I'll bring the movie analogy back into this. It's possible for a crap movie to sell well, it's possible for an "easy" movie to appeal to hardened critics and it's possible for something which is the very definition of "the movie-lover movie" to bomb. I don't think this idea of core and casual really makes much sense at all. People who play a lot of games can enjoy easy mass market games. People who don't play a lot of games can sit down and play something that is obscure and challenging. It's nonsense to say otherwise. There's no such thing as a "type of gamer". There just isn't.
This is especially true if you're measuring the games based on age ratings. There's zero correlation between age ratings, difficulty and quality. I don't think it's fair to throw Smash Bros, Mario Kart, 3D World, Zelda, DK or even New SMB in an entirely different category to GTA, Far Cry or Assassin's Creed. It's a load of nonsense, especially when you label them with "hardcore". I'm sorry but Shovel Knight is more "Hard Core" than CoD will ever be. I resent this idea that fans of any medium use the content they enjoy to try and show how tough they are. If you want to do that bugger off, I don't want to be a part of it.
I'm not just throwing Smash, Mario Kart and the likes, I'm comparing them of things like popularity, quality etc among gaming communities and their higher rated games. I could have given an example of better games but not much people could relate to. Shovel Knight is an AWESOME game and deserve every credits and more, but that is not to say COD will ever be better/worse (And I'm not into shooters AT ALL) specially now that you are ruling out on it's future iterations sounds kind of ignorant. COD may go on to be the best franchise ever, Most challenging game, best game ever, this could be it's last game.It COULD be anything. The possibilities is many, you just cant can't say something like " Will ever be"
And there are every correlation between age ratings, difficulty and quality.The term Casual and Core gamers do make sense too. For example my Mom (and dad too actually), she plays game, but what type of a gamer is she? Now that they are long time retired my mom on a daily basis does 5-7 hours of gaming (U kno wat I'm saying, that time is pretty dedicated). But what does she play? she play's Candy Crush, Farm Heroes Saga, Bubble Witcher, Tetris, Wii Sports, Mario Kart 8 (with my 4 year old nehew, they really enjoy MK8), Bubble shooter etc. and It's not to say I don't play them either, I play em too. Now throw Bayonetta 2 and Wonderful 101 to my mom, what do you think is going to happen? and another one My sister (Elder) watches me play games and if she finds things intresting she jumps in, We completed games like NSMB, SM3DW together (this one my GF too) So recently she was watching me play Bayonetta 2 (Sexy witch,bold moves, awesome action.who wouldn't ? ) and she really wanted to try and she gave it a shot.You know what happened? She couldn't complete any level, Not one. Haha and she is the same girl that completed God of war : Chains of Olympus and God of war : Ghosts of sparta and played Dante's Inferno halfway through when she finally gave up. So what do you say now?
I'm not just throwing Smash, Mario Kart and the likes, I'm comparing them of things like popularity, quality etc among gaming communities and their higher rated games. I could have given an example of better games but not much people could relate to. Shovel Knight is an AWESOME game and deserve every credits and more, but that is not to say COD will ever be better/worse specially now that you are ruling out on it's future iterations sounds kind of ignorant. COD may go on to be the best franchise ever, Most challenging game, best game ever, this could be it's last game.It COULD be anything. The possibilities is many, you just cant can't say something like " Will ever be"
I was just saying that this term "hardcore" is a load of crap especially if it's used for games like CoD but not first party Nintendo games. And I mention CoD not because I'm trying to bash the game, I brought it up because it's not a very difficult or a very innovative series. It's accessible and it's a mass market game. Nothing wrong with that, especially when they do a good job of it, but saying it's "Hardcore" is like saying that Queens of the Stone age is "Hardcore". Not taking anything away from QOTSA, I love their music, but liking them isn't some sort of badge. I would happily laugh at someone who thought they were somehow "higher up" because they listen to rock when someone else might prefer some rather difficult jangle-ish pop
And there are every correlation between age ratings, difficulty and quality.The term Casual and Core gamers do make sense too. [...] So recently she was watching me play Bayonetta 2 (Sexy witch,bold moves, awesome action.who wouldn't ? ) and she really wanted to try and ahe gave it a shot.You know what happened? She couldn't complete any level, Not one. [...] So what do you say now?
