Well, I can sense the civility in this thread is starting to fray. Not that it's surprising.
I know, isn't it terrible? I mean, can't we have one thread where we talk about this stuff like a bunch of grownups instead of saying petty crap like this,
Well, I can sense the civility in this thread is starting to fray. Not that it's surprising.
I know, isn't it terrible? I mean, can't we have one thread where we talk about this stuff like a bunch of grownups instead of saying petty crap like this,
@oginor: Assassin's Creed IV is on the Wii U, dude. And it's actually a really good version of the game, too.
It's only unfortunate that the frame-rate doesn't quite hold as steady compared to the 360 rendition, being more in the ballpark of the PS3 when chasing down the city streets, and marginally lower during some cut-scenes. This makes it the weakest of the trio in the crucial performance stakes, though they all have issues in achieving a sustained 30FPS where it's needed.
I would not call this a good version at all. The next gen versions are good versions. But none or less this is not really the point of this thread.
The Thing Pachter said that Nintendo should temporarily release games on PS4/One sounds really really stupid. Either go full out or not. Because you would not recover from this as a hardware manufacturer
Iwata Quote
In a snap news conference called in Osaka, Nintendo President
Satoru Iwata admitted he had misread the markets
and hadn't issued "the appropriate instructions.'' He said the company needed to change and "propose something that surprises our customers."
"The way people use their time, their lifestyles, who they are—have changed," Mr. Iwata said. "If we stay in one place, we will become outdated."
Hopefully this will help them realize they need to diversify their catalogue. For the longest time they've been catering to a very specific subset of the gaming demographic and it's finally catching up with them.
@oginor: Assassin's Creed IV is on the Wii U, dude. And it's actually a really good version of the game, too.
It's only unfortunate that the frame-rate doesn't quite hold as steady compared to the 360 rendition, being more in the ballpark of the PS3 when chasing down the city streets, and marginally lower during some cut-scenes. This makes it the weakest of the trio in the crucial performance stakes, though they all have issues in achieving a sustained 30FPS where it's needed.
I would not call this a good version at all. The next gen versions are good versions. But none or less this is not really the point of this thread.
I own the Wii U version of Assassin's Creed IV and have put enough time into it to say whether or not it's a good version of the game. Don't tell me that my opinion of a game is wrong when all you have to cite is a single review of a game you haven't played. And if you're going to talk shit about graphics, you might as well post one of the various comparison videos that have been made.
Loading Video...
The Wii U version is actually fairly comparable to the other versions, the 360 and PS3 in particular.
@darji: I am relaxed. I just bolded the important point for your benefit. And you didn't "correct" anything, either. You cannot correct something based in opinion.
From where I'm sitting it seems like Nintendo need to do damage control this generation and keep their losses to a minimum. Forget gaining new ground or even keeping the status quo. Stop the bleeding and start regrouping for a new console launch.
The worry though is that we might not even have a generation after this one. Who's to say how the gaming hardware landscape looks in 6-8 years from now?
In my eyes, it seems like Nintendo have "out gimmicked" themselves so to speak. Ever since the N64, Nintendo has kind of been carving out a niche for themselves, and it worked with the Wii, but it doesn't seem like it's something that is sustainable in the long run.
Here's a question: If we were to get another console generation after this one, do people believe Nintendo should keep their niche and try to come up with something unique like they did with the Wii? Or should they instead focus on their great library of first party games and build a console that rivals whatever Sony or MS will be doing in terms of power and try to compete on a level footing?
EDIT: Or I suppose the third option would be going third party and dropping out of the hardware race all together.
@darji: I am relaxed. I just bolded the important point for your benefit. And you didn't "correct" anything, either. You cannot correct something based in opinion.
I've got a lot more of these things. Just be glad I'm digging from the funny pictures and not the mean ones.
@video_game_king: Who's being the more distracting; the people that are still relatively on subject, or the guy posting pictures meant to distract from that?
That's not the issue, here. I'm talking about these fights between you and Darji. They need to stop. It's been going on for way too long, and I don't think I'm the only person who feels that way. Look, it's really painful seeing you guys fight like this every time a Nintendo thread comes up. So just....stop, OK? At least try to stop this instant fighting.
That's not the issue, here. I'm talking about these fights between you and Darji. They need to stop. It's been going on for way too long, and I don't think I'm the only person who feels that way.
I agree, but it wasn't exactly a "fight" when you stepped in this time.
To be fair, it looked like it was escalating, although without tone, it's hard to say. (Also, what strange timing. I just came out of editing that post when you responded.)
