Perfect Dark and Goldeneye, 2 of the mythical M-rated games that Nintendo fans supposedly never buy, since they were N-published. Your over-the-top "Nintendo fans never buy 3rd-party games" and "Nintendo fans never buy M-rated games" generalities are simply false, easily disproven by looking at the N64.Wikipedia said:
You might not like my "excuses," but at least I'm trying to come up with a reasonable explanation, which is that cross-platform Cube games were generally perceived as being low quality compared to 1st-party games and exclusives (btw, Eternal Darkness was Nintendo-published, which in your book makes it a 1st-party game. It was outsold by Resident Evil 0, a 3rd-party title). It doesn't matter how a handful of reviewers perceives them if the market doesn't perceive them.
So the big question is "Why didn't the market consider cross-platform games worth buying?" "They weren't published by Nintendo" just doesn't fit the data. I think "the publishers grievously miscalculated either what kind of games the market wanted and how to advertise them" is a much saner answer.
Last edited by a moderator:
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
You make lots of very good counter-points to Powder's points, but I have a problem with your conclusion:
How different really is "they weren't published by Nintendo" from "the publishers grievously miscalculated what kind of games the market wanted"?
You said it yourself, that the Nintendo consumer continued to purchase games that were subpar for the sole reason that they were published by Nintendo so they assumed the games would be good and went ahead and even bought the lemons in large numbers based upon expectations.
The answer to me seems to be that the 3rd party games that are Nintendo-Esque are the ones that sold well, even as 3rd party games. Others, didn't do so well.
So the conclusion I come to is that the Nintendo market wants Nintendo published games or Nintendo-Esque games, which comes back to the other issue being discussed. Which is that if 3rd party developers have to create unique games to fit that market, the market is 1) Small and 2) The game better be damn good because they'll be compared to their 1st party contemporaries.
Of course there's the handful of games that sold well that don't fit "The Nintendo Stereotype", but those seem to be the exception to the rule.. rather than the rule itself.
I'm also a bit troubled that you had to go back to the N64 in order to find evidence to make your argument, because the console market/landscape was completely different in the N64 days. The N64 was still the dominate console of its day. (Or it was when it was released, anyway) Which meant 3rd party developers were scrambling to get their games approved so they could be on the system.
When another market option proved viable, those developers seemed to abandon ship like a bunch of drowning rats. Right now we see that there is a decent (good? Great? use whatever adjective you want, I'm not using decent as a put down) amount of 3rd party support because of the uniqueness of the input device. The big question is whether or not that support will continue in years 3-5 of the Wii's lifespan.
That's the critical time frame, IMO, and its made even moreso because that will be the time when the Wii's hardware will really be showing its age while competing systems will just be starting to strut their stuff.
How different really is "they weren't published by Nintendo" from "the publishers grievously miscalculated what kind of games the market wanted"?
You said it yourself, that the Nintendo consumer continued to purchase games that were subpar for the sole reason that they were published by Nintendo so they assumed the games would be good and went ahead and even bought the lemons in large numbers based upon expectations.
The answer to me seems to be that the 3rd party games that are Nintendo-Esque are the ones that sold well, even as 3rd party games. Others, didn't do so well.
So the conclusion I come to is that the Nintendo market wants Nintendo published games or Nintendo-Esque games, which comes back to the other issue being discussed. Which is that if 3rd party developers have to create unique games to fit that market, the market is 1) Small and 2) The game better be damn good because they'll be compared to their 1st party contemporaries.
Of course there's the handful of games that sold well that don't fit "The Nintendo Stereotype", but those seem to be the exception to the rule.. rather than the rule itself.
I'm also a bit troubled that you had to go back to the N64 in order to find evidence to make your argument, because the console market/landscape was completely different in the N64 days. The N64 was still the dominate console of its day. (Or it was when it was released, anyway) Which meant 3rd party developers were scrambling to get their games approved so they could be on the system.
When another market option proved viable, those developers seemed to abandon ship like a bunch of drowning rats. Right now we see that there is a decent (good? Great? use whatever adjective you want, I'm not using decent as a put down) amount of 3rd party support because of the uniqueness of the input device. The big question is whether or not that support will continue in years 3-5 of the Wii's lifespan.
That's the critical time frame, IMO, and its made even moreso because that will be the time when the Wii's hardware will really be showing its age while competing systems will just be starting to strut their stuff.
You know, the whole "broken record" thing in this section of the forum is really starting to get old. You, like Powderkeg, fail to explain the sales of Turok, Madden, Mortal Kombat, and Tony Hawk on N64. Or for that matter, Resident Evil on the Cube...or the 3rd party titles that broke 500K, which can still be considered successful, depending on the original budget.
But let's just repeat "Nintendo fans only buy kiddy Nintendo games" until we're blue in the face. If you say it often enough, it'll come true. You've hung your hat on Kirby's Air Ride, so let's not let silly things like looking at all the data interrupt our tirade. And should Red Steel, COD3, or Downhill Jam see successful sales, we'll just ignore it and repeat that Kirby's Air Ride outsold Bloodrayne, therefore Nintendo fans only buy kiddy Nintendo games.