That definition I can somewhat agree with even though it's still fairly pointless. The problem I have with the discussion and the thread in general though is that this isn't what was being talked about. Specifically the thread is about whether or not there are enough "core games" on the Wii U. You then listed a bunch of games that you thought counted none of which are particularly difficult games. Having played them I can say with a fair amount of confidence that Arkham City and Assassin's Creed for example are easier games than New SMB U and 3D World. They're definitely easier than Shovel Knight. If the thread was about games for that sort of "core gamer" then I'd say no, the Wii U doesn't have a problem. The Wii U has more games for those games than the other platforms do.
I'm not just throwing Smash, Mario Kart and the likes, I'm comparing them of things like popularity, quality etc among gaming communities and their higher rated games. I could have given an example of better games but not much people could relate to. Shovel Knight is an AWESOME game and deserve every credits and more, but that is not to say COD will ever be better/worse specially now that you are ruling out on it's future iterations sounds kind of ignorant. COD may go on to be the best franchise ever, Most challenging game, best game ever, this could be it's last game.It COULD be anything. The possibilities is many, you just cant can't say something like " Will ever be"
I was just saying that this term "hardcore" is a load of crap especially if it's used for games like CoD but not first party Nintendo games. And I mention CoD not because I'm trying to bash the game, I brought it up because it's not a very difficult or a very innovative series. It's accessible and it's a mass market game. Nothing wrong with that, especially when they do a good job of it, but saying it's "Hardcore" is like saying that Queens of the Stone age is "Hardcore". Not taking anything away from QOTSA, I love their music, but liking them isn't some sort of badge. I would happily laugh at someone who thought they were somehow "higher up" because they listen to rock when someone else might prefer some rather difficult jangle-ish pop
And there are every correlation between age ratings, difficulty and quality.The term Casual and Core gamers do make sense too. [...] So recently she was watching me play Bayonetta 2 (Sexy witch,bold moves, awesome action.who wouldn't ? ) and she really wanted to try and ahe gave it a shot.You know what happened? She couldn't complete any level, Not one. [...] So what do you say now?
That definition I can somewhat agree with even though it's still fairly pointless. The problem I have with the discussion and the thread in general though is that this isn't what was being talked about. Specifically the thread is about whether or not there are enough "core games" on the Wii U. You then listed a bunch of games that you thought counted none of which are particularly difficult games. Having played them I can say with a fair amount of confidence that Arkham City and Assassin's Creed for example are easier games than New SMB U and 3D World. They're definitely easier than Shovel Knight. If the thread was about games for that sort of "core gamer" then I'd say no, the Wii U doesn't have a problem. The Wii U has more games for those games than the other platforms do.
Well every man to his opinion than but personally I can say games like NSMBU and Donkey Kong : TF requires way more skill than Say AC games (Specially the latter. DK : TF, is not ur average platformer) also shovel knight, but more difficult ?IDK. Because there are more elements to gameplay in Open World games. (this one im not being specific to AC games).
The best and most unique and interesting games almost never equal the best selling. I consider myself a "core" gamer because I prefer to seek out those best games rather than the best-selling ones. That's not just exclusive to Nintendo platforms though. Some of my favorite PS3 games sold even worse than a typical 3rd party Wii U game.
And I'll say it: The Last of Us is a really good HBO miniseries with PS2 gameplay slapped on it. At least it's solid PS2 gameplay though. Games like Heavy Rain and Beyond: Two Souls have compelling stories with God-awful atrocious gameplay. David Cage should do the whole world a favour and stop making video games and start making TV shows.
Well, on the subject of motion controls, they weren't exactly good, but they were definitely innovative. Even Microsoft and Sony copied them with the Kinect and the Move.
