GG Weekly Videogame News 
Tiger to Share Cover on PGA Tour 11
Elin doesn't get half, some Irish guy does.
sportbusiness.com news
aspro
Will Wright talks Wii
Says its a toy market, talks Nintendo investment in software
gamedaily.com editorial
gamingeek
Sneak Peak at Warner Bros FPS
Video here including American Idol's Randy Jackson
bigdownload.com news
gamingeek
Max and the Magic Marker review
The physics engine is as rigid as World of Goo, and the concept is as orginal as Lost Winds.
thehanafudatimes.com impressions
gamingeek
Y's Vs Legend of Heroes Date Set
RPG titans join forces. Should be amazing.
andriasang.com news
aspro
![[amazon.com]](/cache/favicons/amazon.com.ico "amazon.com")
Display:
Order by:
Recently Spotted:
*crickets*
Then why didn't you pay me?!
Because the sterling conversion would have killed me.
Were these already posted? Edge scores from GAF:
Alice in Wonderland - 7
Aliens vs Predator - 5
Battlefield Bad Company 2 - 8
BlazBlue - 8
Calling - 5
Final Fantasy XIII - 5
God of War 3 - 8
Infinite Space - 8
Just Cause 2 - 7
No More Heros 2 - 7
P.B. Winterbottom - 8
Sakura Wars: So Long, My Love - 7
White Knight Chronicles - 5
Yakuza 3 - 6
Glad to hear about Infinite Space, but I am SHOCKED GoW3 was given the same score!
Infinite Space is gonna be one of THOSE games... I've seen 10's. I've seen 5's. Now an 8. Weird.
Oh. Wait. I just read where these scores were from.
Edge.
Nvrmnd.
I'm a lot more interested in it now.
But it looks awesome and I rather play this.
I am stating the damn truth. If Nintendo made a console that was more in line with 360/PS3 they would have all the same third party games they do. Please try and argue that one. The problem is they probably wouldn't be as successful, so in the end they did what was right for them.
Yes, what is successful for the Wii is not part of the same argument as if the wii had better graphics it would have better 3rd party support. It's the reality, sure but the reality is that because Nintendo went this route this is why the Wii misses out on so many games.
You're merely presenting speculation as fact, while ignoring reality as it was with the GC which showed comparable power doesn't ensure third party support, and that it's actually very possible to port plenty of games to Wii with minimal resources (as with the COD examples, which again, initially sold better on Wii than on PS3, up until Activision decided to shun the platform and not make a COD4 port, even though it's the part they pushed harder than ever which elevated the franchise to the heights it is now) and they still aren't willing. While we can only speculate what would have happened if things were different, the evidence certainly don't imply your opinion would have been the only logical outcome. Far from it. You're still beating around the bush as this has been repeated several times already, not just by myself, and you merely ignore it as if that will convince anyone.
The optimist proclaims we live in the best of all possible worlds
while the pessimist fears this is true.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But it is the reality we live in, do you see companies porting most third party games to the Wii. Do you see the biggest and best FPS developers making exclusive Wii FPSs. Do you? Why is that? Cause they lost a bet in a poker game or something?
Use common sense. It is not happening, the most logical and clear explanation is that they don't want to spend time or money on a conolse that does not fit what they are trying to do with games, and it doesn't have the audience they believe will give them the best sales. Give me any explanation that is better than that. Remember Wii has the largest userbase, so if they wanted to make the most money making a cheaper game to the biggest userbase makes sense, yet it still does not happen.
I am presenting the best possible explanation you are just doing the whole 3rd party devs are lazy thing. Of which to an extent they are but if the Wii were on par you can sure as hell bet it would not be like this with 3rd party games.
Your opinion that ignores history isn't "the best possible explanation" it's merely far fetched speculation as pointed out already. The GC was on par, it didn't have support, to assume if the Wii was on par, it would, is plainly ignorant. I'm glad you see that (some) third parties are lazy even though I don't think I said that myself. As for the reasons they didn't attempt to properly exploit the Wii market early on, I don't see why you need to ask.
Nobody expected the Wii to be the success it was, everyone was preparing for the HD gen. The Wii disrupted the industry and despite early indications of third party and core success on Wii (I don't need to repeat the same titles for the 4th or 5th time, right?) most decided to pursue the path they were already prepared for, following the Sony and Microsoft way.
They merely left money on the table and the result is the crippled industry we have today with the numerous shutdowns and lay offs due to the ever increasing costs and the focus on attracting their audience via the flashiest most cinematic product possible, which they can't achieve on Wii thanks to Nintendo having the best know how of their own platform.
Couple that with the constant so called analyses claiming the bubble would burst month after month, the bickering of the media of how the Wii is only for casuals, and companies touting their shovelware that failed to earn great sales should have done much better and it's the platform at fault and so on, and so forth, and it's not hard to see why things turned out like this.
Still, some, like Activision, offered too little too late with the likes of WaW and MW and still achieved a level of success with minimal cost despite your speculation of how much money it would take to down-port. Or even great success with the likes of Guitar Hero. Others like CAPCOM at least recently tried to put one of their big franchises on the system and also met success. Even Square's doing Dragon Quest X which is bound to be just as succesful as any other iteration despite the so called poor choice of a platform as some like you would say.
Still, by now it's too late for publishers to completely change their whole philosophy and thus for the most part we keep getting shovelware and the odd niche gem that is only greenlit thanks to the Wii's existence, and wouldn't sell great on any platform, and a few exceptions like MH3, DQX, ToG, etc.
For FPS and TPS in particular I generally don't see them doing exclusives on any system outside first party studios and moneyhats like Gears of War so I'm not sure what your point was with that mention. Unlike last generation (which the Wii has similar costs to) it's not cost effective to do exclusives with the ever increasing HD development costs, and they don't have the technical know how or the brand recognition they failed to nurture on Wii in order to attempt and focus on that over halfway past the generation. They merely dropped the ball and the majority of them suffer for it, outside a handful of companies or franchises that do insanely well (but could still benefit from Wii ports, as WaW showed that if COD4 was released at the same time, even without Wii specific marketing, it would have done some numbers). Shit happens, better luck next time etc.
It seems to me that you believe I clamor for ports or some shit. No thank you, you can keep your ports and I'll have the superior PC versions. My Wii is here for its numerous great exclusives, maybe the occasional port Wii owning friends wanna play together. I merely try to show you let your system preference blind you in certain ways while ignoring evidence that show things could have gone differently and more favorably to third parties had they approached certain things better, despite the Wii's lesser specifications. They wouldn't have to trade their current sources of income for another, they could have added another on top of them, but their actions shaped the market the way it is now. The Wii as a platform is now unfriendly to them because they made it so even though early on they had a chance to do good on it.
Though for certain types of titles it's still possible to turn things around as some showed, but no, as I already said (and I don't see why you so fiercely ask me about FPS in your last comment when I have already said this) I don't think the Wii could ever sell a FPS as good as the 360 or close to that. But then again the PS360 are unlikely to sell casual titles to the level Wii has sold some of Nintendo's, but that won't stop them from going for this added source of income on top of their other stuff. Profit is profit, and again, at least some third parties are now doing ports (or diff versions, like the new MoH, PoP, etc?) also, as lesser as they may be in sales, for the same reason.
The optimist proclaims we live in the best of all possible worlds
while the pessimist fears this is true.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Interesting. Let's look more into this.
Was GG naked when you tried to save him?
Were you prodding him with any particular body part when you were getting him out of the room?
WAIT... ANGRY NEOGAF MEMBERS...!? What kind of crazy-ass, totally unrealistic kind of dream were you having?!
I always KNEW you had "MOTIVES" you duplicitous bastard!
HOW COULD YOU!
So High Voltage went from trying to compete with Left 4 Dead, to instead making the sequel to their 2003 Xbox game Hunter: The Reckoning, with The Grinder?
AH-HA ! ! !
EVIDENCE ! ! !
BASTARD ! ! !
The GC was not on par, right, it missed out on some games mainly cause it was clearly 3rd place in the US and the demographics of Nintendo consoles always came into play. Still the vast majority of 3rd party games came onto the GC.
Look at the recent releases: Bioshock 2, Bayonetta, Darksiders, FFXIII, Battlefield 2, Aliens vs Predator, Dante's Inferno just to name a few of the third party games to hit. All of them on PS3/360 not one on Wii. If the Wii were on par with the PS3/360 do you honestly believe that not one of those games would also be out on the Wii. They would be, Battlefield 2 would be on the Wii, GG would have his awesome FPSs that the Wii is missing.
So you are claiming that because of what happened 4 years ago, the thought that the Wii would fail and all that is still the reason the Wii is not getting third party support now. What happened then happened then and your explanation makes sense, what is happening now is different. Most companies still don't bother to make major third party games, they don't want to put their best teams at work on a Wii game cause there is more money to be had on the HD systems and that system allows them to make the games they want. I don't think anything would ever change cause of the hardware limitation of the Wii. I think that even if all the 3rd party devs knew exactly where the Wii would be today back in 06, that they still would be focusing on the HD systems, there would probably be better support but the Wii would not be getting the major releases.
The second those specs were revealed it was obvious this was going to happen. Nintendo created a split, there are the HD consoles and there is us, you need to choose one. You can do really watered down ports that would require to create an engine from scratch and many modications for it to work on the Wii but who wants to do that. And as you stated most people don't want lesser ports. So the major companies give Wii their scraps, their B-teams, here is some cheap hardware, make a cheap game. All the shovelware is the third parties fault. There is a giant market to be had and people will buy good games. But do you believe that if Square put all their resources into FFXIII on the Wii that it would sell as much as FFXIII on 360/PS3, I don't think so. A series that is known for being cutting edge, it wouldn't work. So Square gives Wii Crystal Bearers, a lackluster effort. It's a combination of the main teams making their games for the HD consoles and the publishers putting out the worst possible effort on the Wii that has created this. But all that would be different if the Wii was on the level as the other two. FFXIII would simply be in development for all three consoles, it would have been easy to pull off, it would have happened.
Have you noticed that nearly all the best Wii third party games are odd strange titles, lots of them puzzle games and stuff. The companies that say, hey lets make a unique game centered totally on the wiimote is usually the one that makes a noticable title. The company that says lets just try to make lesser version of what the HD consoles have usually turn out poor. The Wii is different so I want different games from the Wii, I don't want ports, I believe CoD is a waste of time but it's CoD so it sells well so that made sense. I want new original games that don't suck, sadly with developers all putting their best teams on big HD games the Wii rarely gets the awesome original game.
There is lots of blame to go around as to why the quality of the third party games on Wii is not so good. I believe that is a different argument than why isn't the Wii getting the major franchises, the major FPSs, the major third party release. That is a simple obvious answer, cause it's not on the level as PS3/360. Obviously to be at that level changes the price of the system, probably changes the userbase completely, it alters all of history. But hey you would be playing Battlefield 2 with a wiimote (its EA they port EVERYTHING). Argue all you want that the Wii wouldn't get those third party games, it might miss out on few, maybe really violent ones, but not many. One other aspect you are missing is that most game companies want to work with the best tech, want to be cutting edge, want to make the best game possible. It's not all about the money.