That Damn Wii Does it Again in December

[modeps]

http://evavhost.com/i/news/new_super_mario_bros_wii.jpg

This December was dominated not by Nathan Drake, not by Forza Motorsporting, but instead by one specific Italian guy. No, not Ezio even though he does make an appearance, we're talking the plumber that's been around for ages. The NPDs are out for December, and Wii based games have dominated the top 10. All of the Wii titles in the top ten are first party (no surprise).


New Super Mario Bros. Wii (Wii, Nintendo) 2.82M
Wii Fit Plus (Wii, Nintendo) 2.41M
Wii Sports Resort (Wii, Nintendo) 1.79M
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (360, Activision) 1.63M
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (PS3, Activision) 1.12M
Wii Play (Wii, Nintendo) 1.01M
Mario Kart Wii (Wii, Nintendo) 936.1K
Assassin’s Creed II (360, Ubisoft) 783.1K
Left 4 Dead 2 (360, Electronic Arts) 728.5K
Mario and Luigi: Bowser’s Inside Story (DS, Nintendo) 656.7K


Hardware numbers are here too, also dominated by the former playing card company.


Wii 3.81M
Nintendo DS 3.31M
PlayStation 3 1.36M
Xbox 360 1.31M
PSP 654.7K
PlayStation 2 333.2K


Thanks Wired (http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2010/01/december-npd-the-nintendo-that-stole-christmas/).

[SwitchBlade_Jax]

Doing rough math in my head I think that makes about $2 Billion in revenue for Nintendo off just those games and hardware sales, in one month. Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn.

[Vacatakarat]

So Reggie talked the talk and walked the walk?

[SwitchBlade_Jax]

Prior to this month, the most units of a single game machine sold in a single month was the DS’ record of 3.04 million in December 2008. Nintendo shattered that record twice this month, moving 3.81 million Wii and 3.31 million DS.

Thats from the wired article ^^ If the Wii didn't sell out this Christmas, that sure shows that it hasn't slowed down at all. That's insane.

[Anenome]

Teacakes can't even read this thread, it burns his eyes like fire! The number of Wii's sold in a single month represents over 13% of all the PS3s that have ever been sold since release.
>_>

[Johan]

Sure, they're selling boatloads of hardware at a profit. Sure, they're selling a ton of first party software. None of that matters, because lots of really cool, cutting-edge hardcore gamers don't like what they offer, so Nintendo can't be happy swimming in their pools of money.

Let's see how much they enjoy their success and profitability now! :D

[EvilBob46]

Hilarious: doubters have forecast the imminent doom for the Wii for the past 3 years.

Now the console has managed to sell 3.8 million in one month...almost TWICE what it sold in December one year ago, and 1.2 million more than Xbox 360 and PS3 combined.

Yeah, the Wii is a fad...it's clearly drawing its last breath :rolleyes:

[Zeal]

how many times can people play the same fucking mario brothers game. seriously?

[Syl]

how many times can people play the same fucking mario brothers game. seriously?
Till it stop's being fun. :D

[SwitchBlade_Jax]

how many times can people play the same fucking mario brothers game. seriously?


I think it would take a Cylon attack of epic proportions to wipe out enough people on Earth to let Mario simply be lost to the history books.

Maybe.

[Anenome]

Writing's been on the wall for the longest time though.

When Sony and MS unveiled their own motion-control strategies gamers should've realized this was neither a fad nor going to ever go away.

Sure, Nintendo's doing well with their own games. They've also had much longer to develop motion-control concepts compared to other companies, and have the massive advantage that is Miyamoto, the man largely responsible for the Wii getting the green light since he could've easily torpedoed it.

But, Nintendo won't be able to make games for MS or Sony's systems, so we'll finally see what other companies can come up with.

So far it seems like the concept is difficult enough that moving to spatial control has been a threshing floor for developers. But, of course, an improved control scheme will eliminate a lot of the troubles we've seen on Wii thus far.

All in good time. All in good time.

[TeeCakes]

Nice to see that North Americans finally join the rest of the world in realizing that PS3>360.

The Wii figure is sick, I can only imagine what the numbers would be if Nintendo sold it at the price it's actually worth (~$99, tops).

[Anenome]

Nice to see that North Americans finally join the rest of the world in realizing that PS3>360.

The Wii figure is sick, I can only imagine what the numbers would be if Nintendo sold it at the price it's actually worth (~$99, tops).
Needs more PS3-cowbell.

There's only one sure way to ward a thread against Teecakes:
7Olki4X-da4

[ElfShotTheFood]

Nice to see that North Americans finally join the rest of the world in realizing that PS3>360.



Only one PS3 game in the top 10 though, and it's being outsold by its 360 counterpart.

Too bad.

[Anenome]

Not to mention that 0.05 million is nothing to write home about :P That's 50,000 units, and likely includes an artificial bump from the still recent price drop. I think last time I did the numbers that the PS3 would need to outsell the 360 by... a lot each month, to actually catch up before the next hardware gen, much less surpass it. It's such a moot point too, who even cares anymore.

[TeeCakes]

PlayStation Brand Revenue
The PlayStation brand generated more than $5.1 billion in revenue in the US for 2009, a 26% share of the total video game industry revenue for 2009

Hardware
PS3 sold 1.35 million hardware units in December 2009 in the US, which represents an 87% increase when compared to December 2008
PS3 hardware was the only home console to see double digit growth of 22% for the calendar year of 2009 (4.3 million total) when compared to the calendar year of 2008 (3.5 million total)
December 2009 marks the single highest selling month for PS3 hardware and software in the US.
PSP hardware also saw an increase of more than 122% from November to December 2009, making it a popular holiday gift item

Software
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 for PS3 was ranked in the top five software skus for December 2009
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 topped PS3 software for the calendar year of 2009 with a total of 2.8 million units sold to date, followed by Madden NFL 10 and Assassin’s Creed II for PS3
UNCHARTED 2: Among Thieves has surpassed 1 million units in North America* with more than 950k units reported by NPD in the U.S. since launch

SCEA Statement:
“It’s no surprise we’ve seen PS3 units sold every month nearly double since October. We knew 2009 would be a turning point for the platform due to the new price and a content line up that is fueling unprecedented consumer and industry interest with games like UNCHARTED 2: Among Thieves. The consumer response has simply been overwhelming and we anticipate the high demand for PS3 to continue into the coming months as we work closely with retail to meet the demand. The best part of PS3’s story today is that 2010 will offer entirely new gaming experiences to consumers as we launch MAG, God of War III, 3D gaming, and the new motion controller this year. It’s never been a better time to be a PS3 owner.”