Nintendo fans only buy kiddy games. That N64 Player's Choice list is a commie lie.
Last edited by a moderator:
When I hear people define this game or that game as "kiddy" it sounds so immature therfor I have to question the persons ability to define maturity in the first place. As far as I'm concerned I find games like Animal Crossing or Pikmin more mature than titles like GTA. But tell that to some 15 year old that thinks that gangsta speak,cussing and violence is cool and mature and you start to get an idea of what passes for mature in the gaming industry.
Or to put it another,if GTA is what passes for mature in gaming, then call me kiddy.
Or to put it another,if GTA is what passes for mature in gaming, then call me kiddy.
Last edited by a moderator:
i just want to point out that nintendo used kirby for multiple promotions, including at least 1 promo where you could get a 1st party game free for buying a GC. that can make a huge difference durring a holiday sales season.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
The only top selling game for the GAMECUBE that isn't a first party title or Nintendo-Esque is Rogue Squadron II and that comes in at #12. So there's no game in the TOP TEN that would appeal to the greater market. And being generous, there's maybe THREE in the top TWENTY. Maybe that's why you keep going back to the N64 to try and support your argument.
Last edited by a moderator:
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
If your point was that at one time, when Nintendo was the #1 console manufacturer, they had 3rd party support and their consumers purchased third party titles, then your point wasn't nearly as insightful as I thought it might be.
Doesn't the fact that these 2 games were among the top 10 best games for the system, and were outsold by over 20 1st party titles that averaged lower than them in reviews pretty much indicate that Nintendo fans would rather buy a bad Nintendo game than a good 3rd party game?
I mean, seriously. The excuse given by the Nintendo fans here is apparently every single 3rd party game on the Gamecube sucked. Period. Without exception.
Then when it's pointed out that there were very good 3rd party games, but they didn't sell nearly as well as bad Nintendo ones the best defense you can come up with is "they sold better than the version of the game that was ported to another system a year later."
Even if you are right you still don't counter the actual point that Nintendo fans aren't as fickle about game quality as they are about the game publisher.
It was more than the occassional dud.
Let me give you a list of some of the Gamecubes million sellers.
Super Mario Strikers = 73%
Kirby Air Ride = 64%
Pokemon XD = 67%
Mario Power Tennis = 81%
Mario Party 4 = 74%
Mario Party 5 = 71%
Mario Party 6 = 73%
Mario Party 7 = 65%
Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour = 81%
Star Fox Adventures = 81%
Pokemon Colusseum = 75%
Luigi's Mansion = 79%
Now look at that Mario Party series. Not one game averaged higher than a 75%, but Nintendo fans bought over a million copies each of 4 games in the series. You cant call that an occassional dud, nor a random anomaly. Nintendo fans bought the first, knew how good it was, bought the second, the third, and even went back for a 4th in 4 years. Either they have extremely short memories, or they really don't care about the quality so much as the Mario name.
You've got 12 million+ sellers there, and not one of them make it into the top 85 higest rated Nintendo games. 1/3rd of all million+ sellers on the Gamcube failed to rate higher than an 81% average in reviews, and they were all 1st party games.
If you are a third party developer that's a statistic that is very hard to ignore. Much harder to ignore than if you are a Nintendo fan defending the system.
We're in this weird numbers game again. I wouldn't call 70+% a dud. That's a reasonable game for those that like that ilk, from my understanding. eg. Justice League Heroes averages 71% at metacritic, while being the best game in that genre according to a lot who play it. Putting it another way, if you're a fan of Pokemon, would you rather buy a Pokemon game rated at 72% (good for those who like Pokemon) or a Digimon game rated at 83%?
There's an argument that Nintendo console owners prefer to buy Nintendo, sure. But IMO it's disingenuous to say they buy rubbish and don't care for quality.
Even then they have at least 5M+ gamers who dont buy these kind of games and if, like it is very very probable, must of those games would have been bought by the same gamers so there is a big market that could be explored.
Anyway once that 1) Nintendo isnt folowing the same strategy with third party games (eg, the above mentioned delay of MP3) 2) third party companys are doing much more work and much better work (for the first time there is a Madden that is more than a roster update, it does have a brand new control, 60FPS, it goes beyond the basics on the Wii HW ...) 3) even Nintendo fans seems very interested in those (see Nintendo forums).
History is not repeating it self, so looking at it is not usefull. Yet it will make history no matter if it will be a sucess or not.
Oh come on. You know as well as I do that game review scores generally indicate that anything under an 80% is below average. Even among Gamecube games a 76% is below 50% of the games released for the system.
No more disingenuous than it is to say that all 3rd party games made for the system are rubbish and the 3rd party developers don't make an effort to put good games on the system.
You hit the nail in the head. As much as PS fans call themselves mature, all ps2 owners I know are in the 12 to 20 year old range. Only a kid would think playing some bloody game will make them look mature and I am mostly certain GTA insane sales figures are becouse of this. All in all I think GTA has its merits but it's not as great as other games which fail to sell as well.