@darji: I am relaxed. I just bolded the important point for your benefit. And you didn't "correct" anything, either. You cannot correct something based in opinion.
FPS is not an opinion but an objective matter and that is the last I am writing about because I like this topic and don't want to derail it.
@elyhaym: Yeah Iwata said the same. They need to change but the question is how will Iwata do that when the whole company is based on this philosophy they had in the 80' and 90's. It will be intersting to see what will become of Nintendo now. One thing is certain it will not be the same company in a few years no matter what.
@darji: I am relaxed. I just bolded the important point for your benefit. And you didn't "correct" anything, either. You cannot correct something based in opinion.
FPS is not an opinion but an objective matter and that is the last I am writing about because I like this topic and don't want to derail it.
@elyhaym: Yeah Iwata said the same. They need to change but the question is how will Iwata do that when the whole company is based on this philosophy they had in the 80' and 90's. It will be intersting to see what will become of Nintendo now. One thing is certain it will not be the same company in a few years no matter what.
FPS is not the only metric used to measure a game's quality.
When I tell people I bought a Wii U, they say, who plays the Wii anymore. I'm like, it's the Wii U, a whole new console from Nintendo. Then they're like, that's a dumb name and nobody plays the Wii anymore. I just roll my eyes, for them, and Nintendo.
I know people scoff at the idea of Nintendo going third party, but... I really can't see any other realistic solution for them. I mean, sure they could obviously put out another console, but I feel like no matter what direction they would go with it, it would just be a bandage on a gaping wound.
Also it's super depressing the amount of people that want Nintendo to just outright fail or become third party. Fuck that noise.
I don't think anyone would want them to fail if they started making a decent console, most people are only going to buy one console per generation, What Nintendo has been putting out since the gamecube has not been able to fill that role so many people that want to play Nintendo games just can't and that sucks.
You'd be surprised actually. Granted some are just trolls, but there's definitely people that just want Nintendo gone. Maybe they hold a grudge because of motion controls. No idea.
Also they have a decent console. It's called the Wii U.
Well, I can sense the civility in this thread is starting to fray. Not that it's surprising.
I'm not trying to sound like an ass, but you do realize the civility started to fray with your initial post? It certainly doesn't help that you got super defensive and came back to yell at Darji for the twenty millionth time.
Seriously it's getting tiresome seeing you two bicker at each other on every goddamn Nintendo thread. Just ignore each other and move on.
@oginor: Assassin's Creed IV is on the Wii U, dude. And it's actually a really good version of the game, too.
It's only unfortunate that the frame-rate doesn't quite hold as steady compared to the 360 rendition, being more in the ballpark of the PS3 when chasing down the city streets, and marginally lower during some cut-scenes. This makes it the weakest of the trio in the crucial performance stakes, though they all have issues in achieving a sustained 30FPS where it's needed.
I would not call this a good version at all. The next gen versions are good versions. But none or less this is not really the point of this thread.
I own the Wii U version of Assassin's Creed IV and have put enough time into it to say whether or not it's a good version of the game. Don't tell me that my opinion of a game is wrong when all you have to cite is a single review of a game you haven't played. And if you're going to talk shit about graphics, you might as well post one of the various comparison videos that have been made.
Loading Video...
The Wii U version is actually fairly comparable to the other versions, the 360 and PS3 in particular.
Darji, that link you provided about how the Wii U version is "bad" was talking about AC3, not AC4.
Oh my god I would buy a PS4 immediately if they did that. Nintendo and Sony, the hot collabo that was supposed to happen but didn't happen and now should happen so I don't have to think about buying a Wii U anymore.
Also they have a decent console. It's called the Wii U.
That image could easily apply to your own response to the Wii U as well.
How so, it's clear right now that Nintendo missed the mark, you could blame it on software up to a point, but Wii U has great games now and it still isn't selling, Microsoft and Sony have proven that there is still a market for home consoles, Nintendo has nothing to hide behind now, they designed a poor console that is difficult for developers and consumers to find a need for, they have no niche to fill, no competitive advantage, they need to do better next time, sitting here saying everything is fine roll with it, keep on making the same mistakes based on the same incorrect assumptions is the road to ruin.
I have a Wii U and a bunch of games for it; I think it's fine for what it is, but I'm under no delusion that it's not a complete failure on all accounts.
edit: and just so I'm clear, what are you even referring to? all that I said was that I wish Nintendo would stop making under powered consoles, it's a fact that the Wii U is massively underpowered, so were the Wii and the Gamecube, there isn't any debating that, Nintendo has been doing this on purpose, they got lucky with the Wii and now they are paying for it.