– Patrick Seybold, Sr. Director of Corporate Communications at SCEA

Congrats Sony (http://playstationlifestyle.net/2010/01/14/scea-reveals-december-npd-numbers/), you've earned it!

[automaton]

My wife's 60 something year old parents bought a Wii for Christmas this year. It was mostly because ALL OF THEIR OTHER 60 YEAR OLD FRIENDS HAVE WIIs too. It's like fucking bizarro world and I don't understand it for even 1 second. My mother in law thinks she is going to loose 30lbs playing Wii fit.

[Rommel]

Sure, they're selling boatloads of hardware at a profit. Sure, they're selling a ton of first party software. None of that matters, because lots of really cool, cutting-edge hardcore gamers don't like what they offer, so Nintendo can't be happy swimming in their pools of money.

Let's see how much they enjoy their success and profitability now! :D

Unless you work there, who cares how well Nintendo is doing? I think forum posters are more concerned about getting games they like.

[lockwoodx]

So Reggie talked the talk and walked the walk?

This. The fun part is the Wii is the first console I've sided behind that wasn't an underdog because it is that good. When I want good FPS games I don't go Hurr Hurr and drool on a conroller. I use my PC. When I want fun I grab a 12 pack, head over to a friends, and we all play wii golf or some other SOCIAL game.

[TeeCakes]

My wife's 60 something year old parents bought a Wii for Christmas this year. It was mostly because ALL OF THEIR OTHER 60 YEAR OLD FRIENDS HAVE WIIs too. It's like fucking bizarro world and I don't understand it for even 1 second. My mother in law thinks she is going to loose 30lbs playing Wii fit.

It's smart marketing. Nintendo made sure that they branched themselves out this gen, making their console attractive to longtime Nintendo fanboys, kids, people intrigued by motion controls, people interested in fitness, and anybody else who's looking for that 'new gadget' to buy.

Likewise, Sony's focused on gamers serious about great 1st party exclusives, tech geeks who want to invest in Blu-ray and hi-definition media, 3D graphics, and all the Sony-related TV/Music/Film products that go along with it. Most of the great stuff is still on the horizon for the PS3, hell, they still have yet to officially 'kill' the PS2 as of yet.

Microsoft... well they've got Halo... ooh, and most of their decent Windows PC games library. So... yeah, come this time 2011 they're gonna be fiiiine... :rolleyes:

[lockwoodx]

Writing's been on the wall for the longest time though.

When Sony and MS unveiled their own motion-control strategies gamers should've realized this was neither a fad nor going to ever go away.

Sure, Nintendo's doing well with their own games. They've also had much longer to develop motion-control concepts compared to other companies, and have the massive advantage that is Miyamoto, the man largely responsible for the Wii getting the green light since he could've easily torpedoed it.

But, Nintendo won't be able to make games for MS or Sony's systems, so we'll finally see what other companies can come up with.

So far it seems like the concept is difficult enough that moving to spatial control has been a threshing floor for developers. But, of course, an improved control scheme will eliminate a lot of the troubles we've seen on Wii thus far.

All in good time. All in good time.



...and by the time MS and Sony catch up, Nintendo's R&D will have prefected the mario cod piece brain implants.

Nintendo could put this on the next Wii-play and not only would it sell but also be fun.

https://www.hookah-shisha.com/store/pc/catalog/ball_cup.jpg

[Syl]

This. The fun part is the Wii is the first console I've sided behind that wasn't an underdog because it is that good. When I want good FPS games I don't go Hurr Hurr and drool on a conroller. I use my PC. When I want fun I grab a 12 pack, head over to a friends, and we all play wii golf or some other SOCIAL game.
Holy shit I agree full heartedly with LockwoodX.

When i have friends over, we rarely ever play 360, we almost always play Wii. I have 4 controllers for both and switching between the two is as simple as a button press.

There's a reason the Wii gets more play.

[lockwoodx]

I was playing an expert campaign last night in l4d2 and this guy kept complaing for us to slow down because it's hard to turn with his controller. Apparently he was playing with a 360 controller on his PC because it's the only way he's ever played FPS games. A quick votekick later and the bot did twice as good.

[lockwoodx]

Of course you're thinking "WTF does that have anything to do with the Wii?" because I'm a dumb ass and hit the post button before completing my thought.

The point is game are for fun. Consoles are the tools you use to access the fun.

The PS3 and Xbox360 are Multi-tools who try to do TOO much and focus on a target audience. The Wii is mroe focused. You buy it, everyone can learn it in a matter of minutes, It's designed so everyone has fun.

Sorry I didn't edit this into a previous post... but there is no edit button >.<

[92miata]

if i had Miyamoto's money, my daily driver would be a bugatti veyron 16.4 grand sport convertible.

[murdly]

My Target sold a shit-ton of Wiis and a Crap-load of Xbox 360's (mostly arcade, ugh) and not a whole lot of PS3s.

Your market may vary.

[Mozain]

It's smart marketing. Nintendo made sure that they branched themselves out this gen, making their console attractive to longtime Nintendo fanboys, kids, people intrigued by motion controls, people interested in fitness, and anybody else who's looking for that 'new gadget' to buy.

Likewise, Sony's focused on gamers serious about great 1st party exclusives, tech geeks who want to invest in Blu-ray and hi-definition media, 3D graphics, and all the Sony-related TV/Music/Film products that go along with it. Most of the great stuff is still on the horizon for the PS3, hell, they still have yet to officially 'kill' the PS2 as of yet.

