The Mario games (well, except the "New" series anyways. >_>) are at least trying different things, we had gravity and small planetoids thrown into gameplay, and now they're basically mixing in 2D mechanics into a 3D game. (a flagpole instead of a star, no health bar system, a timer, etc)
EA Sports seems like they're just doing the same thing every year.
Am note sure about the NFL games but FIFA games are different every year. Not by a lot but they are different. If I am happy to buy FIFA every year how does that make me a idiot? Its like Mario Kart there all the same to me. Drive a kart around a track and try and use weapons on opponents. So are the people who buy every new Mario Kart idiots as well? No there not your the idiot.
If I wanted 3rd party games, I'd buy just buy them on the PC.
Just because you can buy 3rd party games on PC doesn't make an excuse for Nintendo WIi U.
Wii U is here to compete with PS4 and XBOX one yet it can't compete with PS3 and XBOX 360 ATM.
I love both Nintendo games and EA games, and I can't accept Wii U being without SPORT games.
I want to play both Super Mario 3D Land, Zelda, Battlefield, Call of Duty, FIFA 14, NBA 2k14, PIKMIN on a single console. That's why I bought the Wii U.
Tell me, how does one win the competition?
Is it by most sales? If that's the case, then we should probably wait until the major first party games are released.
Is it by the most liked console? If that's the case, then that's just opinions. (But sales kind of proves which.)
-
Anyway, can someone name some third-party games, that's not coming to Wii U, which are worth a damn?
ಠ_ಠ
Waiting for ShadowforSSB4 to take me up to the heavens.
Favorite Game List:
1#: Lufia 2
2#: Terraria
3#: Team Fortress 2
Battlefield 4
Neet For Speed Rivals
Bioshock Infinite
Metro Last Light
Grid 2
Far Cry 3 Blood Dragon
Tomb Rider
Some of those were released 5-6 months after Wii U release and you can bet that developers had Wii U dev kits WAAAAAAY before they
completed those games. What was the problem?
EA are hedging their bets on the PS4 and Xbox One. They feel that even though there is no market yet, people will make the switch to the One & PS4. EA doesn't feel the Wii U will have the sales.
This was because EA didn't support the Wii as comprehensively as the Xbox 360 or PS3.
This was because the Wii was grossly underpowered compared to the two consoles.
This might change in the future (I'd like nothing more than to see EA come grovelling back to the Wii U after it enjoys a sales spike, but at the moment, that just isn't happening), but for now, EA are happy to ignore the Wii U.
The Wii U is simply just not in good straights right now. It doesn't have a very large install base, and is much weaker than it's two contemporaries. They, and other companies as mentioned here just cannot see justifying making games that just are not likely to make a profit.
Imagine you were in the shoes of a big game company executive, what would you honestly do? They're not against the Wii U, it's the Wii U's currently small install base that's against them.
I'm afraid I would have to disagree. Something at EA before the Wii U launched had put them into a situation to go back on many statements with regards to the Wii U.
Underpowered and doesn't have a large install base? If that were the case, then why were they so enthusiastic at E3 2011 about offering 100% support to Nintendo and Wii U? They had no idea of what the install base would be, and if their software on Wii was any indication, they wouldn't have presented so much support back at that E3. System information, specs, and even development kits were available to devs at that time. That doesn't match up.
In fact, I think the reason EA is pulling support is because they're doing it to themselves and not because of the Wii U's current state. The many decisions they made seem to reflect that, and many of them were before the Wii U even launched.
Look at FIFA '13. A game that was a port of FIFA '12 with only a roster update. FIFA '13 on PS3/360 was a completely different game. Would you rather play the same game with a new roster in the franchise, or play a new game in it?
Now, Mass Effect 3. The game is ported to Wii U. Nice, except, they want full price for it. Ok, that might be understandable because new games, even ports, are usually more expensive when they first release. Then comes the kicker. PS3/360 get the Mass Effect Trilogy.......for the exact same price as ME3 on Wii U. If that doesn't scream "Don't buy me for the Wii U!", I don't know what will. EA effectively destroyed their attempt at selling the Wii U version all on their own. It wasn't about install bases. It wasn't even about power.
