Topic: Why is the Wii U's library so lauded?

One of my favorite indie games is Shadow Complex, which is just Metroid if made in Unreal 3.

Like I don't know what to say. I've been the main person complaining about how samey Mario games have been, but that wasn't my main issue. My main issue was that there was a consistent focus on samey Mario games (and arguably other Nintendo series) with more frequent releases and less quality and/or creativity. The 3D games and the 3 later NSMB games existing is ultimately fine, if not the high point of the series. It becomes a problem when they all came out in the span of 2 years. So you can neither ignore them for more creative releases, nor have any excitement by their existence, because we aren't getting anything else. If there was, it would make everyone happy. Instead, Nintendo decided Mario fans just want Mario 3/World over and over again, ignoring the success of many many many other games in the series. 3D World would've been a better game if this hadn't happened I feel (though I might have a better chance to fully enjoy it as I haven't played it to this day, despite now owning it).

So the problem is mostly that Nintendo focused too much on sameyness, not that following a good formula for entertainment is bad. The former is true, the latter is a terrible theory that needs to be burned before Final Fantasy or Sonic is ruined again.

I won't deny that Nintendo put out a lot of Mario in a short time span and ruined the image of the series, leading to a lot of the sameyness complaints, but the fact of the matter is unfortunately that there wasn't much else Nintendo could do at the time. Something a lot of people seem to have forgotten about the Wii U's launch was that Nintendo originally had planned 3rd party support to back them until they could put more of their own content on the system. NintendoLand was blatantly just them showing off the GamePad, and while very fun, wasn't bringing many people running to the system. ZombiU had many a great idea, but suffered ultimately in terms of quality and competition because Ubisoft likely didn't fully understand the hardware (and also because lol Ubisoft). NSMBU was very likely a quick title thrown out for the sake of getting Mario on the console pronto. After the initial surge of 2mil users, EA, Activision, Ubisoft, and a number of others were set to carry the Wii U until the heavy hitters like Pikmin 3, 3D World, Tropical Freeze, Kart 8, Smash, and Zelda U had a chance to hit store shelves, but EA and Nintendo had a falling out leading to EA pulling support for the Wii U, the Wii U looking rather bare, Ubisoft making multiple decisions to Nintendo's detriment (who actually refuses to release a FINISHED GAME?!?! That's just as much directed at Rayman as the current mystery title), Activision seeing the lack of interest in gritty FPS's on a Nintendo-dominated console, and many other non-indie teams just not liking the fact that Nintendo wouldn't let them screw the users with DLC out the rear. Add to that the lack of advertising (which I imagine Nintendo had hoped 3rd parties would put their console in the spot light from time to time) and the complete domination of Sony on the hype train since February 2013, and the Wii U just didn't stand a chance at regaining that crowd. By the time Nintendo could put games on their struggling system, the damage was already done, leaving Nintendo to reach for what they could most easily secure. The reason for so many Mario releases in so short a time was the necessity of putting games on the console. Similar to the clone debates for Smash, the alternative would just be having even less games populate the system. (Though that's not an entirely fair analogy. We might have Metroid, already or a new F-Zero, if they'd chosen to focus on that, but then 2013 and 2014 would've been even more depressing, release-wise.)

A big part of this problem is that Wii U is replete with first party 2D platformers whereas there aren't really any deep 3D action adventures like Metroid Prime or Zelda. Sure, there's Bayonetta, but that game is linear while Nintendo's traditional 3D AAA action adventures are explorative and open world-y-ish.

I'll confess that I want a 3D Mario like Sunshine again. I liked Sunshine a lot

Oh, and to follow-up on skywake's point, even 3D games like Galaxy and Metroid Prime still follow a formula too, and yes they change enough to keep things interesting

Wii U has a decent library of games, the third party support is rubbish, but the exclusives are some of the best games available examples; Bayonetta 2, Smash, Mario Kart.

And anything Nintendo

The Wii U's first party library is stellar. The best collection of Nintendo games since the Gamecube, to be honest. There is surprising variety, as well, if you consider games like Hyrule Warriors, Bayonetta 2, and upcoming games like Splatoon and Xenoblade Chronicles X.

None of this can make up for the lack of strong third party support, of course, but it does result in a particularly nice Nintendo box.