Microsoft... well they've got Halo... ooh, and most of their decent Windows PC games library. So... yeah, come this time 2011 they're gonna be fiiiine... :rolleyes:

I have to disagree with the Sony comment... I now own a PS3, I have exactly 2 games for it, I have played one of the two, and I have only played it for about 3 hours. Sony does not seem concerned with Gamers at all, otherwise they would be putting out more games. Nintendo on the other hand, well these numbers show they are putting out games (Those "Great 1st Party Exclusives"), which shows they are actually more concerned about Gamers. I believe that my PS3 will largely be regulated to Blu-ray player

[shadow763]

I have to disagree with the Sony comment... I now own a PS3, I have exactly 2 games for it, I have played one of the two, and I have only played it for about 3 hours. Sony does not seem concerned with Gamers at all, otherwise they would be putting out more games. Nintendo on the other hand, well these numbers show they are putting out games (Those "Great 1st Party Exclusives"), which shows they are actually more concerned about Gamers. I believe that my PS3 will largely be regulated to Blu-ray player

I dont even know what to say to this. You have about five games that Nintendo themselves have put out. People then only buy those five games. Then thats about it. How is that giving gamers what they want? Both the PS3 and the 360 put out a bunch of 1st and 2nd party games. The PS3 especially in the past year and this year are putting out a ton. These are games designed for the more hardcore. So I don't see your point at all.

[TeeCakes]

My Target sold a shit-ton of Wiis and a Crap-load of Xbox 360's (mostly arcade, ugh) and not a whole lot of PS3s.

Your market may vary.

And?

I don't really get why everyone's so wowed by the Wii numbers-- they had a good month. Let's talk about the entire year of 2009-- they sold less units than they did in 2008. Only the PS3 and DS increased in year-over-year numbers.

It's really pointless to compare apples and oranges (Wii vs. PS3), the real key investors look at is to compare a console's present sales to past sales. The Wii (and especially the 360) are sliding in a downward trend each year, while PS3 is on an unbelievable run (and 2010 looks to be even better for Sony with the massive amounts of 1st party exclusives on slate).

This (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aBZM_mmqvZd0) is a great article saying about the same thing.

[JazGalaxy]

how many times can people play the same fucking mario brothers game. seriously?

Oh please.

Just because games HAVE MARIO IN THEM do not make them them the same. Gamers who cannot get that concept are hopeless.

When nintendo was writing the book on videogames, the concept of a sequel meant it had very little but the general heart of it's previous game. It's only in the Sony era that the word sequel means "the exact same game you played last year".

While, granted, NSMBW is the most similar to previous mario games than any other mario game before it, it's still an entirely new experience. And it's fun.

[ScottBravesFan]

Do you guys have stock in these companies that you are obsessing over? I have all three consoles but I hardly ever play the Wii. I will pick up New Super Mario Bros probably in a couple of weeks but besides the Zelda, Mario, and Metroid games there hasn't been really anything that I care to play. What games do you guys play on it that keep you coming back to it? I'm not trying to bash the Wii I've been playing Nintendo systems since the 80s I just want to know what keeps you coming back? I have the big games like Mario Galaxy, Zelda, Metroid Prime, and I have the Boom Blox games. I also have Smash Brothers and Punch Out. The only 3rd party game that I thought was really well done was No More Heroes. I'm glad the Wii is doing well and the 1st party games are great but I need more than one or two a year to play.

[RUSKULL]

"This Wii fad won't last a year"

yeah...

[TeeCakes]

I have to disagree with the Sony comment... I now own a PS3, I have exactly 2 games for it, I have played one of the two, and I have only played it for about 3 hours. Sony does not seem concerned with Gamers at all, otherwise they would be putting out more games. Nintendo on the other hand, well these numbers show they are putting out games (Those "Great 1st Party Exclusives"), which shows they are actually more concerned about Gamers. I believe that my PS3 will largely be regulated to Blu-ray player

To be clear, the Wii's sales have nothing to do with 'great 1st party exclusives'. They're largely selling consoles on their hardware's strengths, not their software. The fact that 2 titles have been on the top ten list for years (Mario Kart Wii, Wii Play) is further evidence that there's nothing worth buying on the Wii aside from the 1 or 2 games people pick up when buying the console.

FYI-- Sony's PS3 has more 90%+rated Metacritic games than Nintendo Wii has, despite the Wii having almost 3 times as much software (read: shovelware) in it's library. So LOL@ your argument that the Wii is about "gamers" first and foremost.

Finally, a small table to show buying trends year-over-year:

Wii: -5%
PS3: +22%
360: +0%
DS: +13%
PSP: -35%
PS2: -28%

Gamers seem to be buying PS3s and DS more frequently as time goes on, perhaps because all the best games are for these two systems. But pardon me for using facts to base my opinions on! :cool:

[lockwoodx]

My guess is Phones will replace consoles in the future to where the new Nintendo Wii like product will be the size of an I-touch phone and function like a DS, Phone, Movie Player, computer, system controller in one. Then you simply buy a cheap storage unit you keep by the tv that can link up to the phones and display the games on the bigger screen.

This may be a secret plot to ressurect Pac-Man Vs. but it is a dam fun game and Fun is the reason Wiis sell.

[JazGalaxy]

It's necessary to also mention that many if not all of the trendy all audience games like guitar hero and dance dance revolution sell on wii as well.

The idea that only first party titles sell on Wii is just utter BS and ignorant.

I'm not saying that third party titles DO sell, but what I am saying is that the average non-gamer consumer has NO IDEA who makes their games.

If third party companies can't make games that sell, it's not because they're not nintendo, it's because their games suck.

[Mozain]

To be clear, the Wii's sales have nothing to do with 'great 1st party exclusives'. They're largely selling consoles on their hardware's strengths, not their software. The fact that 2 titles have been on the top ten list for years (Mario Kart Wii, Wii Play) is further evidence that there's nothing worth buying on the Wii aside from the 1 or 2 games people pick up when buying the console.

FYI-- Sony's PS3 has more 90%+rated Metacritic games than Nintendo Wii has, despite the Wii having almost 3 times as much software (read: shovelware) in it's library. So LOL@ your argument that the Wii is about "gamers" first and foremost.

Finally, a small table to show buying trends year-over-year:

Wii: -5%
PS3: +22%
360: +0%
DS: +13%
PSP: -35%
PS2: -28%

Gamers seem to be buying PS3s and DS more frequently as time goes on, perhaps because all the best games are for these two systems. But pardon me for using facts to base my opinions on! :cool:

To your first point, couldn't you say the same about the PS3? The fact that there are hardly any PS3 exclusives in the 10 ten at all (at any given time) would attribute a majority of sales of a PS3 to some other factor no? Such as say, Blu-Ray movies, which just so happens to be principle reason for my purchase.