If you want to get really specific, the Wiimote was a copy of the Eye Toy for PS2, which was a copy of the Power Glove, which was a copy of the arcade machines where you held a gun and pointed it at the screen.
I think you mean "if you want to get very general and not at all specific"
Well, on the subject of motion controls, they weren't exactly good, but they were definitely innovative. Even Microsoft and Sony copied them with the Kinect and the Move.
If you want to get really specific, the Wiimote was a copy of the Eye Toy for PS2, which was a copy of the Power Glove, which was a copy of the arcade machines where you held a gun and pointed it at the screen.
I think you mean "if you want to get very general and not at all specific"
There is a noticeable "bias" of interest towards Nintendo games on Nintendo platforms (which is natural, though) and a lack of interest towards "AAA titles" (AC, COD etc). If you see the sales number for each WiiU titles you can easily realise it. All major multiplats or "hardcore" games on the system failed. Moreover, take Hyrule Warriors: sold a good 560k copies worldwide. Is a Musou, how much did other musous sell? Nothing: Warriors orochi 3 got 70k copies, Ken's Rage 20k. So, a title get attention mainly if it has some "Nintendo Superstar" in it.
And the average Nintendo fan is less "innovative" than he thinks he is... if you look at Mario, the most "desiderable" franchise on the system, not only is the best seller in the system (with SMBWiiU), but on the Wii SMBWii sold 28 millions copies, the amazing duo Galaxy 1+2 together got 19 millions...
So put together the poor numbers of WiiU sold worldwide, the "complex" hardware architecture of the system and a general lack of enthusiasm from the fanbase and you get why third parties "hardcore" games are completely gone.
Well every man to his opinion than but personally I can say games like NSMBU and Donkey Kong : TF requires way more skill than Say AC games (Specially the latter. DK : TF, is not ur average platformer) also shovel knight, but more difficult ?IDK. Because there are more elements to gameplay in Open World games. (this one im not being specific to AC games).
Most modern open world games boil down to the same sort of fairly simple gameplay elements. An objective marker appears on the screen, you move over to it, a cutscene plays and you play through the mission. A mission that usually involves the game spelling out exactly what you need to do with controls that often boil down to a collection of quicktime events. Compare that to a game like DK:TF which has incredibly simple controls but spends the whole game testing your mastery of those controls. That game just drops you in a level and lets you run through it without it ever telling you anything.
Even when you compare something like the Arkham games with Zelda. The Arkham games have some problem solving but that's not the main part of it. Infact when you even think about doing the wrong thing for a second Batman will come in and tell you that you're on the wrong track. Compare that to Wind Waker which is one of the least puzzle heavy Zeldas and even in that game there are more puzzles and less is said about how you progress. So yeah, if you're trying to work out what's a "core gamer game" and have these two the other way around? I think you're doing it wrong.
Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"
Well every man to his opinion than but personally I can say games like NSMBU and Donkey Kong : TF requires way more skill than Say AC games (Specially the latter. DK : TF, is not ur average platformer) also shovel knight, but more difficult ?IDK. Because there are more elements to gameplay in Open World games. (this one im not being specific to AC games).
Most modern open world games boil down to the same sort of fairly simple gameplay elements. An objective marker appears on the screen, you move over to it, a cutscene plays and you play through the mission. A mission that usually involves the game spelling out exactly what you need to do with controls that often boil down to a collection of quicktime events. Compare that to a game like DK:TF which has incredibly simple controls but spends the whole game testing your mastery of those controls. That game just drops you in a level and lets you run through it without it ever telling you anything.
Even when you compare something like the Arkham games with Zelda. The Arkham games have some problem solving but that's not the main part of it. Infact when you even think about doing the wrong thing for a second Batman will come in and tell you that you're on the wrong track. Compare that to Wind Waker which is one of the least puzzle heavy Zeldas and even in that game there are more puzzles and less is said about how you progress. So yeah, if you're trying to work out what's a "core gamer game" and have these two the other way around? I think you're doing it wrong.
