Goldeneye 007 Proof of Wii Core Success

By Jorge Ba-oh 18.11.2010 18

Goldeneye 007 Proof of Wii Core Success on Nintendo gaming news, videos and discussion

With Goldeneye 007 climbing the charts since launch Nintendo are using the game as an example of core game success on Wii.

Third parties have had a mixed time on the Wii, some performing far better than others, leading certain developers to approach Nintendo's home console with some caution. With a little care and proper marketing Nintendo feels there is still room for third parties to succeed on the platform.

The sales of GoldenEye show that these titles can and do perform well on Wii. The idea that Wii owners are only after smaller mini-game compilations or first-party titles isn’t true. A good quality title, supported well by both publisher and retail, has just as much chance of performing well as any Nintendo title.

Nintendo UK's Robert Saunders


The Wii game has already outsold High-definition James Bond game James Bond 007: Blood Stone and slipped past Call of Duty: Black Ops slightly.

On a related side-note, Activision today issued Blood Stone creators Bizarre Creations with a 3-month notice, possibly due to a disappointing performance for the high-definition Bond game.

Next on the Wii third party front is Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit, joined by Disney's Epic Mickey.

Box art for GoldenEye 007
Developer

Eurocom

Publisher

Activision

Genre

First Person Shooter

Players

8

C3 Score

Rated $score out of 10  9/10

Reader Score

Rated $score out of 10  9/10 (9 Votes)

European release date Out now   North America release date Out now   Japan release date TBA   Australian release date Out now   

Comment on this article

You can comment as a guest or join the Cubed3 community below: Sign Up for Free Account Login

Preview PostPreview Post Your Name:
Validate your comment
  Enter the letters in the image to validate your comment.
Submit Post

Comments

Sonic_13 is offline. Sonic_13 18.11.2010#1

In general when developers give us quality, we'll reward them with sales. Unfortunately it seems to be a hard concept to grasp for most developers.

 
Wolvesgod is offline. Wolvesgod 18.11.2010#2

Sonic_13 said:
In general when developers give us quality, we'll reward them with sales. Unfortunately it seems to be a hard concept to grasp for most developers.

That's true, Madworld was okay, but wasn't a good enough quality game, just blood, blood, and more blood.
No More Heroes (1, and 2) were better then Madworld, But still had major flaws, that made it lacked a lot of feature, to sell more then it did.

Ex: NMH 1 had pretty crappy movement, from one area to the next, and a quite small area to explore.
NMH2 was even worse with exploration, and forcused more on the action, which wasn't that bad but still bad enough to harm it.

When all is bad don't look for a easy way out. Because you wont know what to do once your out
 
Phoenom is offline. Phoenom 18.11.2010#3

I'd say a lot of those sales were from brand recognition, but yeah, good to see a decent game selling well. Smilie

 
SirLink is offline. SirLink 18.11.2010#4

Sonic_13 said:
In general when developers give us quality, we'll reward them with sales. Unfortunately it seems to be a hard concept to grasp for most developers.

I wish that was true for all games. Unfortunately, it isn't. Little King's Story for example is excellent but sold very poorly. Another example is Okami which is brilliant but didn't sell as much as it deserved either.

Surely, a good part of the sales comes from the name Goldeneye. People bought it because they expected quality from that name and while it was quite different from the original they got just that.

Twitter | Backloggery
 
irfy is offline. irfy 18.11.2010#5

I still need to pick this game up. I've played blood stone and I thought it was terrible, nothing wrong the in the presentation department but the game lacked 007-esque style. Felt like any generic third person shooter.

 
jesusraz is offline. jesusraz 18.11.2010#6

Considering how EA tried to kill the GoldenEye name with Rogue Agent, I'm very impressed how Activision managed to promote this well enough to let people forget that abomination and recall the classic N64 game.

I've tried the DS version and really am quite enjoying it. Shame that's not selling anywhere near as well, though Smilie

Adam Riley [ Director :: Cubed3 ]

UNITE714: Weekly Prayers | Bible Verses
 
meeto_0 is offline. meeto_0 18.11.2010#7

SirLink said:
Sonic_13 said:
In general when developers give us quality, we'll reward them with sales. Unfortunately it seems to be a hard concept to grasp for most developers.