Aswell, percentage increase says very little when you speak of units of PS3s. I mean, if you only sell one console one year, and then next year sell 2 more, you have a huge increase in percentage, but not overall sales. Secondly, because it is my opinion, a metacritic score doesn't really sway me either... You might want to base your opinions on how you feel about it (which we already all know ^_^) rather than what other people say. You should also note that I never said the Wii is about gamers, but rather Nintendo is. I don't think anyone would accuse Nintendo of putting out Shovelware, but I'm always up for being proven wrong. We are talking about those "Great 1st Party Exclusives", which Sony just doesn't have (Yet) I mean I am perfectly willing to buy some when they have games. To be honest, I can't say I know what Sony is all about, but it certainly doesn't seem to be about Gamers right now. I hope it will change this year though, I'd really like to see what the hardware can do.

[JazGalaxy]

To be clear, the Wii's sales have nothing to do with 'great 1st party exclusives'. They're largely selling consoles on their hardware's strengths, not their software. The fact that 2 titles have been on the top ten list for years (Mario Kart Wii, Wii Play) is further evidence that there's nothing worth buying on the Wii aside from the 1 or 2 games people pick up when buying the console.

FYI-- Sony's PS3 has more 90%+rated Metacritic games than Nintendo Wii has, despite the Wii having almost 3 times as much software (read: shovelware) in it's library. So LOL@ your argument that the Wii is about "gamers" first and foremost.

Finally, a small table to show buying trends year-over-year:

Wii: -5%
PS3: +22%
360: +0%
DS: +13%
PSP: -35%
PS2: -28%

Gamers seem to be buying PS3s and DS more frequently as time goes on, perhaps because all the best games are for these two systems. But pardon me for using facts to base my opinions on! :cool:

didn't the price of the PS3 drop, like, a third or more in the year? And no other system did? I think that would be MUCH bigger explanation for the percentage hike than "all best games" being for the PS3...

[blackzc]

To be clear, the Wii's sales have nothing to do with 'great 1st party exclusives'. They're largely selling consoles on their hardware's strengths, not their software. The fact that 2 titles have been on the top ten list for years (Mario Kart Wii, Wii Play) is further evidence that there's nothing worth buying on the Wii aside from the 1 or 2 games people pick up when buying the console.

FYI-- Sony's PS3 has more 90%+rated Metacritic games than Nintendo Wii has, despite the Wii having almost 3 times as much software (read: shovelware) in it's library. So LOL@ your argument that the Wii is about "gamers" first and foremost.

Finally, a small table to show buying trends year-over-year:

Wii: -5%
PS3: +22%
360: +0%
DS: +13%
PSP: -35%
PS2: -28%

Gamers seem to be buying PS3s and DS more frequently as time goes on, perhaps because all the best games are for these two systems. But pardon me for using facts to base my opinions on! :cool:

I disagree about PS3 having the best games, i do agree on the sales turning around though. PS3 will end up with more units sold than the 360. Maybe the Wii but i doubt it.

[JazGalaxy]

I think it's hard to say. I think Sony, more than anything, wants to use the PS3 as a salesman for it's other electronic projects. At CES we saw it being leveraged as teh reason to buy a big new 3D sony TV.

I think it will be interesting if Nintendo comes out with it's next console and has it be independant of televisions. I would like to see what that does to sony.

I mean, I for one, have no interest in buying another tv in my lifetime.

[bean19]

PlayStation 3 1.36M
Xbox 360 1.31M


These are the interesting numbers. Sony probably expected to close the gap with the rival Xbox 360 this holiday given their price drop and the fact that the system is starting to get a better library. I honestly expected the $300 PS3 Slim would be sold out in most stores this holiday, and maybe it would have been in a year that had less unemployment. To only outsell the competition by 50K after a $100 price drop has to get Sony down.

Still, every unit sold is a Blu-Ray player out there. They gave up their place as the makers of the most popular console in order to pitch Blu-Ray and in this, at least, they have been successful.

[blackzc]

I mean, I for one, have no interest in buying another tv in my lifetime.


Wait, what are you, 60?:D

[Duskfire]

And yet, despite the PS3 having a mega price drop and one of its strongest years in exclusiveness, they still only barely slipped past the 360 who only released an expansion. All this talk of exclusives and so forth, they just arent selling well on the PS3 for whatever reason. So Sony is selling the consoles, just not the games (at least exclusive ones.)

[SwitchBlade_Jax]

To be clear, the Wii's sales have nothing to do with 'great 1st party exclusives'. They're largely selling consoles on their hardware's strengths, not their software. The fact that 2 titles have been on the top ten list for years (Mario Kart Wii, Wii Play) is further evidence that there's nothing worth buying on the Wii aside from the 1 or 2 games people pick up when buying the console.

FYI-- Sony's PS3 has more 90%+rated Metacritic games than Nintendo Wii has, despite the Wii having almost 3 times as much software (read: shovelware) in it's library. So LOL@ your argument that the Wii is about "gamers" first and foremost.

Finally, a small table to show buying trends year-over-year:

Wii: -5%
PS3: +22%
360: +0%
DS: +13%
PSP: -35%
PS2: -28%

Gamers seem to be buying PS3s and DS more frequently as time goes on, perhaps because all the best games are for these two systems. But pardon me for using facts to base my opinions on! :cool:


Those numbers don't mean anything until you account for market penetration. Once I've bought a Wii, I don't need to buy another. Also they less you sold last year, the easier it is to sell this year, making PS3 beating its previous loserish numbers a lot easier than Nintendo outselling their previous numbers. You know this. A console isn't like a hot dog. I'm not going to go rebuy one every week.

And you can try and compare the DS increase to the Wii decrease but its not going to be a proper comparison since the DSI was released but no new Wii was.

[Taiso]

It still prints money!

[Johan]

I think forum posters are more concerned about getting games they like.

Really? I thought many of them were more concerned with crapping on Nintendo's success!

I for one, have no interest in buying another tv in my lifetime.

OLED and 3D are coming in just a few years. You'll change your mind eventually.

[Anenome]

Hardware
PS3 sold 1.35 million hardware units in December 2009 in the US, which represents an 87% increase when compared to December 2008
PS3 hardware was the only home console to see double digit growth of 22% for the calendar year of 2009 (4.3 million total) when compared to the calendar year of 2008 (3.5 million total)
December 2009 marks the single highest selling month for PS3 hardware and software in the US.
PSP hardware also saw an increase of more than 122% from November to December 2009, making it a popular holiday gift item

Talking about %age gains is practically rule #1 of how to lie with numbers. Why do you keep focusing on percentages? We're not that dumb.