I agree with you on most parts, except for the last line "if you're trying to work out what's a "core gamer game" and have these two the other way around? I think you're doing it wrong" because now that I was not being specific to one game but open world games overall, there are lots of other games that compare to Zelda, which has tougher puzzles, which are even more challenging than Zelda...Lets take Darksiders for an example (I could think better ones) .Though I will tell you Zelda Series Has the perfect balance.
I think the Nintendo Eco-system is not compatible with third party ideologies. I also believe that third parties shoot themselves in the foot because they do not know how to deal with Nintendo.
The Nintendo ecosystem is a slow burn. If they release a game today for $60 then it will most likely be $60 a year from now. On every other console you will find their games in the $20 bin in 6 months. This leads to other problems with launch windows. Naughty Dogs Comes to mind. It may be a similar experience but Why would I pay full price for the game when I can get it cheaper on another console. If I am a gamer then I probably own another console and I probably already bought it on another system months ago so why buy it again.
Let's take a look at Guitar Hero 3. The Wii version was stripped down in comparison to the other consoles. The lack of dlc infact made the other versions a bit more preferable. I still bought the Wii Version. They were launched at the same time. The Wii version did so well that by time Guitar Hero 4 came out it had all the features of the other consoles and it even had a free style mode with your Miis that the other versions didn't have. When Rayman's Raving Rabbids Came out at the Wii's launch I enjoyed it. To this day I couldn't see myself having as much fun with it on the 360 since the motion controls really added to it.
My counter argument to this is Sonic All-star Racing. Even though they were released at the same time I still bought the xbox version due to banjo-kazooie and the 360 version look way better in hd. Getting a forklift in dlc on the 360 also help. There was nothing that made me want the wii version.
Since a lot of gamers now buy more then one console anyway due to lack of third party support If I can get a game with more features or earlier then it is hard to justify a game on the Wii. Since third parties skip the Wii frequently they are not a savvy programming for it or due to cost they don't put the time into the game and we get what looks like a buggy port.
Public perception is also important. At this point I really don't care for Ubisoft. Its a shame because I did enjoy the Rabbid Series on the Wii. At this point they don't really thrill me that much. Activision I have more respect for because they still try to launch games at the same time even if it is to milk them to death. I see skylanders going the way of the Guitar Hero.
The only advice I can give to Third parties if that if they want to be successful then they need to launch at the same time and to make use of the console instead of porting it. From there the rest is time to heal.
As far as first party games are concerned while I do enjoy them when money is tight they go on the back burner. That and I got hooked on an MMO back in Dec 2010 and that increased my backloggery. I just picked up pokemon Alpha and omega and decided it was about time to move the pokemon forward off the gba cartridges to the bank and noticed I didn't finish pokemon white to transfer them forward. Just got to Ghetsis Cheating Hydreigon and stopped to take a breather and level up a pokemon that looks like a punk kid who will vandalize my fence. I have x/y I still need to start. Stupid MMO.
Im sure tropical freeze is good I was enjoying DK Returns back in Nov 2010 and got to world 4 and then started to play an mmo. Stupid MMO. Fortunately with MK8 and SSB not needing alot of time where I can run a lap here and there, I can still play my mmo. I can also relax with the 3ds eshop games like Mario vs Donkey or Picross. As they don't take a lot of time like an mmo.
People may think that Nintendo may be loosing ground to the mobile market but I wouldn't be surprised if the f2p market of games wouldn't be taking away from there as well. Stupid MMO.
I agree with you on most parts, except for the last line "if you're trying to work out what's a "core gamer game" and have these two the other way around? I think you're doing it wrong" because now that I was not being specific to one game but open world games overall, there are lots of other games that compare to Zelda, which has tougher puzzles, which are even more challenging than Zelda...Lets take Darksiders for an example (I could think better ones) .Though I will tell you Zelda Series Has the perfect balance.