I wish that was true for all games. Unfortunately, it isn't. Little King's Story for example is excellent but sold very poorly. Another example is Okami which is brilliant but didn't sell as much as it deserved either.

Surely, a good part of the sales comes from the name Goldeneye. People bought it because they expected quality from that name and while it was quite different from the original they got just that.

THe name definately helped. It was probably the biggest selling point along with advertising.
Little king story could be compared to a film like The squid and the whale. Both great pieces of work but are more niche. So they have less mass appeal.
Okami never sold well on any platform.
I never understood why RE4 never showed that there is a core audience. It sold over a million.

A major hurdle I think is that certain devs will not port their games on an underpowered console. Nintendo pretty much said this when discussing the specs of the 3DS. And it was all but confirmed by capcom when talking about releasing their core franchises on the console. their are so many titles that have been on the 360/PS3 that havent made it onto wii.

 
crackedthesky is offline. crackedthesky 18.11.2010#8

I wonder if the guys at GameInformer regret giving it such a low score, now.


Probably not.

NNID: crackedthesky
My blog, mostly about writing: http://www.davidjlovato.com
 
Darkflame is offline. Darkflame 18.11.2010#9

SirLink said:
Sonic_13 said:
In general when developers give us quality, we'll reward them with sales. Unfortunately it seems to be a hard concept to grasp for most developers.

I wish that was true for all games. Unfortunately, it isn't. Little King's Story for example is excellent but sold very poorly. Another example is Okami which is brilliant but didn't sell as much as it deserved either.

Okami still sold double what it did on the PS2.

Lots of games don't sale what they deserve, its the idea the Wii is worse the other formats on this matter that is false.

I never understood why RE4 never showed that there is a core audience. It sold over a million.

Indeed, for a pretty straight port thats pretty incredibly.
Monster Hunter 3 was also the best saleing of any of the home console versions by far. MH1/2 sales were, frankly, rather pathetic by comparison.


( Edited 18.11.2010 13:26 by Darkflame )

http://www.fanficmaker.com <-- Tells some truly terrible tales.
Last update; Mice,Plumbers,Animatronics and Airbenders. We also have the socials; Facebook & G+. 
 
crackedthesky is offline. crackedthesky 18.11.2010#10

meeto_0 said:

THe name definately helped. It was probably the biggest selling point along with advertising.
Little king story could be compared to a film like The squid and the whale. Both great pieces of work but are more niche. So they have less mass appeal.
Okami never sold well on any platform.
I never understood why RE4 never showed that there is a core audience. It sold over a million.

A major hurdle I think is that certain devs will not port their games on an underpowered console. Nintendo pretty much said this when discussing the specs of the 3DS. And it was all but confirmed by capcom when talking about releasing their core franchises on the console. their are so many titles that have been on the 360/PS3 that havent made it onto wii.

Conversely, there's also a shit ton of games for Wii that haven't made it to PS3/360.

Don't know why we're talking about Capcom, either. Looking just at Resident Evil, they've put two new games and three ports on the Wii. They made one game total for the other consoles.

Then there's Monster Hunter. They made one for Wii, and none for the other systems, except a spin-off for 360 which has little to do with the series.

The only core franchise Capcom doesn't really support the Wii with is Street Fighter and the billion crossovers of it, and even then, some of them are on it.

( Edited 18.11.2010 15:10 by justonesp00lturn )

NNID: crackedthesky
My blog, mostly about writing: http://www.davidjlovato.com
 
meeto_0 is offline. meeto_0 18.11.2010#11

justonesp00lturn said:
meeto_0 said:

THe name definately helped. It was probably the biggest selling point along with advertising.
Little king story could be compared to a film like The squid and the whale. Both great pieces of work but are more niche. So they have less mass appeal.
Okami never sold well on any platform.
I never understood why RE4 never showed that there is a core audience. It sold over a million.