Also they have a decent console. It's called the Wii U.
That image could easily apply to your own response to the Wii U as well.
How so, it's clear right now that Nintendo missed the mark, you could blame it on software up to a point, but Wii U has great games now and it still isn't selling, Microsoft and Sony have proven that there is still a market for home consoles, Nintendo has nothing to hide behind now, they designed a poor console that is difficult for developers and consumers to find a need for, they have no niche to fill, no competitive advantage, they need to do better next time, sitting here saying everything is fine roll with it, keep on making the same mistakes based on the same incorrect assumptions is the road to ruin.
I have a Wii U and a bunch of games for it; I think it's fine for what it is, but I'm under no delusion that it's not a complete failure on all accounts.
Because there are those that legitimately like the console and the games they've played for it. Nintendo's financials don't, or at least shouldn't, have any bearing on a person's own feelings on the console itself. That Sega was in a financial flatline during the Dreamcast era (and in far, far worse shape than Nintendo is in now) does not negate the quality of the Dreamcast itself or the games that were released on it.
When I tell people I bought a Wii U, they say, who plays the Wii anymore. I'm like, it's the Wii U, a whole new console from Nintendo. Then they're like, that's a dumb name and nobody plays the Wii anymore. I just roll my eyes, for them, and Nintendo.
I never quite understood this. The only console with an understandable naming scheme is the Playstation - 1, 2, 3, and 4. It's like equating an Xbox One to a 360 add-on.
But if you still try to ignore these hard facts Nintendo is facing right now you will not help them but rather makes it more and more difficult until they are totally done for and there if nothing left to like. What is more important to you? The hardware or the games you can play? If you want different ways to control and interact with games they still will be able to do that with their own control devices even if they are going 3rd party. But they can do that with a fundamental much better hardware and infrastructure they do ot need to bother with anymore. Why want them to let struggle if they could have it much easier. I even believe if they are going 3rd party they could shortly become as important as EA or Ubisoft in terms of publishing.
That is the question Nintendo needs to ask themselves now. If it's still profitable or healthy to spent tons of money on hardware development or not.
Well, I can sense the civility in this thread is starting to fray. Not that it's surprising.
I'm not trying to sound like an ass, but you do realize the civility started to fray with your initial post? It certainly doesn't help that you got super defensive and came back to yell at Darji for the twenty millionth time.
Seriously it's getting tiresome seeing you two bicker at each other on every goddamn Nintendo thread. Just ignore each other and move on.
@sergio: Nintendo's main driving point was always the tablet controller, the actual console was some obscured thing hidden in a corner. That's why so many people still think the controller is the "U". It's no myth, I've seen the confused parents in best buy and gamestop.
@dallas_raines: yeah agree. It was a really big mistake only to show the controller in their first reveal. People maybe interested in their first reveal but after that the casual crowd does not care anymore.
Part of being experimental is failing. And then there is that old proverb about "when you are in a hole you stop digging" and such. In the end, I'd rather see another Gamecube than a Dreamcast.
Although it would hurt, would it be a terrible idea to pull the plug on Wii U? Abandon the old platform and closer with ISVs and create a new platform that suits them better. At least that would hurt a lot less than adjusting the Wii U numbers down again at the start of 2015 with them saying "This is the year of Peach!"
At this point? There's really no purpose in just pulling the plug unilaterally. They do have games coming this year, and some could be big sellers and perhaps even drive console sales to some degree. I think what we'll see in the next year is a rethinking of their Wii U strategy that, in the short term, will lead to a smaller yearly loss in the next twelve months while they regroup and prepare a possible hardware reveal of some sort for E3 2015 at the very earliest.
There were some games in 2013 and that drove sales too and this is where they are today.
The theme in my posts is that the problems with the Wii U (and a side problem with the DS) is that there are systemic problems with Nintendo that "more marketing" won't fix. Their games are fine if not beyond anyone's expectations. The problem is their platforms are too expensive and complex to develop for compared to the competition where another price cut and another marketing campaign won't correct. Short of buying up companies and making the work on these platforms, I don't see how money is going to fix it either.