I wasn't the one who created this thread and listed the games that counted and the ones that didn't. According to the first post Assassin's Creed, Arkham City, Splinter Cell, Need for Speed:MW, 007 and CoD are "core gamer games". Then you implied that most of the first party stuff was not. Specifically that 3D World was less "core" than GTA, Mario Kart was less "core" than FIFA and CoD, Smash Bros was less "core" than Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat. I don't buy into that argument.
When I think of "core gamers" if it's even a thing I think of people who want challenge and variety. The big budget, mass market games that get this "core" label from you and others? I don't see how that holds up. Those games built for the mass market so by definition they're not built for the "core" gamer. It's even more apparent when companies like Ubisoft do everything in their power to annoy the more vocal in the community. The Wii U? Nintendo? What I'm trying to say is that the age rating is a non-issue, it's the sort of content that comes out for the system that matters. And in that respect the Wii U is easily the console of the three that's more targeted at "core" gamers.
Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"
I agree with you on most parts, except for the last line "if you're trying to work out what's a "core gamer game" and have these two the other way around? I think you're doing it wrong" because now that I was not being specific to one game but open world games overall, there are lots of other games that compare to Zelda, which has tougher puzzles, which are even more challenging than Zelda...Lets take Darksiders for an example (I could think better ones) .Though I will tell you Zelda Series Has the perfect balance.
I wasn't the one who created this thread and listed the games that counted and the ones that didn't. According to the first post Assassin's Creed, Arkham City, Splinter Cell, Need for Speed:MW, 007 and CoD are "core gamer games". Then you implied that most of the first party stuff was not. Specifically that 3D World was less "core" than GTA, Mario Kart was less "core" than FIFA and CoD, Smash Bros was less "core" than Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat. I don't buy into that argument.
When I think of "core gamers" if it's even a thing I think of people who want challenge and variety. The big budget, mass market games that get this "core" label from you and others? I don't see how that holds up. Those games built for the mass market so by definition they're not built for the "core" gamer. It's even more apparent when companies like Ubisoft do everything in their power to annoy the more vocal in the community. The Wii U? Nintendo? What I'm trying to say is that the age rating is a non-issue, it's the sort of content that comes out for the system that matters. And in that respect the Wii U is easily the console of the three that's more targeted at "core" gamers.
Ok, Did you read the thread? Cuz you sound ignorant.If not than please enlighten yourself with the situation here. I never named the only games which counted as core or casual I just listed few.Also you may have noticed the Etc's, it means there are tons of games in that category and also I only gave few examples of the games that I own for the Wii U. And I wrote games like Mario Kart 8 and Nintendo Land falls on the casual side.what? You have anything to say on this? Also where you lose all your credibility is when you say things I never wrote, Double check it I never wrote SM3DW was less core to GTA, or Smash Bros. Being less core to SF and Mortal Kombat.Go through the thread. I've written Both Games can be equally fun. I also compared Mario Kart to FIFA and COD which are all sorta Casuals .And also who said anything about Wii U being a casual console. Haha where did u read that? Wii U lacked Core Games? We are talking here that the Wii U lacks Core Gamers.Does the Wii U have enough of the core gamers, not does the Wii U have enough core games.Nobody talked about Wii U not having enough core games.
So to sum up you arguement in one neat line, what you are trying to explain is : The first party Games Nintendo has in its is console is Core games and whatever the others have to offer are casual? Is that correct? Wow where did this even come from...hahaha.Well seems you are part of the big problem among gamers today.I rest my case.
The first party Games Nintendo has in its is console is Core games and whatever the others have to offer are casual? Is that correct?
I never said that or even implied it. All I was saying was that this idea of dividing games into "core" and "casual" is arbitrary and also a load of BS. That the only way I see the definition of "core games" making sense is if you treated it in the same way that you would movies or music. That is to say that Radiohead's OK Computer or The Swans To be Kind are "core music listener" music while movies like Pulp Fiction and Toy Story 3 are "core movie watcher" movies. We're talking high quality, complex pieces that are well polished and do what they intend to do very well.