And how about Zelda U; what a great game! It was all like... not out yet, just like Splatoon and X, but man, does it look cool. Just like Watch Dogs! Let's not count our cuccos before they hatch.

Difference is that Nintendo has a wonderful track record while Ubisoft does not.

3rd party support does need to improve,but right now,Nintendo is really doing better than most AAA devs this generation.Examples:
-Ubisoft releasing Assassin's Creed Unity
-Games like CoD that over-satuate the industry
-Companies that have dead franchises that are just lying around that don't get as much as a mention or thought(you could argue this for Nintendo with series like Metroid and F-Zero,but they've at least given some explanation for why we haven't seen an F-Zero game in a while)
-Companies with once-loved franchises that are just barely surviving on mediocre or terrible games.
So,by comparison,I think Nintendo is doing a lot more right than most companies nowadays,and that's why they continue to empty my wallet.

Except Watch Dogs was mostly if not only interesting because of the visuals, which ended up being a massaged version of the truth. With Splatoon the interest is purely in the gameplay and there's already quite a lot of gameplay footage out there. Has been since it was announced. Very different being hyped about a new IP that's being a bit secretive vs one that's almost literally putting everything out on display.

With Zelda and Xeoblade sure, we don't know that much about them yet. But given that the last Xenoblade got 92% on metacritic and the last five 3D Zeldas average 96%? I think it's a little bit different than Watch Dogs. Just a tad.

Man, can people stop hating on Watchdogs? It was a good game! Not "great," but pretty darn good.

Anyway... the Wii U's library is lauded because it has awesome games. Where the heck is the waiter?

You can't trust any game's quality pre release. Skyward Sword, Sticker Star, Yoshi's New Island, and Kirby Rainbow Curse were all received rather lackluster. Nintendo isn't infallible by any means.

To be fair, Yoshi's New Island and Sticker Star you could see the problems with WAY before they came out. Yoshi's New Island in particular I have no idea why anyone was excited for it.

Um, wut? http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii/the-legend-of-zelda-skywar...

Skyward Sword was fantastic and was received well so I don't know what you're talking about there. It's only whined about because people expect every Zelda game to be as fantastic as Ocarina of Time was when it first came out. The others I think it was pretty obvious what we were going to get. I haven't played any of the others but I'm not that surprised TBH. Paper Mario, the N64 version was fantastic but the Wii version? it was ok. So I'm not surprised the series has gone downhill from there. And Kirby/Yoshi games have always been the second-tier Nintendo platformers. So those aren't a surprise either.

I'd go as far as saying that Zelda is the only game I'm ever confident will be good. For everything else they need to convince me either with great gameplay footage (Splatoon) or positive reviews.

Lol IGN ran a poll where people voted Skyward Sword the greatest Zelda game on release. Which I believe was the third Zelda game they'd claimed that for.

to be fair, most of IGN's audience are half my age.

Well if we're talking about Skyward Sword. The only game that I've saw more people on my Facebook feed talking positively about at launch was Portal 2. And I don't exactly surround myself with tweens on Facebook so....

Yeah, I really don't agree with any of the people bashing on Skyward Sword. I thought it was a very good game that suffered only in the back tracking department. The story was interesting. I actually liked the characters. The gameplay was more involved and interesting than most Zelda games, boss fights definitely benefited from the Motion Plus controls (especially Ghirahim), and just overall, the game felt good. If there were as many interesting and wonderful areas as there are in most Zelda games and thus less backtracking, I'd feel no remorse in rating it 10/10. And come on! Skyward Sword is the only Zelda to actually have a good water dungeon. The Ancient Cistern was amazing. Don't even pretend it wasn't.

As for those other three you mentioned, I liked Yoshi's New Island in a "dumb fun" kinda way. It's by no means a bad game, but like many other games, lately, it's just nothing new. (The irony would be funnier if "new" wasn't now synonymous with "stale" when Nintendo's anywhere nearby.) I see absolutely nothing wrong with Kirby and the Rainbow Curse, aside from maybe a lack in content, but considering it's even got a lower price, that shouldn't be a real problem. And then Sticker Star... meh. I think I've made it clear I don't like turn-based combat. When you somehow manage to make said combat even more stale than usual, you just really manage to lose my interest fast... which is exactly what that game did. I got it for $6 at Best Buy and I don't regret waiting for a bargain because I didn't even get through three Worlds.