A major hurdle I think is that certain devs will not port their games on an underpowered console. Nintendo pretty much said this when discussing the specs of the 3DS. And it was all but confirmed by capcom when talking about releasing their core franchises on the console. their are so many titles that have been on the 360/PS3 that havent made it onto wii.

Conversely, there's also a shit ton of games for Wii that haven't made it to PS3/360.

Don't know why we're talking about Capcom, either. Looking just at Resident Evil, they've put two new games and three ports on the Wii. They made one game total for the other consoles.

Then there's Monster Hunter. They made one for Wii, and none for the other systems, except a spin-off for 360 which has little to do with the series.

The only core franchise Capcom doesn't really support the Wii with is Street Fighter and the billion crossovers of it, and even then, some of them are on it.

Street fighter, devil may cry, lost planet 1 + 2, dead rising. New or old the other consoles have had more attention. Ports dont count!!! I know Im probably a minority but I would take a full fledged sequel to RE4 then 20 onrail shooters + a port of every game on one disc ANYDAY. The ports didnt even change the controls or include 3d background models.

Forget capcom look at konami, no MGS, Spuare? no real Final Fantasy game. The wii has become the dumping ground for spin offs that are pale reflections of the original game.

A lot of the exclusives I would happily trade in for well developed wii equivalent games from well established titles.
I would trade in RE onrails for RE5, Dead space 1+2 for the onrails game and so on.

I would get rid of madworld, house of dead, red steel, they were all empty titles with no substance and had major flaws.

What Im saying is that the exclusives dont match up to the HD ones. Little king story is the only one I truly loved, mickey looks to join the list but thats 2 over 6yrs.

( Edited 18.11.2010 17:20 by meeto_0 )

 
Rogerandy (guest) 18.11.2010#12

Any of these failed third parties heard of advertising? Dead Space Extraction + no ads = fail. Okami + no ads = fail. Come on!

meeto_0 is offline. meeto_0 18.11.2010#13

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwqxxIxH6aw

This is why I referenced capcom. Nothing personal but I think this reflects other devs

"I want to make a game that doesnt put the hardware to shame"

"I was expecting a machine with powerful graphics"

"Its the feature Im most excited about"

When you provide a machine with touch and tilt input and 3D and your most excited about graphics; it shows you what some devs are inspired by. Im not criticising him just taking note.

( Edited 18.11.2010 17:28 by meeto_0 )

 
crackedthesky is offline. crackedthesky 18.11.2010#14

meeto_0 said:

Street fighter, devil may cry, lost planet 1 + 2, dead rising. New or old the other consoles have had more attention. Ports dont count!!! I know Im probably a minority but I would take a full fledged sequel to RE4 then 20 onrail shooters + a port of every game on one disc ANYDAY. The ports didnt even change the controls or include 3d background models.

Forget capcom look at konami, no MGS, Spuare? no real Final Fantasy game. The wii has become the dumping ground for spin offs that are pale reflections of the original game.

A lot of the exclusives I would happily trade in for well developed wii equivalent games from well established titles.
I would trade in RE onrails for RE5, Dead space 1+2 for the onrails game and so on.

I would get rid of madworld, house of dead, red steel, they were all empty titles with no substance and had major flaws.

What Im saying is that the exclusives dont match up to the HD ones. Little king story is the only one I truly loved, mickey looks to join the list but thats 2 over 6yrs.

First of all, as I said, at least one of the street fighter spin-offs DID make it to the Wii.

Second, Lost Planet is nowhere NEAR a "core franchise." You have to have more than one game in a series for it to be a core franchise. And besides that, if we're talking sales, Lost Planet is a pretty lousy example. The sales of that game on three different platforms hovers at about the same number as most Wii shovelware does.

Dead Rising is also not a core franchise. Again, you need more than one game (and honestly, I'd say more than two. Nintendo put out two Pikmin games, but I wouldn't call that a core franchise.) And besides that... it IS on the Wii. Also a terrible example.

Ports don't count? Weren't we just TALKING about games from those systems being ported to the Wii? Ports definitely do count, and here's why: Capcom could've just as easily ported those games to the PS3 and Xbox 360. But they didn't, did they? So obviously, there's something going on besides strictly graphics and sales. If Capcom wanted, they could've ported RE4 to the PS3. It would've had upgraded graphics (especially compared to RE4 PS2) and it would've grabbed them more sales than porting it to the Wii alone, but they didn't port it, which says they like making games for the Wii regardless of graphics or sales. And also, 1/3 of the ports DID get a control scheme overhaul.

It doesn't matter that you prefer a sequel to an on-rails game. I would, too. However, that doesn't change my point: Capcom have made more Resident Evil games for the Wii than for its competitors. If you want to say that the Wii games don't count because they're on-rails, I could just as easily say RE5 doesn't count because it was basically a shallow remix of RE4 with better graphics and terrible controls.

The other examples you brought up are also awful ones. No Metal Gear and no Final Fantasy? Those have NEVER been on Nintendo systems (since going 3D, anyway.) The Gamecube had one MGS game, and it was developed by a third party, not Konami. This would be like me saying that because Pokemon isn't on Playstation 3, it means nobody wants to make games for PS3. You're talking about franchises that have never been on Nintendo's systems, even when they were graphically superior.

It's nice that you disliked MadWorld, House of the Dead, and Red Steel. But, with the exception of MadWorld, you're in the vast minority. And anyway, you can't list those three games and act like they're the only exclusive games for the Wii. If you discount all of the first-party titles, you still have games like Just Dance, Monster Hunter, Silent Hill, Tales of Symphonia, Fragile Dreams, The Conduit, the upcoming Last Story, Lost in Shadow, etc. The other two systems don't have many exclusives at all. The PS3 has Uncharted and Little BigPlanet and the Xbox has Halo and Fable, but even their most successful games barely sell higher than some of the less successful Wii games.

Yeah, a lot of developers prefer to develop for the other consoles, but I sincerely doubt that hardware alone is the reason.

As for the video you posted, you're taking it entirely out of context. He isn't saying that he likes the 3DS because of its hardware, he said he likes it because of its hardware and it's a handheld. If you can't see why that's attractive to a developer, here's a hint: the Wii, being the most successful console of this generation, has sold some 76 million units. But the DS has sold nearly twice that. So yeah, a very powerful handheld system which is innovating the way graphics look in general (another thing you forgot to mention) AND the brand name that Nintendo has built up, specifically in the handheld market, probably has a lot of developers excited. But they aren't making their games for the 3DS just because it looks good. If that was the case, wouldn't they be making those 3DS games for the Xbox instead? The Xbox looks even better than the 3DS.

Basically, nothing you said really holds any water. Especially if you actually take those quotes in the context they were given. Even your last post is easily torn down. Hardware would INCLUDE the 3D and the gyroscope and such, and graphics would also include the 3D. You're acting like developers are saying "Holy shit, the 3DS is so amazing, look at the graphics, everything else is shit but we'll make games because it has graphics! Yay graphics!"



( Edited 18.11.2010 18:48 by justonesp00lturn )

NNID: crackedthesky
My blog, mostly about writing: http://www.davidjlovato.com
 
meeto_0 is offline. meeto_0 19.11.2010#15

justonesp00lturn said:
[b]

First of all, as I said, at least one of the street fighter spin-offs DID make it to the Wii.

Second, Lost Planet is nowhere NEAR a "core franchise." You have to have more than one game in a series for it to be a core franchise. And besides that, if we're talking sales, Lost Planet is a pretty lousy example. The sales of that game on three different platforms hovers at about the same number as most Wii shovelware does.

Dead Rising is also not a core franchise. Again, you need more than one game (and honestly, I'd say more than two. Nintendo put out two Pikmin games, but I wouldn't call that a core franchise.) And besides that... it IS on the Wii. Also a terrible example.

Ports don't count? Weren't we just TALKING about games from those systems being ported to the Wii? Ports definitely do count, and here's why: Capcom could've just as easily ported those games to the PS3 and Xbox 360. But they didn't, did they? So obviously, there's something going on besides strictly graphics and sales. If Capcom wanted, they could've ported RE4 to the PS3. It would've had upgraded graphics (especially compared to RE4 PS2) and it would've grabbed them more sales than porting it to the Wii alone, but they didn't port it, which says they like making games for the Wii regardless of graphics or sales. And also, 1/3 of the ports DID get a control scheme overhaul.

It doesn't matter that you prefer a sequel to an on-rails game. I would, too. However, that doesn't change my point: Capcom have made more Resident Evil games for the Wii than for its competitors. If you want to say that the Wii games don't count because they're on-rails, I could just as easily say RE5 doesn't count because it was basically a shallow remix of RE4 with better graphics and terrible controls.

The other examples you brought up are also awful ones. No Metal Gear and no Final Fantasy? Those have NEVER been on Nintendo systems (since going 3D, anyway.) The Gamecube had one MGS game, and it was developed by a third party, not Konami. This would be like me saying that because Pokemon isn't on Playstation 3, it means nobody wants to make games for PS3. You're talking about franchises that have never been on Nintendo's systems, even when they were graphically superior.

It's nice that you disliked MadWorld, House of the Dead, and Red Steel. But, with the exception of MadWorld, you're in the vast minority. And anyway, you can't list those three games and act like they're the only exclusive games for the Wii. If you discount all of the first-party titles, you still have games like Just Dance, Monster Hunter, Silent Hill, Tales of Symphonia, Fragile Dreams, The Conduit, the upcoming Last Story, Lost in Shadow, etc. The other two systems don't have many exclusives at all. The PS3 has Uncharted and Little BigPlanet and the Xbox has Halo and Fable, but even their most successful games barely sell higher than some of the less successful Wii games.

Yeah, a lot of developers prefer to develop for the other consoles, but I sincerely doubt that hardware alone is the reason.

As for the video you posted, you're taking it entirely out of context. He isn't saying that he likes the 3DS because of its hardware, he said he likes it because of its hardware and it's a handheld. If you can't see why that's attractive to a developer, here's a hint: the Wii, being the most successful console of this generation, has sold some 76 million units. But the DS has sold nearly twice that. So yeah, a very powerful handheld system which is innovating the way graphics look in general (another thing you forgot to mention) AND the brand name that Nintendo has built up, specifically in the handheld market, probably has a lot of developers excited. But they aren't making their games for the 3DS just because it looks good. If that was the case, wouldn't they be making those 3DS games for the Xbox instead? The Xbox looks even better than the 3DS.

Basically, nothing you said really holds any water. Especially if you actually take those quotes in the context they were given. Even your last post is easily torn down. Hardware would INCLUDE the 3D and the gyroscope and such, and graphics would also include the 3D. You're acting like developers are saying "Holy shit, the 3DS is so amazing, look at the graphics, everything else is shit but we'll make games because it has graphics! Yay graphics!"



I think your being petty but here goes. In my response I wrote new or old. I was moving away from the idea of just core titles.

Porting to the wii a current game isnt really porting. My bad for using that term. I forget everything you write on forums is scrutinised. I'm not going to explain why its significantly different 'porting' dead space 1 on wii and porting resident evil from the playstation 1 and not changing a thing.

Final fantasy is on the xbox 360 having never previously been on a microsoft system EVER. Yet even with squares ties to nintendo (working on mario franchises even now) FF will not appear on wii other then in the chronicle form.

Your pokemon example is rubbish. Pokemon is a first party franchise MGS is a third party franchise. So pokemon wouldnt appear on the PS3 for very different reasons. MGS, GTA and FF appear on both xbox 360 and PS3 despite the fact that last gen they had priority or exclusivity on PS2. The trend of exclusivity is changing so saying that these games have never been on a nintendo console for years is irrelevant.


As for me taking the capcom quote out of context. Its a matter of opinion. Like you said in your Hint the DS has sold 140million. Way more then the PSP. So you might find it a little curious as to why one of the biggest handheld games of all time Monster hunter has never been on the console.

Maybe sony has a secret exclusive contract that spans several games. I bet you it appears on the 3DS.

PS my post before this were just my opinion. You dont have to agree with them. That creates debate. but trying to write witty slightly sarcastic responses is just poor.

( Edited 19.11.2010 01:29 by meeto_0 )

 
crackedthesky is offline. crackedthesky 19.11.2010#16

meeto_0 said:I think your being petty but here goes.

I don't think I'm being petty, I just think you're being incorrect.

meeto_0 said:
In my response I wrote new or old. I was moving away from the idea of just core titles.

And not only were you still wrong, but you contradicted yourself. You made the point that third parties won't develop for the Wii because it isn't as graphically powerful as the other systems, but now you're expanding that to ALL of Nintendo's systems?

Here's a secret: In terms of graphics, the GameCube blew the PS2 out of the water, and the N64 blew the PS1 out of the water. Developers chose to develop for Playstation because developing for optical disc is far more practical than developing for cartrdige (or even minidisc.) You just made two completely contradictory points.

meeto_0 said:
Porting to the wii a current game isnt really porting.

Um... what?

meeto_0 said:
My bad for using that term. I forget everything you write on forums is scrutinised.

Not everything. Just when you say things that make no sense or aren't correct.

meeto_0 said:
I'm not going to explain why its significantly different 'porting' dead space 1 on wii and porting resident evil from the playstation 1 and not changing a thing.

And you're wrong YET AGAIN. The port of RE1 for Wii wasn't ported from the playstation.
In any case, it's still a port. You're taking a game that was designed from the ground-up with another system in mind, and trying to implement it on another system. Usually ports move upward, but sometimes, they're done backwards, onto less powerful systems. It's still a port, though. I get the point you're making, and it is a bit different, but regardless, my point still stands: if Capcom only cares about making games with graphics in mind, as you claimed, why did they port those games onto the Wii and no other systems? You don't think porting the Gamecube version of RE4 onto the PS3 would have any graphical improvement over the PS2 version of RE4, which had to be heavily downgraded just to be able to run on the PS2 in the first place?

meeto_0 said:
Final fantasy is on the xbox 360 having never previously been on a microsoft system EVER.
Yet even with squares ties to nintendo (working on mario franchises even now) FF will not appear on wii other then in the chronicle form.

Yeah, but that isn't because of the graphics, per se. More likely, it's that they couldn't render the world in real-time on the Wii, and because the Wii's online capabilities aren't very good. There's also the very "history" you mentioned: Square HATED Nintendo. Absolutely loathed working for them. They jumped for the Playstation the first chance they got, because back then, Nintendo had horrifing restrictions and limits on what could be done, and since they were the only real console maker, developers had to oblige. You're talking about a famously turmulous relationship.

But anyway, the fact that they devote time to make games specifically tailored to the Wii at all also negates your initial point, that third parties don't support the Wii. Basically, you're once again proving yourself wrong.

meeto_0 said:
Your pokemon example is rubbish. Pokemon is a first party franchise MGS is a third party franchise.

Actually, they aren't. The Pokemon games are developed by Game Freak, which isn't owned by Nintendo. They've made games for other systems before, like the Sega Genesis and the Playstation. Nintendo, at this point, probably owns the rights to the pokemon franchise; however, they don't own GameFreak, yet GameFreak develops exclusively for Nintendo. But they do that just for the graphics, right?

meeto_0 said:
So pokemon wouldnt appear on the PS3 for very different reasons. MGS, GTA and FF appear on both xbox 360 and PS3 despite the fact that last gen they had priority or exclusivity on PS2.

Besides the fact that you're wrong once again (GTA was on the original Xbox, just so you know,) again, your ability to tell me that some games have appeared on systems other than Nintendo's doesn't mean that third parties don't support Nintendo. You yourself have shown this not to be the case; there ARE Final Fantasy games for the Wii. They aren't the SAME games that are on the other systems, but that isn't what you said, is it? You said third parties don't want to make games for the Wii. Well, guess what? You're wrong. I'm well aware that the same games that are on the PS3 and Xbox 360 aren't on the Wii. But the Wii often gets other games, also developed by third parties, instead. Furthermore, they get more EXCLUSIVE third-party games, so your point is not only dead, but it's buried pretty deep.

meeto_0 said:
The trend of exclusivity is changing so saying that these games have never been on a nintendo console for years is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant at all. Apparently, you missed my point the first time, so I'll try again:

If all a third party cares about is hardware, why did the PS2 get a shitload more exclusive third party support than the Gamecube and Xbox combined, even though the PS2 was FAR inferior to both systems in nearly every way?

Clearly, either every single game developer is downright retarded, or they aren't doing it based on hardware or graphics.

meeto_0 said:
As for me taking the capcom quote out of context. Its a matter of opinion. [/i]

No, it isn't. It isn't your "opinion" that he was talking about graphics; he says "hardware." That means HARDWARE. You're claiming that Capcom is only excited about the graphics, and you specifically claimed that they care more about the graphics than the 3D or gyroscope, yet no one in that video says it. It isnt a matter of "opinion," it's a matter of you clearly taking a quote out of context.

meeto_0 said:
Like you said in your Hint the DS has sold 140million. Way more then the PSP. So you might find it a little curious as to why one of the biggest handheld games of all time Monster hunter has never been on the console.

It must be for the graphics, right? That would explain why Monster Hunter Tri is Wii exclusive then, right?

meeto_0 said:
Maybe sony has a secret exclusive contract that spans several games. I bet you it appears on the 3DS.

Or maybe they ENJOY developing for the PSP over the DS. But since neither of us knows for sure, maybe we shouldn't say stupid shit we made up on the internet and act like it's a varifiable fact?

meeto_0 said:
PS my post before this were just my opinion. You dont have to agree with them. That creates debate. but trying to write witty slightly sarcastic responses is just poor.

You can't go around and make empirical claims and then try to hide behind an opinion. Even if it is your opinion, it's obviously wrong. You yourself disproved it many times in your own post. It's first your "opinion" that third parties won't make games for a system with lesser graphics, but then you point out several instances of that exact thing happening, but make up more "opinions" on why they don't matter. The fact is, the idea that the Wii gets little third party support is a total myth. Off of the top of my head, I can name a few:

The Conduit 1+2, Resident Evil Chronicles 1+2, Tales of Symphonia, Fragile Dreams, Red Steel 1+2, No More Heroes 1+2, Silent Hill, Dead Space Extraction, Monster Hunter Tri, any game developed by Hal Laboratory (guess you didn't know they were a third party too, right? In case you're wondering, they did Super Smash, Kirby, etc.; and while Nintendo owns several of the characters, the company is an independant party who CHOOSES to develop exclusively for Nintendo,) Goldeneye, Just Dance, Lost in Shadow, The Last Story, House of the Dead... the list goes on and on. I couldn't name half that number for the PS3 or Xbox 360 COMBINED.

The fact is, developers aren't stupid. They don't make the same games for the Wii as the other two systems because they aren't on the same level. But that doesn't mean they don't make games for the Wii at all; just that they make different ones. It might be your "opinion" that those don't count, but for you to say that third parties don't make them AT ALL is not an opinion; it's a falsehood. Take Ubisoft for example. They made a lot of exclusives for Xbox 360 and PS3, like Assassin's Creed, Hawx, Ghost Recon etc. those games weren't on the Wii. But that doesn't mean Ubisoft doesn't support the Wii. Obviously, that's false, as Ubisoft also developed several Wii exclusives, like Red Steel, Raving Rabbids, Just Dance, etc. I'm willing to bet that there are more third-party exclusive games for the Wii than there are for the other two systems, so I'm relaly tired of hearing that the Wii doesn't have third-party support.

I apologize for being sarcastic. But when you're wrong, you're wrong. And you're... well, wrong. I like a healthy debate as much as the next guy, but when you're wrong to begin with, and then you're wrong in your defense, and you contradict yourself trying to defend yourself, and then you claim that you can't be wrong because it's just an opinion, that tends to get on my nerves, which makes me even more sarcastic.

I think you have a point in that the games third parties make for Xbox 360 and PS3 usually don't make it to the Wii. But you're wrong in assuming that that means the Wii doesn't get any third-party games AT ALL. It does, often by the same companies making the ones for Xbox 360 and PS3, usually a spinoff or side-game of some sort. Whether or not the quality of said games matches is a matter of opinion. But you not liking them doesn't mean those companies don't support the Wii.

Anyway, sorry if I've upset you or insulted you. I can be prety brash when I'm on the internet.

NNID: crackedthesky
My blog, mostly about writing: http://www.davidjlovato.com
 
meeto_0 is offline. meeto_0 20.11.2010#17

Justonespoolturn what is wrong with you? even when you break down each response your so far of the mark. Yet you write with such certainty.

New and old meaning new franchises or old.

Let me sum up my opinion in a very clear manner for you:
In no post of mine have I written there exists no third party game for wii. The wii has exclusives but are they the same calibre as when konami spend 5yrs putting together a MGS title.

I will take one example and try and get my opinion across as simple as possible: Dead space extraction was not done by the same team that did dead space for 360. It was outsourced. It was in my opinion turned into an onrails because its cheaper to make, takes less time and is less risky. That franchise would not have the same times and money poured into it to make a wii title.

You have to read things properly before giving your opinion. A classic one is you telling me GTA was on xbox. I never wrote that it wasnt. Hence the reason I wrote 'given PRIORITY or EXCLUSIVITY.' Gta on ps2 had both of these adjectives having been a timed exclusive out first on PS2.

Pokemon is a FIRST PARTY FRANCHISE. Donkey Kong is a first party franchise. Just because miyamoto doesnt personally make every game and has allowed rare in the past or Retro now to make DK games doesnt change that. Same goes for pokemon. Try to think before coming up with smart come backs.

 
crackedthesky is offline. crackedthesky 20.11.2010#18

meeto_0 said:
Justonespoolturn what is wrong with you? even when you break down each response your so far of the mark. Yet you write with such certainty.

New and old meaning new franchises or old.

Let me sum up my opinion in a very clear manner for you:
In no post of mine have I written there exists no third party game for wii. The wii has exclusives but are they the same calibre as when konami spend 5yrs putting together a MGS title.

I will take one example and try and get my opinion across as simple as possible: Dead space extraction was not done by the same team that did dead space for 360. It was outsourced. It was in my opinion turned into an onrails because its cheaper to make, takes less time and is less risky. That franchise would not have the same times and money poured into it to make a wii title.

You have to read things properly before giving your opinion. A classic one is you telling me GTA was on xbox. I never wrote that it wasnt. Hence the reason I wrote 'given PRIORITY or EXCLUSIVITY.' Gta on ps2 had both of these adjectives having been a timed exclusive out first on PS2.

Pokemon is a FIRST PARTY FRANCHISE. Donkey Kong is a first party franchise. Just because miyamoto doesnt personally make every game and has allowed rare in the past or Retro now to make DK games doesnt change that. Same goes for pokemon. Try to think before coming up with smart come backs.

Well, ignoring the fact that you did, in fact, say both things I quote you on, you're still incorrect about almost everything you said. In any case, you're right; the games for Wii may not be of the same caliber.

IN YOUR OPINION.

Which is what I've said manytimes now, in response to you saying that the Wii has no third party support. Which, regardless of you lying about it now, is what you said.

I'm well aware that Nintendo owns Pokemon. But they don't own Game Freak, yet GF doesn't make games for any other system, do they? That would be you missing my point.

In any case, i apologized for being rude to you, and you, in turn, decided to be an even BIGGER asshole than either of us have been so far, so I'd say this conversation has pretty much run its course. My apologies for being rude, again. Good day.

NNID: crackedthesky
My blog, mostly about writing: http://www.davidjlovato.com
 

Subscribe to this topic Subscribe to this topic

If you are a registered member and logged in, you can also subscribe to topics by email.
Sign up today for blogs, games collections, reader reviews and much more
Site Feed
Who's Online?
Flynnie

There are 1 members online at the moment.