And in that sense? The Wii U has plenty of "core" titles. Content doesn't need to have age restrictions in order to be a masterpiece, gaming is the only media where this is accepted, it's not at all about that. With games in particular the quality of the piece is in the details like the precision of the controls or the subtle queues that tell you what to do next. A "core gamer", if there is such a thing, is constantly looking for that sort of experience. Something that is polished but also does something unexpected. Nintendo does do that very well, so there's no shortage of it on their platforms.
If you want to compress what I'm saying into a small little sentence then compress it to that. Not some nonsense about Nintendo being for "core" gamers and everyone else being casual, because I never said that. If I really thought that I wouldn't have a PC.
The first party Games Nintendo has in its is console is Core games and whatever the others have to offer are casual? Is that correct?
I never said that or even implied it. All I was saying was that this idea of dividing games into "core" and "casual" is arbitrary and also a load of BS. That the only way I see the definition of "core games" making sense is if you treated it in the same way that you would movies or music. That is to say that Radiohead's OK Computer or The Swans To be Kind are "core music listener" music while movies like Pulp Fiction and Toy Story 3 are "core movie watcher" movies. We're talking high quality, complex pieces that are well polished and do what they intend to do very well.
And in that sense? The Wii U has plenty of "core" titles. Content doesn't need to have age restrictions in order to be a masterpiece, gaming is the only media where this is accepted, it's not at all about that. With games in particular the quality of the piece is in the details like the precision of the controls or the subtle queues that tell you what to do next. A "core gamer", if there is such a thing, is constantly looking for that sort of experience. Something that is polished but also does something unexpected. Nintendo does do that very well, so there's no shortage of it on their platforms.
If you want to compress what I'm saying into a small little sentence then compress it to that. Not some nonsense about Nintendo being for "core" gamers and everyone else being casual, because I never said that. If I really thought that I wouldn't have a PC.
Good to know you can read. But the question is did you read? Still none of these explains where I've written things like SM3DW was less core compared to GTA or Smash Bros. being less core compared to SF and Mortal Kombat ? and are you still explaning how there are tons of "core" games on the Wii U.Ok will put it this way, actually I'll just copy/paste what I've written above : " And also who said anything about Wii U being a casual console. Haha where did u read that? Wii U lacked Core Games? We are talking here that the Wii U lacks Core Gamers.Does the Wii U have enough of the core gamers, not does the Wii U have enough core games.Nobody talked about Wii U not having enough core games." Hope that helped.
A very interesting piece and I think you’ve highlighted a problem which most enthusiasts, including myself, may have been thinking.
I don’t believe those 3rd party multi-plats are core gamer material. I would say they’re more casual. But I guess what one person would call a core gamer differs from another.
3rd Party multi-plats
All those 3rd party multi-plats you mentioned are the very generic ones and mostly yearly releases, or one could say re-hashes. Like most people have said, why bother with these if you can get better versions on other platforms, if, of course you own another platform. If you don’t then I guess that sucks. But if 3rd party multi-plats are so important then why bother getting a Wii U in the first place. So it’s no surprise these don’t sell that well. They’re mostly the worst version, very generic and actually a bit “meh”. What I find annoying is why aren’t we getting the better 3rd party multi-plats? Farcry 4, Alien Isolation, GTA5, Shodow of Mordor Skyrim etc.
If you look at each of Nintendo’s consoles you’ll see that the majority of the better selling titles are always Nintendo ones, which is as it should be. The main reason to buy a Nintendo is to play Nintendo games. 3rd party multi-plats are a bonus extra.
But why 3rd party exclusives or second party games aren’t selling so sell is a bit of a mystery. There was so much hype & enthusiasm for Bayonetta 2, and yet with that hype it hasn’t sold quite as well; for me it should’ve sold at least twice as many copies. I guess maybe expectations were too high or it’s just all games, except MK, Smash and Mario platformers, have a limited appeal. EG – someone will buy Smash and Fire Emblem, someone else may buy Starfox and Zelda but most will get a Mario platformer.
Zombii U
I’m glad you wrote that piece about Zombii U. I’ve had arguments with others before on this and for some reason they believe it should’ve sold more. It’s sold over 700K when the install base was just 3.5 million. That’s actually pretty darn good, especially when you consider it didn’t score particularly well and won’t necessarily appeal to a lot of people. What do these idiots expect that is should’ve sold 1 million? That’s almost an attach rate of 1/3, which puts it in MK territory.
JaxxDuffer
Switch Friend Code: SW-5050-0268-1053 | My Nintendo: PotatoHead | Nintendo Network ID: DufferJaxx
A very interesting piece and I think you’ve highlighted a problem which most enthusiasts, including myself, may have been thinking.
I don’t believe those 3rd party multi-plats are core gamer material. I would say they’re more casual. But I guess what one person would call a core gamer differs from another.
3rd Party multi-plats
....What I find annoying is why aren’t we getting the better 3rd party multi-plats? Farcry 4, Alien Isolation, GTA5, Shodow of Mordor Skyrim etc.
Because they will never run on the platform till big work on coding optimization/downgrading is done (due to Power Pc architecture and low WiiU specs) -> they don't sell well anyway->sells won't cover porting costs.
If you look at each of Nintendo’s consoles you’ll see that the majority of the better selling titles are always Nintendo ones, which is as it should be. The main reason to buy a Nintendo is to play Nintendo games. 3rd party multi-plats are a bonus extra.
But why 3rd party exclusives or second party games aren’t selling so sell is a bit of a mystery. There was so much hype & enthusiasm for Bayonetta 2, and yet with that hype it hasn’t sold quite as well; for me it should’ve sold at least twice as many copies. I guess maybe expectations were too high or it’s just all games, except MK, Smash and Mario platformers, have a limited appeal. EG – someone will buy Smash and Fire Emblem, someone else may buy Starfox and Zelda but most will get a Mario platformer.
Cos, despite all the chit chat about "innovation" the average Nintendo user only cares about Mario and Zelda universes.... call it close minded, call it fanboysm, but even excellent games like Pikmin didn't sell extraordinary. Super Mario Bros WiiU sold more then 4 million on the console (and, to be honest, to me it looks like a very lazy HD remake of the previous release on Wii. Raman Legends and DK tropical freeze are far more superior 2d platformers).
Zombii U
I’m glad you wrote that piece about Zombii U. I’ve had arguments with others before on this and for some reason they believe it should’ve sold more. It’s sold over 700K when the install base was just 3.5 million. That’s actually pretty darn good, especially when you consider it didn’t score particularly well and won’t necessarily appeal to a lot of people. What do these idiots expect that is should’ve sold 1 million? That’s almost an attach rate of 1/3, which puts it in MK territory.
I don't wanna defend Ubisoft generally (they made bad s**t) but still, a company don't care too much about attach rate, more about units sold. WiiU console x game copies was not enough to get positive incomes. It is like that nowadays, developing costs went huge. is it a fault of the developer? is it the poor Nintendo marketing? whatever, still, developing for WiiU revealed to be not profitable-> no games are developed for the system
@Kuhang What is a "core gamer", what is a "core game"?
I think these terms are fairly meaningless. The only way I can see that they make sense is to argue that they have the same meaning as a music lover or avid movie goer. In that sense the Wii U has plenty of these. So my answer to your thread topic is easy, the Wii U has plenty of games for people who play a lot of games and enjoy the sort of games the platform has. Nothing more needs to be said IMO
Where was it said in the OP that Nintendo games weren't "core" games?
It was implied in two ways. Firstly you made a point of saying that there weren't enough "core" games on the Wii U, implying that the games it did have didn't add up to enough of a "core gamer" library. Then you brought in this idea that the kid-friendliness of these titles worked against them in terms of being for "the core gamer". Lastly you explicitly said that Mario Kart was "casual" and therefore implicitly that it was not for "core gamers". Also that 3D World and Smash were lesser because they weren't "hardcore". This is a load nonsense IMHO.
Does this alleged divide between "types of gamer" even matter?
I don't think so. Sometimes I enjoy lighter games, sometimes I want a story but little challenge, sometimes I want a challenge with little story. Sometimes I want to shoot some dude in the face and sometimes I want to skip across a rainbow. I can appreciate the quality of something even if it's not going to win me "hardcore gamer cred" if I plaster that achievement all across the internet. I play games to enjoy them whether they're on the Wii U, 3DS, PC or even tablet/phone. Are there enough of these experiences to be had on the Wii U? Again, yes. Loudly. All of the yes.
And I'll say it: The Last of Us is a really good HBO miniseries with PS2 gameplay slapped on it. At least it's solid PS2 gameplay though. Games like Heavy Rain and Beyond: Two Souls have compelling stories with God-awful atrocious gameplay. David Cage should do the whole world a favour and stop making video games and start making TV shows.
Thank you.
Although I would say TLOU is an average HBO series, not a really good one; it's really got nothing on The Sopranos, The Wire, Game of Thrones, or True Detective.
@Kuhang What is a "core gamer", what is a "core game"?
I think these terms are fairly meaningless. The only way I can see that they make sense is to argue that they have the same meaning as a music lover or avid movie goer. In that sense the Wii U has plenty of these. So my answer to your thread topic is easy, the Wii U has plenty of games for people who play a lot of games and enjoy the sort of games the platform has. Nothing more needs to be said IMO
Where was it said in the OP that Nintendo games weren't "core" games?
It was implied in two ways. Firstly you made a point of saying that there weren't enough "core" games on the Wii U, implying that the games it did have didn't add up to enough of a "core gamer" library. Then you brought in this idea that the kid-friendliness of these titles worked against them in terms of being for "the core gamer". Lastly you explicitly said that Mario Kart was "casual" and therefore implicitly that it was not for "core gamers". Also that 3D World and Smash were lesser because they weren't "hardcore". This is a load nonsense IMHO.
Does this alleged divide between "types of gamer" even matter?
I don't think so. Sometimes I enjoy lighter games, sometimes I want a story but little challenge, sometimes I want a challenge with little story. Sometimes I want to shoot some dude in the face and sometimes I want to skip across a rainbow. I can appreciate the quality of something even if it's not going to win me "hardcore gamer cred" if I plaster that achievement all across the internet. I play games to enjoy them whether they're on the Wii U, 3DS, PC or even tablet/phone. Are there enough of these experiences to be had on the Wii U? Again, yes. Loudly. All of the yes.
Hmmm...Still doesnt counter any of my arguements, or answer anything for that matter. Sorry bro but you're off, Like way off. I'll just say I get what you are trying to explain, and I'll respect your opinion. (y)
Kuhang... I kinda get where you're going, but... What about all the kids at the high school I work at that have PS4? It seems that most "Core" gamers as you like to call them are little more than sheep... (No offense intended) and I will explain why. When a kid gets a gaming console, he brags to his buddies about it, then they want it. Now a generation has passed and they are moving on from whatever system was the coolest back in the day, and these decisions are based on what system their friends want or already have (this way you can play online against your friens). I saw a parent offer his son a newWii U and he simply turned it down by saying "nobody's playing that"... So it has more to do with hype (trust me, the Internet creates quite a bit of it) than actual researching of a system and picking what may be the best one (Also, the decision on which console to buy has to be made quickly, as there are no games on release and you gotta have the system before everyone else right?) Last Gen Nintendo came out on top. This time it's Sonys turn. What people ought to be doing is glooming and dooming that poor poor XB1.
Forums
Topic: Are There Enough Core Gamers On Wii U? (Opinion)
Posts 41 to 60 of 117
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.