So let's say you got a Gamecube, because N64 was such a great party system. You've got 4 controllers and friends who like to play video games with you at your house. Maybe you also have kids, or you are a kid, or you're a kid at heart. Or maybe you're a girl, so headshots and high-powered explosives don't excite you. So you're looking for a good all-ages party game. You engage in this activity frequently, so your previous Mario Parties and both Monkey Balls are pretty played out by now. Do you choose....
a) Red Faction II
b) Prince of Persia: Warrior Within
c) Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow
d) Mario Party 5
You really can't criticize the sales of Mario Party, because the game went virtually uncontested on Nintendo's console. It's not like people are choosing Mario Party over Mortal Kombat. They're choosing it over Shrek: Super Party and Disney's Party. And it's not bad at what it does. From IGN's review of MP7:
So what you see are mindless N-fans buying party games when they should be buying Splinter Cell, as you cannot stomach the idea that there are 1 million people on God's green earth who actually want to play a game like Mario Party rather than Bloodrayne. But what I see is that there's a pretty sizable market--around 1m sales per year--for party games that other publishers aren't really taking advantage of (a market that consists mainly of girls, kids, and guys who don't see video games as an extension of their manhood, NOT "Nintendo fanbois"). Nintendo saw that market, too, and they've been raking in money from it while a lot of other publishers struggle to stay in the black. So while you say....
I say that everyone's ignoring this statistic, given how few attempts there have been to make a party game better than Hudson's. Again, this comes down to knowing how to make and market games for Nintendo console owners, which not very many publishers this gen did. And judging how many studios and publishers either went under or got bought out, a lot of publishers didn't really know how to sell games to anyone!
See, my model explains why Resident Evil 0 sold over a million units worldwide, why Viewtiful Joe 1 was far more successful than its sequel, why Turok and Tony Hawk were a smash hits on N64, why Tales of Symphonia was successful, and why both of Yukes' Gamecube-exclusive wrestlers sold well. Your model struggles to find a reason for why those things happened, and in fact says they shouldn't have happened.
Last edited by a moderator:
No, I don't know that. Again (every time these numbers are used to argue quality of platform's titles!), I've played games that are under 80% and enjoyed them quite happily. I've also played high scoring games and been rather unimpressed. Those little numbers aren't a good way to know whether you'll like a game or not, or even if it's particularly good. The stupidity with your system is 'anything under 80 is no good' and yet it only takes one or two reviews to give a game 6/10 when most other are giving it 8 or 9 out of 10 to drop that average. Unless you're getting your scores from statistically balanced website, but I'm not aware such a website exists and the ones I know of just give a mean average.
If we look at Mario Party 7, there were reviews there that placed it at 80-85% - some people really liked it and would be happy to buy it. There were other reviews who said it was a quality title, only old and repetitive and done before, such as IGN who gave it 70%. If it had been new and fresh it'd have scored a lot higher. If the market wants party games though, then it's a good title for that market. IGN's reader reviews (presumably people who bought the game) gave MP7 82%, so they seem to appreciate it.
Anyhow, what game scores mean is off topic. I just think it's not possible to argue the quality of titles people are buying for a system based wholey on mean average scores, just as you can't tell a game you'd enjoy playing from one you wouldn't based on a review score. When it comes to individual games, it's necessary, if you really want to understand the game, to read multiple full reviews to hear the different takes on the game, and understand what that final score means (such as 7/10 meaning 'good game if you haven't got the previous iterations already, or mediocre game that's outclassed by alternatives). Likewise when you get a list of games selling on platform and compare them to average scores, you're not understanding why the reviewers have given those scores. Are they bored of the gamestyle, hated the gameplay, biased in favour of a product...all these factors affect the score and don't give an indication of the actual game. Plus you'd need proper statistical analysis of the scores to get a reasonably accurate average. Plus not everyone agrees that 80% in a mediocre game and anything less than that shouldn't be bought. I'm not going to buy SSX3 if it scores 100% over MP7 if MP7 scores 50% if I hate snowboarding and love party games!
I can go with the argument that Nintendo buyers have 'Nintendo' tastes, but I don't agree that by looking at the average review scores of games being bought, you can determine that Nintendo
gamers are less discerning than other gamers. For that you'd want far better score analysis that filters out statistical noise and also looks at relative sales on low-scoring games, a proper rating system that places mediocrity at a properly determined score (likely the Mode average score of all games I think), and a way of taking into account player tastes and how they vary over markets (if reviewers on the whole dislike party games, and Nintendo customers on the whole love them, the review scores won't fairly represent the buyer's opinion of some games).
Okay, that's quite a workload, and a simpler solution would probably be to just agree what constitutes a mediocre score! But for me, it's no 80%. 70% is where I'd place an 'okay game, worth getting if you like that sort of thing and are looking for more of the same when there's no competiting titles.'
I agree with that.
What were party game sales like on other platforms, particularly PS2? Gamerankings lists 10 titles under 'party' for PS2, and only Shrek 2 party seems to be proper party games and that scored 45.9%. If you're keen on party games, the only console to get was GC...which would explain why party games sell so well there.