Now for a game after the release. Crysis 3. By this time, yes, Wii U wasn't doing well. Install base was low. System is underpowered. But, the game itself was practically complete (and running beautifully according to the developer). EA had already spent money on its development, but EA decides they're going to pull the plug. It wasn't because of the Wii U's install base. It wasn't because of the Wii U's power. It was because of business relations with Nintendo.
So much doesn't add up with regard to EA's supposed "unprecedented partnership" except for one rumor that has been swimming around on the internet, and the likely reason why Wii U had dedicated a full 1GB of its 2GB RAM to the system's OS. Origin. Base on reports when Wii U was in the works, Nintendo was working with an outside company in handling their online infrastructure. EA is one of the companies determined to back up Nintendo during E3 2011, saying they'd support them and bring so many games to the system. Such games, which are now being said would not be possible on the hardware, long after EA understood the power of the Wii U, not before. It is believed that Origin was to be the backbone to the Wii U's online capabilities.
So, if Origin was meant to be on Wii U, what happened? Well, that has brought up much speculation, but one likely scenario involves control and money. By having Origin on Wii U, it would mean EA would have a good deal, if not all, of control involving Origin's use. Origin is also a digital distribution service, so any games, whether by EA, Nintendo or any other company, were to be supplied for the Wii U, they'd have to be placed on Origin. This would mean profits would then be split one more way, going towards EA, which I'm sure EA was hoping to bank on. Then is the actual content. By having control, EA can choose what to have at the forefront of the service. Since EA is out to make money, and they are in control, it's not hard to imagine what they would do. It's all speculation, since no real truth has been given. Even EA's continued flip-flopping on statements makes it hard to figure out what truly is happening between them and Nintendo, but we do know something happened.
This isn't the first time a deal between Nintendo and another company had gone sour during development. The most known is between Nintendo and Sony with regards to the SNES CD. Why did that fall through? Based on contract information, Sony would have gained all royalties for games on the SNES CD, leaving Nintendo in the dust. This set off a number of events (from both sides) that eventually led to Sony pulling the plug, and developing the Playstation from the ashes of the SNES CD.
Woah, best statement in this discussion. That Origin fiasco went untouched by most. If EA was getting full control, which I'm sure Nintendo was aware of, there must have been a guarantee to actually bring solid ports to the system to start. I guess Nintendo saw what EA might be pumping out, and said farewell to Origin, we got this.
@DudeSean Actually I would rather have REmake, Zero, Umbrella & Darkside Chronicles over RE5 & 6... Also RE4, Mercenaries & Revelations are better on the Nintendo side of the spectrum... The other systems turned RE into a steaming pile of dog poop
Well Nintendo and Capcom can help each the other. Capcom products in Nintendo systems has had always a good reception.
@DudeSean Actually I would rather have REmake, Zero, Umbrella & Darkside Chronicles over RE5 & 6... Also RE4, Mercenaries & Revelations are better on the Nintendo side of the spectrum... The other systems turned RE into a steaming pile of dog poop
Well, we did get REmake and Zero, but those were gamecube games. I would have rather have had RE5&6 than Umbrella / Darkside Chronicles. And it wasn't the other systems that did that to the RE games, it was Capcom themselves. No need to blame the other systems. I'm not sure how those games are better on the
"Nintendo side of the spectrum" if they're the same game.
Mainly, my point was, that I'd rather get the official entries in the series rather than weird spin offs. Hell, I would have liked the Chronicles games a lot better if they had been actual FPS instead of on-rails. I mean, that should be in the arcades not on a home console. Going from RE4 to Chronicles was a serious step back.
@DudeSean
Even PS3 got those on-rails games with Move, but that's beside the point. Throughout time, RE0 and 1(moreso) for GCN were arguably better than new entries in the series, anyway. That's just my opinion, but I'd rather have those 10 year old games over games released 1 or 5 years ago.