Well, they also have the expectations of those that did buy Wii U consoles to deal with. Not to mention their relationships with the third-parties that they are working with. They're not going to back out of Bayonetta 2 at this point, after all. You tell me what would ultimately be worse: continuing support of a struggling platform while developing a hopefully more competitive and enticing successor, or cutting support full-stop and leaving those fans that did adopt the platform with the expectation that they would be able to play certain upcoming games on them out to dry? How likely is it that those spurned customers will return to buy your next console? How likely is it that those third-parties you worked with to develop games on your dollar, only to see those games scrapped and that money down the drain, will feel like working directly with you again? If Nintendo is to cultivate better relationships with both consumers and third-party developers, the first thing that they can't do is shit on those relationships that they do have.
Even if Nintendo "stopped" Wii U "today", that is plenty of time for Bayonetta 2 to come out as a swan song. Are people really arguing that Nintendo should "stay the course" and try to make it to N million world wide and then everyone will turn around and suddenly embrace? Isn't that fairly fanciful believing that people are suddenly going to go "Wow I don't know how I got along with out the Wii U and Bayonetta 2!"?
Along with suggesting they need to stick with the Wii U to "preserve relationships" is also strange since NONE OF THEM CARE. Video game developers don't care. The customers don't care. Who are they helping? What games are they sheltering? Some mythical possible future Wii U dev? On the other hand pulling the plug on the Wii U and telling the industry "We are refocusing on a new platform and working closer with the industry to make sure they are happy with the specs" would generate a lot more excitement than third parties sitting on the side line specing out their 2015 work wondering if Wii U is going to make 5 million by 2015.
Part of being experimental is failing. And then there is that old proverb about "when you are in a hole you stop digging" and such. In the end, I'd rather see another Gamecube than a Dreamcast.
Although it would hurt, would it be a terrible idea to pull the plug on Wii U? Abandon the old platform and closer with ISVs and create a new platform that suits them better. At least that would hurt a lot less than adjusting the Wii U numbers down again at the start of 2015 with them saying "This is the year of Peach!"
At this point? There's really no purpose in just pulling the plug unilaterally. They do have games coming this year, and some could be big sellers and perhaps even drive console sales to some degree. I think what we'll see in the next year is a rethinking of their Wii U strategy that, in the short term, will lead to a smaller yearly loss in the next twelve months while they regroup and prepare a possible hardware reveal of some sort for E3 2015 at the very earliest.
There were some games in 2013 and that drove sales too and this is where they are today.
The theme in my posts is that the problems with the Wii U (and a side problem with the DS) is that there are systemic problems with Nintendo that "more marketing" won't fix. Their games are fine if not beyond anyone's expectations. The problem is their platforms are too expensive and complex to develop for compared to the competition where another price cut and another marketing campaign won't correct. Short of buying up companies and making the work on these platforms, I don't see how money is going to fix it either.
Well, they also have the expectations of those that did buy Wii U consoles to deal with. Not to mention their relationships with the third-parties that they are working with. They're not going to back out of Bayonetta 2 at this point, after all. You tell me what would ultimately be worse: continuing support of a struggling platform while developing a hopefully more competitive and enticing successor, or cutting support full-stop and leaving those fans that did adopt the platform with the expectation that they would be able to play certain upcoming games on them out to dry? How likely is it that those spurned customers will return to buy your next console? How likely is it that those third-parties you worked with to develop games on your dollar, only to see those games scrapped and that money down the drain, will feel like working directly with you again? If Nintendo is to cultivate better relationships with both consumers and third-party developers, the first thing that they can't do is shit on those relationships that they do have.
Even if Nintendo "stopped" Wii U "today", that is plenty of time for Bayonetta 2 to come out as a swan song. Are people really arguing that Nintendo should "stay the course" and try to make it to N million world wide and then everyone will turn around and suddenly embrace? Isn't that fairly fanciful believing that people are suddenly going to go "Wow I don't know how I got along with out the Wii U and Bayonetta 2!"?
Along with suggesting they need to stick with the Wii U to "preserve relationships" is also strange since NONE OF THEM CARE. Video game developers don't care. The customers don't care. Who are they helping? What games are they sheltering? Some mythical possible future Wii U dev? On the other hand pulling the plug on the Wii U and telling the industry "We are refocusing on a new platform and working closer with the industry to make sure they are happy with the specs" would generate a lot more excitement than third parties sitting on the side line specing out their 2015 work wondering if Wii U is going to make 5 million by 2015.
Well, then I'm confused as to what you were arguing in the first place. When you said "abandon the platform" you made it sound like "kill all games in current development," which didn't make any sense as a strategy.
This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along
with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely
increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.
Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other
Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll
send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment