Topic: Why do (some) people think the (original) Wii was a failure?

In some ways, it was a success, but I do believe that it was a failure in one very important way:

It was the commercial success that they needed, after the relative failure of the Gamecube (still in my top three favorite consoles. So underrated). I remember standing in the cold, for seven hours, to get one the day that it launched. For three years, I was a one console gamer, and the Wii did not disappoint. Actually, Switch reminds me of what I really did love about the Wii: it was a retro gamer's dream, and it had so many huge (Mario, Zelda, Metroid Prime, Animal Crossing, Monster Hunter Tri, etc.) and out-of-left field (Little King's Story, A Boy and His Blob, Trauma Team) games that there was always something to play! The "casual" accusation was pretty stupid, in all honesty, because it can be countered with dozens upon dozens of games!

Where it was a debatable failure was in the fact that the success didn't carry over. How many people bought the SNES because of their experiences with the NES? The PS2 was a huge success, from the very beginning, because of the phenomenal and expansive library of the PS1. The Wii U, on the other hand, never had the benefit of piggy backing off of the Wii's success. They were right back to where they were, a decade prior, with the Gamecube's lack of success, only with even less third party support and a sense of apathy from the masses. Wii U was an interesting console, but it didn't have the same broad appeal that Wii had, and Switch seemingly has.

@Mrtoad In terms of commercial performance, the Wii was most definitely a commercial success.

But I definitely think it is a failure in how it steered Nintendo's direction of consoles and games and thus negatively affected Nintendo long after it stopped selling.

The Wii is the only Nintendo console besides the N64 which failed to create its own long-lasting Nintendo first-party series IIRC. NES is self-explanatory, SNES had F Zero and Mario Kart and Yoshi's Story among others, N64 had Smash Bros (thanks for reminding me @LuigiTheGreenFire!), Mario Party and Mario sports games , GameCube had Pikmin and Animal Crossing and Luigi's Mansion, Wii had Wii Sports, Wii Music, Wii Play, etc. (and Xenoblade - thanks for reminding me @ReaderRagfihs!), Wii U had Splatoon and Super Mario Maker. On that list, except for Xenoblade, the Wii series of games haven't survived to present day, arguably because they don't have the depth and impact that other Nintendo first-party games have (I say arguably because they DID have plenty of gameplay and neat concepts).

More importantly, it made Nintendo think that it just needed to add any old gimmick to a console and get it to sell millions. That's what led to the Wii U. Not to mention many of Nintendo's core first-party games on the Wii are marred by annoying shoehorning of motion controls (Mario Galaxy, Twilight Princess, Donkey Kong Country Returns, etc.).

It did do a few things right, like I love the Virtual Console on it and it remains Nintendo's best implementation of playing its classic games so far. But I wasn't a fan of the shoehorned motion controls and lack of power that led to SD visuals very similar to the GameCube when competitors were putting out expansive game worlds in HD (and with proper online gameplay to boot).

The Wii U led Nintendo back on track, which is evident in the way it was handled. Early Wii U years were just as gimmick-focused as the Wii years, but as time went on Nintendo realized the importance of not shoehorning motion controls into everything and the appeal of their core games ... which led to the success of the Switch.

So TLDR; Wii was a commercial success but was a huge failure in how it caused Nintendo to mess up in direction in the console space. On the other hand, Wii U was a huge commercial failure but was a success in how it caused Nintendo to regain momentum and direction with the Switch.

@shadow-wolf
Super Smash Bros. debuted on the N64. I know it's a crossover game, but it was still techniquely a new IP and new franchise. And it's a massive success, especially Super Smash Bros. Ultimate and Super Smash Bros. Melee's tournament scene. Animal Crossing also debuted on the N64, as the Japanese-exclusive N64 release is a simple version of the enhancements on the GameCube.

But your point about the Wii creating no lasting Nintendo IPs is very true. You could argue the same thing about the DS. Brain Training was massive on the DS, but I think it's only had one game after the DS. You can say the same thing about Nintendogs. Despite the great experiences of the DS and Wii, they didn't seem to leave any lasting new IPs, and they had a lot of gimmicks.

@LuigiTheGreenFire Lol it's hilarious and embarrassing that I forgot Smash of all things for the N64. That's a huge lasting brand new IP. I'll update my post to reflect it.

@Snaplocket Yeah my opinion is an unpopular one, especially on this site. So you're definitely in the majority here

@subpopz You pretty much have the same opinion as I do regarding Wii. I strongly disliked the SD visuals, weak hardware, and shoehorned-in motion controls, so it was the first and only time I was not satisfied with a Nintendo system and had to get another company's hardware as my main gaming machine. I got the PS3 and it quickly became my main gaming machine then. The Wii U had enough interesting games to me (with normal, non-gimmicky control schemes) to keep me satisfied using it as my main gaming machine. And of course the Switch is great as my main gaming machine. It'd be nice to hear @Harmonie chime in, she has the same opinion as both of us although it's still an unpopular opinion especially on this site.

@ReaderRagfihs You're right. It did come in the very tail end of the Wii lifespan, but it still counts. I'll update my post to reflect that.

As @subpopz noted, people aren't meaning that the Wii wasn't a commercial success. For years, I've seen people posting personal criticisms of the Wii constantly met with "The Wii was a success, what are you talking about?" and I've always been confused. Sometime last year, I ended up being a part of a conversation where this happened again and I confronted the individual, who insisted that the language that the person they were responding to (who referred to the Wii as a 'disaster') could only refer to the financial success of the Wii. This conversation really confused me, and still does to this day.

Is this misunderstanding really all about semantics? I just can't see it that way. You don't take a look at a post where someone says "The Wii was such a disaster. * goes on to list the reasons they hated the console *) and think "No, you're wrong! The Wii sold extremely well. How dare you say it was a disaster!"

I don't mean to dismiss the option that true misunderstandings can occur in some situations. I understand how if someone posts "The Wii was a failure" with absolutely no context or explanation you might think "But it was a success financially, what are you talking about?" I just don't think that context is ever lacking in this day or age. lol. I think I'd actually have to see someone indicate they mean financially, otherwise the default assumption is they're talking about their personal opinion of the system.

I'm just really failing to understand how we, just a bunch of casual (as in not professionals) Nintendo fans with our own personal opinions, have decided to tie up our language so extensively with purely financial matters that we can't see that when someone is complaining about the Wii they aren't saying it was a financial failure.

In the title I'm more referring to the people who say that the majority of Wiis were just dust collectors and I am not referring to the people who didn't like the Wii.

To be fair, most of the people that think the Wii wasn't good are also wrong and didn't actually play most of its good games. They should try not being wrong, because tbh most of the good games didn't even have badly implemented motion controls. Not even like imo, I mean most of the good games on the Wii are widely considered to have either good use of motion controls or motion controls that were mostly, if not entirely, optional (if even used). And as far as I've ever been able to tell, there was not any decline in quality for games compared to any other Nintendo console, outside of having more shovelware and less of the major multi-console releases (which doesn't mean lack of games that were on other systems, just that it wasn't getting Red Faction: Guerrila or Bioshock or big HD games like that). Those problems along with the fact that a lot of its best hardcore 3rd party games weren't at all mainstream I feel is why people really think Wii wasn't so great more than most things. No More Heroes and Little King's Story and Muramasa are top tier video games but most people didn't play them, quite frankly.

Of course Nintendo doing stuff like failing to market Excitebots or Rhythm Heaven Fever for no reason makes them part of the problem, and a bit short sighted. But the games were there, I remember them.

This man has found the solution to all of life’s problems.

The only real way to judge how good a console is by how many (legitimate) versions of SMB2 are on it. The Wii has 2 versions of SMB2 (Virtual Console and SMAS) plus a masterpiece in Brawl that can be played for a minute and a half, but is otherwise the same as the VC release. The only console that beats out the Wii in this department is the Wii U with the Wii U being able to play all of those through backwards compatibility along with SMB2 on a new NES emulator and Super Mario Advance both being on the VC. The Wii U is clearly the best console of all time.

I mean, I say that for the hyperbole but there are way too many people out there who ignore facts and reality so maybe it's actually good advice weirdly enough?