Those on-rail games were pretty bad, but so were the games in the main series at that point. They just seemed so easy, and weren't that fun anymore. I can go back to the remakes or 4 and think they were better games than more recent ones.
The bestvRE games were the originals on Playstation and the Nintendo ones, though RE4 setup the direction the series eventually took, so I have mixed feelings on it.
EA Sports seems like they're just doing the same thing every year.
You do understand that sports don't change a whole lot year after year, right? When you're making a realistic sports simulation, you can't just...you know, change gravity, or whatever. They have to stay within the confines of reality, so there won't be that many superficial changes. Of course, there's plenty under the hood that are different, as well as new features, but those changes wouldn't be obvious to a non-fan.
EA Sports seems like they're just doing the same thing every year.
You do understand that sports don't change a whole lot year after year, right? When you're making a realistic sports simulation, you can't just...you know, change gravity, or whatever. They have to stay within the confines of reality, so there won't be that many superficial changes. Of course, there's plenty under the hood that are different, as well as new features, but those changes wouldn't be obvious to a non-fan.
So maybe games like that should just be one per console, like Mario Kart or NSMB? Then they could just continue to support those games with updates.
@DudeSean
Even PS3 got those on-rails games with Move, but that's beside the point. Throughout time, RE0 and 1(moreso) for GCN were arguably better than new entries in the series, anyway. That's just my opinion, but I'd rather have those 10 year old games over games released 1 or 5 years ago.
Those on-rail games were pretty bad, but so were the games in the main series at that point. They just seemed so easy, and weren't that fun anymore. I can go back to the remakes or 4 and think they were better games than more recent ones.
Even if the old ones were better, that's no reason to not get the new ones. During the gamecube generation, Nintendo got caught up with the RE series. RE1 got a remake, RE0 was a new game exclusively for Nintendo and RE2/3 got ports and we got RE4. Then we lost the series again. I just want to be able to keep up with the series without having to buy more than one home console. Playstation and Xbox players don't have to buy a Nintendo system to get all the RE games, but Nintendo players have to buy a playstation or xbox? That's not fair at all.
@DudeSean
Perhaps RE could have stayed cool if it stayed on Nintendo systems, too... Oh well. I get what you mean that people shouldn't have to buy more than one console. Exclusives are one thing, but multiplat games should be exactly that. Multiplat.
Even if a multiplat game showed up on Xbox One with Kinect and Wii U with the GamePad, at least we'd be getting 2 different versions of the game based off the hardware instead of software content.
People call me a Nintendo fanboy, but I had every 7th gen system.
EA Sports seems like they're just doing the same thing every year.
You do understand that sports don't change a whole lot year after year, right? When you're making a realistic sports simulation, you can't just...you know, change gravity, or whatever. They have to stay within the confines of reality, so there won't be that many superficial changes. Of course, there's plenty under the hood that are different, as well as new features, but those changes wouldn't be obvious to a non-fan.
So maybe games like that should just be one per console, like Mario Kart or NSMB? Then they could just continue to support those games with updates.
But they'd never make money doing that. Sports licenses are expensive, last I heard.
@DudeSean You can get the better RE game that started on 3DS then went multiplat. It is also better on WiiU then the other systems... Revelations is much better than 5 & 6 combined
@Discostew
Gonna have to disagree with that. Far too much of it just seems to be internet rumors and speculation, and no evidence to back it up. Remember how many companies were pledging great support for the U at E3? A lot were. It was good PR, if nothing else. If the Wii U had had a great launch, I would very well imagine boatloads of EA games. It just all boils down to the low install base, and the lack of hardware power. I don't mean to be rude, but while those scenarios would very well explain the lack of EA support, the evidence is about as solid as soggy paper.
EA Sports seems like they're just doing the same thing every year.
You do understand that sports don't change a whole lot year after year, right? When you're making a realistic sports simulation, you can't just...you know, change gravity, or whatever. They have to stay within the confines of reality, so there won't be that many superficial changes. Of course, there's plenty under the hood that are different, as well as new features, but those changes wouldn't be obvious to a non-fan.
"So maybe games like that should just be one per console, like Mario Kart or NSMB? Then they could just continue to support those games with updates."
You are obviously not FIFA, MADDEN fan so you have no idea what are you talking about.
I've done research on Wii U hardware and It's slightly more powerful than it looks like (on paper), There are Phones more powerful than Wii U and that's a shame.
I've already decided to use Wii U only for VC and few Wii U games. There will be no sports, sci fi shooters and other high-tech games.
your a complete moron. no phone is even close to the wii u. what a idiot. there are many high tech games coming to the u. pickman, zeldo, watch dogs. your a idiot. I like my wii u but have the ps4 ordered. Nintendo is always about Nintendo games. FIFA IS NOT FOOTBALL.
I've done research on Wii U hardware and It's slightly more powerful than it looks like (on paper), There are Phones more powerful than Wii U and that's a shame.
I've already decided to use Wii U only for VC and few Wii U games. There will be no sports, sci fi shooters and other high-tech games.
your a complete moron. no phone is even close to the wii u. what a idiot. there are many high tech games coming to the u. pickman, zeldo, watch dogs. your a idiot. I like my wii u but have the ps4 ordered. Nintendo is always about Nintendo games. FIFA IS NOT FOOTBALL.
EA Sports seems like they're just doing the same thing every year.
You do understand that sports don't change a whole lot year after year, right? When you're making a realistic sports simulation, you can't just...you know, change gravity, or whatever. They have to stay within the confines of reality, so there won't be that many superficial changes. Of course, there's plenty under the hood that are different, as well as new features, but those changes wouldn't be obvious to a non-fan.
"So maybe games like that should just be one per console, like Mario Kart or NSMB? Then they could just continue to support those games with updates."
You are obviously not FIFA, MADDEN fan so you have no idea what are you talking about.
he's right though, isn't he, and I'm the first to admit it even though I am a huge PES fan and I love football games (or at least, I used to love them). Every single year you get your updated teams, slightly improved AI, a couple of new animations for the goalie and a new career mode and a small new gameplay mechanic if you're lucky, which should justify the 50 quid price tag on what is basically a rehash of the previous edition but really, you could offer all of this via DLCs and updates or just not offer it at all, continue to support the online mode and people would be happier and richer.
Last I heard from Konami they were putting an "emotions system" in PES, where the crowd will actually influence the player's stats by cheering or booing - now is this really going to make the game better?! No it's not, it's just a stupid way to take your 50 punds with one hand and give you a tenner with the other.
We get six or sever PESs and FIFAs every single generation and the improvements are so gradual and small that you don't even appreciate them. People buy them just because they want to play them online with friends using their favourite team with the updated players, not because the games are substantially better. I used to love footie games, I really did, but by feeding the general audience with a new FIFA or PES every year, they're just keeping people from playing more serious games that deserve their attention.
Top-10 games I played in 2017: The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild (WiiU) - Rogue Legacy (PS3) - Fallout 3 (PS3) - Red Dead Redemption (PS3) - Guns of Boom (MP) - Sky Force Reloaded (MP) - ...
I used to say that about sports games all the time. They're generally sort of fun(this is coming from someone who has never bought one, but has played them), but it's definitely not worth buying it every year.
I don't even really care about what players are in the game and fantasy teams or whatever. I just want to play the game itself with whatever character.
They really should just update the game every year, but charge like $10-20 to do so. I haven't bought one single sports game, because I know it's gonna be worthless in a year.
As for EA's Madden and FIFA '13 Nintendo games, that gave me even more reason to not give a crap. EA has given obvious reasons for Nintendo owners to not care about sports games from them.
No one is going to buy a duped game. You're just asking to get ripped off by buying last year's game with this year's number, and knowing that's what you're buying.
Forums
Topic: EA against Wii U
Posts 41 to 60 of 130
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.