If I sold only 1 console last year and I sell two this year, holy hell my console is selling 100% more this year. Duh.

How many times do I have to tell you that rates of growth are a meaningless metric.

We should look at what matters to developers: total base units.

Stop being a tool.

[Froggy]

Woah, woah, woah. What are we arguing about here?

[Odinsson]

Here's a neat little infographic to go with this discussion,

http://www.onlineeducation.net/videogame/

I personally enjoy all 3 consoles. I think the "people are idiots they play the same Mario/Kart/Zelda game year in and year out" insult/argument is silly when long lasting franchises exist on the other/multi platforms, too. Gran Turismo, Final Fantasy, Halo, Call of Duty, Metal Gear. These series may have different degrees of innovation over their lifetimes, but it's pretty obvious they've adapted enough to sell like hotcakes with each release. I'm pretty sure all of us have at least one franchise we follow without question, so what's the use in knocking the ones we don't care for.


There's no denying Nintendo has mountains of crap games, but they aren't marketed towards us, so why should we care?

[Anenome]

Woah, woah, woah. What are we arguing about here?
Teecakes loaded his cannon with sand again. You'll see.

[RMan]

didn't the price of the PS3 drop, like, a third or more in the year? And no other system did? I think that would be MUCH bigger explanation for the percentage hike than "all best games" being for the PS3...
Of course you are right, it's logic that wouldn't escape your average teenager, but of course, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

[ScottBravesFan]

I mean, I for one, have no interest in buying another tv in my lifetime.



Yeah that is a weird statement to make. You think that the TV you have right now is going to last you the rest of your life? Unless you are in your 80s you will be buying another TV. They don't last forever.

[Johan]

There's no denying Nintendo has mountains of crap games, but they aren't marketed towards us, so why should we care?

We shouldn't, but people still do. It's the elitist mentality among some who are dinosaurs of gaming's glorious past, before the unwashed masses got in on it. :D

[JazGalaxy]

I should clarify that when I say I don't intend to buy another tv in my lifetime, I mean I don't intend to buy another "tv as it is today" in my lifetime. I find that they've reached the limit of what I see as being useful to my life.

I would ABSOLUTELY buy another nintendo handheld with a screen on it, or another laptop computer with a monitor built in, or even another external monitor like my apple cinema display, but not a "tv".

To me "Tv" represents a "dumb" box that just has holes to plug other stuff into and I feel like that time is at it's end. The future is in head mounted displays and projection. Anything that's not getting us closer to that feels like treading water.

[Froggy]

We shouldn't, but people still do. It's the elitist mentality among some who are dinosaurs of gaming's glorious past, before the unwashed masses got in on it. :D

I love dinosaurs!

[JazGalaxy]

OLED and 3D are coming in just a few years. You'll change your mind eventually.

I disagree.

Maybe it's just the kind of gamer I am but I see innovations in TV being a lot like the innovations in paper in the comic book industry.

I just don't care.

I've never upgraded a console or a video card because things could "look better", I upgraded on the promiset hat I would be able to play something differently than I could previously. Sony and MS have never once made a compelling argument for ugrading hardware so you can do something new. It's always been "it'll look cooler."

no thanks.

seeing how hot 3D is, I REALLY forsee Nintnedo making a Virtual Boy sequel for their next console. No TV required.

[TeeCakes]

And yet, despite the PS3 having a mega price drop and one of its strongest years in exclusiveness, they still only barely slipped past the 360 who only released an expansion. All this talk of exclusives and so forth, they just arent selling well on the PS3 for whatever reason. So Sony is selling the consoles, just not the games (at least exclusive ones.)

Because only the best games are in the top 10 every month, right? :rolleyes:

PS3's got the best games of the next-gen consoles (I use that term loosely for the Wii, obviously). Metacritic and any gaming periodical you read with objective journalists will tell you that. But by all means, go ahead and make a laughable case for Wii Play and Wii Fit being better games.

Why should any GAMER care how much a title is selling? People are bufoons, they'll buy whatever everyone else is buying if it has successful marketing. I only care about having fun when I game, and DS and PS3 are the only two consoles I need for the best of the best in gaming, period.

And I can't help anybody who fails at simple logic-- if the PS3 has a 22% year-over-year increase it makes investors happy. If the competition has negative/neutral numbers people start to ask uncomfortable questions about the future. As a gamer, none of this really matters save the fact that the PS3's future looks ever-so-much more promising than any of the console competitors. (e.g.-- more sales for PS3 = more exclusive games, more price-cuts, more 3rd party developer support, less lazy devs :D)

[DarkPhenomenon]

Why should any GAMER care how much a title is selling? People are bufoons, they'll buy whatever everyone else is buying if it has successful marketing. I only care about having fun when I game

Don't you realize those two are tied together? You're right in so far as it doesn't matter the *the* top selling titles are, but if the titles you have fun with sell like sweaty donkey balls, the company that puts out those funs games won't last very long and/or those types of games you enjoy playing will no longer be made. That's why you should care somewhat how well titles are selling.

Nintendo's doing well even if they are selling the same titles, there's no denying that. So what if there's a handful of successful titles (I'm not even saying that's true, it's a what is situation)? If Wii fit is selling wii's it's basically selling a peice of workout equipment. If Nintendo can continue selling this peice of workout equipment (ie a Wii and Wii fit) Nintendo can remain successul. Does that mean the Wii sucks? Nope, it's stength and success just may not be driven by what we expect from a gaming console

[JazGalaxy]

[QUOTE=TeeCakes;1833308]

PS3's got the best games of the next-gen consoles (I use that term loosely for the Wii, obviously). Metacritic and any gaming periodical you read with objective journalists will tell you that. QUOTE]


... what?

Dude... I want to make a journey to meet you in real life to see if you are really like this. I mean... you can't be. You just can't.

[Anenome]

seeing how hot 3D is, I REALLY forsee Nintnedo making a Virtual Boy sequel for their next console. No TV required.
Won't happen. Nintendo needs social gaming. It's the Wii's reason to exist. For a very real reason, most of us don't Wii because it is

A. Most of us are hardcore solo gamers who play cooperatively on the side.

And it is

B. Difficult or impossible, or at least frustrating, to play anything cooperative in a hardcore fashion. When a game's only really fun when people play with you your time devoted to it can be limited.

The genius of the Wii is that a cooperative gaming experience is also it's own advertisement. There's lot of people who only play Wii when friends come over. I can attest to that. Most of the time people come over and want to play Super Punchout Wii, or Smash. Rest of the time I PC game the hardcore stuff.

[Anenome]

... what?

Dude... I want to make a journey to meet you in real life to see if you are really like this. I mean... you can't be. You just can't.
I've read Tee's blog. Tee's actually a decent human being about whom there is quite a bit to admire. And I found myself generally liking him personally.

Until you ask him about the PS3 of course. In that area he's an irrational fanboy, and probably shows that he would be extremely susceptible to being brainwashed by a cult. Most of us grow out of rabid fanboyism when we find we have jobs and, now, enough cash to afford all the systems if we wanted. Not him apparently.

[Duskfire]

Because only the best games are in the top 10 every month, right? :rolleyes:

PS3's got the best games of the next-gen consoles (I use that term loosely for the Wii, obviously). Metacritic and any gaming periodical you read with objective journalists will tell you that. But by all means, go ahead and make a laughable case for Wii Play and Wii Fit being better games.

Why should any GAMER care how much a title is selling? People are bufoons, they'll buy whatever everyone else is buying if it has successful marketing. I only care about having fun when I game, and DS and PS3 are the only two consoles I need for the best of the best in gaming, period.

And I can't help anybody who fails at simple logic-- if the PS3 has a 22% year-over-year increase it makes investors happy. If the competition has negative/neutral numbers people start to ask uncomfortable questions about the future. As a gamer, none of this really matters save the fact that the PS3's future looks ever-so-much more promising than any of the console competitors. (e.g.-- more sales for PS3 = more exclusive games, more price-cuts, more 3rd party developer support, less lazy devs :D)

Well, all that is a matter of opinion, but who cares what critics think. Its based on sales. Okami for instance is a brilliant game; that didn't stop Clover though from making no money and going under. Thats just one of the many examples. At the end of the day, you cant go to your shareholders and whatnot and say, "we made a great game, look, we got a 9.2 on metacritic. But we sold 7 copies."

You seem to be making two somewhat contradictory arguments here. One is: PS3 is selling heaps of units now so its awesome. And the second one is: even though PS3 isnt selling many games, its awesome.

As I said, no matter your argument at the end, PS3 only had such a rise in sales because of its paycut. Any console would have a rise in sales because of this. Its got nothing to do with the quality of the system (even though I do agree that its very good quality.) And despite all its features and its apparent awesome exclusives and etc etc, it still managed to just get past the 360 on sales.

Just buy all consoles, it makes life easier.

[Anenome]

Imagine if Sony went bankrupt and was bought-out by MS; I'd fear for Tee's sanity :P

[altaraxic]

yaaay

to tell you the truth I'd rather be playing a mario sequel than a COD sequel.

[blackzc]

Why should any GAMER care how much a title is selling? People are bufoons, they'll buy whatever everyone else is buying if it has successful marketing.



Yeah and these games are generally a little better than average, its not like they are crap. These bufoon gamers also have more fun than REAL GAMERS do, they can just play a game where as people like you have to look at how much fucking money they spent marketing it. :rolleyes: Its not like they are getting ripped off.

When did playing a fucking game become such pathetic negativity? Not that it will happen but ill be glad when hardcore gamers go away. Or the market marginalizes them so badly they find a new hobby.

[Johan]

...ill be glad when hardcore gamers go away. Or the market marginalizes them so badly they find a new hobby.

Marginalization of hardcore gamers is already happening. It's a sight to see, too, as they writhe in agony over the latest software or trend that offends their official status as "keepers of the one true way" in gaming. :D

[Anenome]

Marginalization of the hardcore has always happened. Hell it happened to classical music in Bach's time. He kept writing hardcore and was lost in obscurity. Meanwhile Vivaldi was a fucking millionaire--with his hairbrained simplistic music.

Vivaldi = the Wii
Bach = Supercomputer gaming.

[TeeCakes]

Yeah and these games are generally a little better than average, its not like they are crap. These bufoon gamers also have more fun than REAL GAMERS do, they can just play a game where as people like you have to look at how much fucking money they spent marketing it. :rolleyes: Its not like they are getting ripped off.

:facepalm:

What are you smoking? So people are having more fun playing Mario Kart Wii for 3 damn years instead of playing the dozens of 90%+ Metacritic-rated games coming out for 360/PS3 every month?

You keep dreaming, "real" gamer.

[TeeCakes]

... what?

http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/105/1056419/ign-au-console-showdown-2009-x2013-part-4-20091217083159789.jpg
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/105/1056419/ign-au-console-showdown-2009-x2013-part-4-20091217084500998.jpg


Things only get worse from here for Wii. In terms of releases that scored 9.0 or over, the Xbox 360 has 17 (6.7%), the PS3 has 23 (11.92%) and the Wii has – ouch – 6 (2.1%). [FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR OF 2009!!11!1]

That's "what". Feel free to keep ignoring the facts (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/105/1056419p1.html) all you want though, Chuckles. Might wanna stay informed or something though, instead of living in your own personal jazzy galaxy where the PS3 doesn't rate better than the competition in every critical category.

Critical acclaim > Popular acclaim

[Capt_Thad]

Critical acclaim > Popular acclaim

Not to go against the rest of your campaign there... but as a guy who works in a theater, I'm going to have to say that is rarely true. Not if you're trying to make money that is. If you're looking to gain prestige among a certain niche crowd more than generate revenue, then it stands.

[Grumsh]

The important details are as follows:

During December, Wii and DS led hardware sales with 3.81 and 3.31 million units, respectively, and Nintendo's New Super Mario Bros Wii topped Modern Warfare 2 on the software charts. Nintendo, somewhat vindicated after months of close scrutiny, pointed to the best year in console gaming history for its DS, despite Wii hardware down 5.7 percent for the year.

Meanwhile, the PlayStation 3 ratcheted up 87 percent year over year growth in December, and with 1.35 million hardware units sold for the month, Sony saw its best PS3 hardware/software month ever, too -- although a close look reveals a slight decline in revenue and 4 percent loss in overall Sony marketshare, year on year.

As for Microsoft, it sold 1.3 million units in the month, keeping its tie ratio constant at 8.8. Although its overall Xbox 360 revenue was slightly down, the system remains a soldier of third-party software revenue, generating 43 percent of the total during the year.


Emphasis added with bold fonts etc.

[Anenome]

Not to mention that Sony secured several of those 9.0 titles by paying the developer to bring the game to their system exclusively, effectively robbing gamers on the 360 of a title that would've been multiplatform. Gee, thanks Sony for being a dick just to make yourself look better.

Secondly, choosing the 9.0 metric is a way of covering up the much less nice percentages that would result if you looked at the more realistic 8.0 metric, which would tend to favor the larger release bases of 360/Wii. I guarantee the PS3 looks bad when you compare 8.0 titles.

And, yet again, Tee fails to grasp that a percentage increase means very little, as Grumsh pointed out, they increased their percentage and still lost market share. El oh el.

Critical > commercial? Tell that to the people that made Okami (and then went out of business), silly fanboy.

[TeeCakes]

Not to go against the rest of your campaign there... but as a guy who works in a theater, I'm going to have to say that is rarely true. Not if you're trying to make money that is. If you're looking to gain prestige among a certain niche crowd more than generate revenue, then it stands.

Again, this is coming from the mind of an end-user, not the production team. Why would a gamer care that every grandma within 5 miles is buying Wii Fit? Does knowing that make the game any less pointless/more fun?

But it's appropriate that you bring up the theater, since I loathe virtually everything that Hollywood has become-- with the Twilights and the Transformers sequels ad nausea. Reading all the negative responses to my comments in this thread, it's almost like some people WANT the video game industry to become like this-- for developers to say "screw the hardcore crowd, we're gonna market only to kids and grandmas with shallow titles from now on".

Thank god companies like Sony are still more interested in critical acclaim in spite of the damage they're taking to their bottom line for not going casual. Going from those charts I quoted earlier, it's clear that the PS3 is the console to support if you want to avoid perpetual Miss March-type games, and enjoy the greatest amount of The White Ribbon-types.

[TeeCakes]

Not to mention that Sony secured several of those 9.0 titles by paying the developer to bring the game to their system exclusively, effectively robbing gamers on the 360 of a title that would've been multiplatform. Gee, thanks Sony for being a dick just to make yourself look better.

Not this again. Prove it with evidence or stop spreading rumors.

Secondly, choosing the 9.0 metric is a way of covering up the much less nice percentages that would result if you looked at the more realistic 8.0 metric, which would tend to favor the larger release bases of 360/Wii. I guarantee the PS3 looks bad when you compare 8.0 titles.

http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/105/1056419/ign-au-console-showdown-2009-x2013-part-4-20091217084458889.jpg

Haha, you're right! Look at how more realistic this graph is! :D

And, yet again, Tee fails to grasp that a percentage increase means very little, as Grumsh pointed out, they increased their percentage and still lost market share. El oh el.

Losing marketshare to the Wii means nothing to Sony. As long as they continue their dominance of the next-gen arena (which they are against MS).

Critical > commercial? Tell that to the people that made Okami (and then went out of business), silly fanboy.

The funny part is that Okami released on the Wii and got LESS sales than it did on the PS2. So tell me again how the Wii's popularity is better for gaming when it only supports the 1st party releases that slither out at a snail's pace each year?

[Anenome]

Reading all the negative responses to my comments in this thread, it's almost like some people WANT the video game industry to become like this-- for developers to say "screw the hardcore crowd, we're gonna market only to kids and grandmas with shallow titles from now on".
Yeah, it's a shame how ever since Hollywood went big time, directors like Tarantino can't make violent movies anymore. Big shame.

[Capt_Thad]

But it's appropriate that you bring up the theater, since I loathe virtually everything that Hollywood has become-- with the Twilights and the Transformers sequels ad nausea. Reading all the negative responses to my comments in this thread, it's almost like some people WANT the video game industry to become like this-- for developers to say "screw the hardcore crowd, we're gonna market only to kids and grandmas with shallow titles from now on".

Guess I should of said I work at an Indie theater, not much in regards towards typical Hollywood here. That said, the point not only applies to us seeing less business then the mainstream guys around here, but also to the seats we sell in regards to critic favorites and audience favorites.

We do have some exceptional films though. Running The Messenger (http://www.themessengermovie.com/) right now, and Red Cliff (http://www.redclifffilm.com/) next week (we're generally a one movie per week place). If you're distraught with film selection, I'd suggest looking up your local Indie theater. Great movies (usually, ymmv) and plenty of seating. Our theater also has a full bar (and we don't care about people sneaking food in), so that's a plus for people seeing films here.

[Anenome]

Not this again. Prove it with evidence or stop spreading rumors.
It was proven in that thread, and not by just me, go back and read it.


http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/105/1056419/ign-au-console-showdown-2009-x2013-part-4-20091217084458889.jpg

Haha, you're right! Look at how more realistic this graph is! :D
I would expect that to be the case since the Wii has the handicap of the experimental control system to slog through. But changing the subject doesn't help you. If anything it's an implicit agreement that my 8.0 metric making the Wii and other look good is likely true.

Losing marketshare to the Wii means nothing to Sony. As long as they continue their dominance of the next-gen arena (which they are against MS).
Generations are defined not by graphic quality and features but by current competition. The idea that the Wii isn't next gen is ridiculous. It actually makes the PS3 look worse, because you're implying that a next gen system, the PS3, is being defeated in sales by a last-gen system. That would be outright humiliated.

The tables can be easily turned around, however. The Wii features "next-gen" control system, and the PS3 and 360 feature previous gen control systems. Thuse neither the PS3 nor 360 are truly in the "next gen" and in fact are still working on their own systems.

Why you continue to try to create silly rhetorical statements like this I don't know. It's both petty and pathetic.


The funny part is that Okami released on the Wii and got LESS sales than it did on the PS2. So tell me again how the Wii's popularity is better for gaming when it only supports the 1st party releases that slither out at a snail's pace each year?
Again, changing the subject rather than conceding the point. It's like arguing with an irrational woman; or my own mother.

So you agree that Okami was a critical success and a commercial failure, yes? You raise a different issue that's not pertinent to that question, which is platform released on.

Guess what, that statement defines the PS3 too: The PS3 as a console is a critical success and a commercial failure, having lost over $4 billion dollars for sony so far. That's a 4 with nine zeroes worth of losses. Sony could've never released the PSX or the PS2 or the PS3 and would've had more money at this point. It's hard to fail harder.

Sony is holding onto the edge of the cliff by their fingernails trying to just hold on. They'd like nothing more than for the PS4 to be released and the next gen to come.

Honestly I wish them luck. That's the difference between me and you. I'm considering a PS3 purchase just because I like Sony's motion control over Natal.

I'm free to actually look at what's objectively better and have tons of fun. I probably won't decide until I see games though, that's just prudent.

[Grumsh]

Again, this is coming from the mind of an end-user, not the production team. Why would a gamer care that every grandma within 5 miles is buying Wii Fit? Does knowing that make the game any less pointless/more fun?

But it's appropriate that you bring up the theater, since I loathe virtually everything that Hollywood has become-- with the Twilights and the Transformers sequels ad nausea. Reading all the negative responses to my comments in this thread, it's almost like some people WANT the video game industry to become like this-- for developers to say "screw the hardcore crowd, we're gonna market only to kids and grandmas with shallow titles from now on".

Thank god companies like Sony are still more interested in critical acclaim in spite of the damage they're taking to their bottom line for not going casual. Going from those charts I quoted earlier, it's clear that the PS3 is the console to support if you want to avoid perpetual Miss March-type games, and enjoy the greatest amount of The White Ribbon-types.


Do you really think a company cares about critical acclaim more than profitability? Maybe I am reading too much into your reply, but you don't honestly feel that way do you?

[TeeCakes]

Guess I should of said I work at an Indie theater, not much in regards towards typical Hollywood here. That said, the point not only applies to us seeing less business then the mainstream guys around here, but also to the seats we sell in regards to critic favorites and audience favorites.

We do have some exceptional films though. Running The Messenger (http://www.themessengermovie.com/) right now, and Red Cliff (http://www.redclifffilm.com/) next week (we're generally a one movie per week place). If you're distraught with film selection, I'd suggest looking up your local Indie theater. Great movies (usually, ymmv) and plenty of seating. Our theater also has a full bar (and we don't care about people sneaking food in), so that's a plus for people seeing films here.

+10 INT, +10 WIZ

Oh yeah, I love indy theaters-- when I used to live in Sarasota, FL (a total art-fag town with the heavy senor-citizen population and the Ringling Bros. Art Museum/College located there) I had a few friends who worked at Burns Court (http://www.filmsociety.org/burns_court_about.cfm). Had some of the best times of my life in that old place!

[Mozain]

O.k Tee, I just have to wonder, and this is an honest question and I will defer to your knowledge of the PS3 for it. I think anyone would agree that great games sell well, and great games can also not sell so well, but shitty games do not sell (And I am talking the big numbers here, the ones the matter). So, why is it that with all the "Great 1st Party Exclusives" on the PS3, that we do not see the kind of numbers to support how great they are? I mean, sure there are some great games that just don't sell, but a vast majority of the PS3 exclusives just aren't selling (If I am remembering the Top 10's correctly). Why is this? I am honestly wondering.

Secondly, Tee, you seem to think that Nintendo doing well is bad for gamers. I fail to see how. Shitty games will be made on every platform (I would be interested to see how the Metacritic scores of 4.0 or lower would compare on the Wii and the PS2, I am willing to bet the PS2 has a much larger number of 4.0s or lower, do you have these?). Nintendo is all about fun, and gamers (and if I must use the term "Real Gamers") only care about fun, they don't care about a "console of choice", they own them all. They don't care about who is competing with who, they don't care about graphics, they don't care about scores, they care about fun. Gaming is supposed to be fun, and the bottom line is that the Wii is fun, people may not agree with it, but people wouldn't buy so many if it wasn't fun. I feel a little sad for you that you seem to have closed yourself off to all other consoles but the PS3, join the rest of us here in just having fun ^_^

[Capt_Thad]

+10 INT, +10 WIZ

Oh yeah, I love indy theaters-- when I used to live in Sarasota, FL (a total art-fag town with the heavy senor-citizen population and the Ringling Bros. Art Museum/College located there) I had a few friends who worked at Burns Court (http://www.filmsociety.org/burns_court_about.cfm). Had some of the best times of my life in that old place!

My manager was manager at Burns Court for a few years. Had to leave his job 'cause his fiancee got accepted to UF. Definitely one of the goto spots in Sarasota though.

[TeeCakes]

Do you really think a company cares about critical acclaim more than profitability? Maybe I am reading too much into your reply, but you don't honestly feel that way do you?

Judging by the facts (the PS3 has the least games per year, but more games in the 90% percentile than ) I do. What is your reason for believing otherwise, and where is your evidence?

BTW, Sony's 'gameplan' of focusing on great exclusives is obviously their way of improving sales (in other words, critical acclaim = increased profitability). It would seem with their record-breaking December NPD sales this tactic is working.

[TeeCakes]

My manager was manager at Burns Court for a few years. Had to leave his job 'cause his fiancee got accepted to UF. Definitely one of the goto spots in Sarasota though.

Small world! I probably met him at some point since I was over there practically every weekend. That place is literally the only non-yuppy establishment to hang out in town.

[blackzc]

:facepalm:

What are you smoking? So people are having more fun playing Mario Kart Wii for 3 damn years instead of playing the dozens of 90%+ Metacritic-rated games coming out for 360/PS3 every month?

You keep dreaming, "real" gamer.

What about, stuntman for the 360? Its a good average game. Its not either mario kart or metal gear, there is a whole other world out there. And if you would jump off your soapbox you might have a little fun playing these not so serious overly dramatic average games.

[blackzc]

Also i do appreciate the big games like FF and metal gear. Its guys like you that have to dog everything else out because its not selling like you think it should be that i have the problem with.

[Mozain]

:facepalm:

What are you smoking? So people are having more fun playing Mario Kart Wii for 3 damn years instead of playing the dozens of 90%+ Metacritic-rated games coming out for 360/PS3 every month?

You keep dreaming, "real" gamer.

Oh, also... yes, judging by the numbers (We all know how you like numbers to support things ^_^) More people are infact enjoying Mario Kart Wii and than the other 90%+ metacritic-rated games coming out for the 360/PS3 (Largely PS3 I would assume) because more people have bought it.

[TeeCakes]

Ane, you can easily click on the IGN to prove yourself wrong about the 8.0 and over charts. The Wii is always pathetic in comparison to the PS3. Everything else you've said is, as Johan calls it, extreme hyperbole and thus not worth responding to. Ta!

O.k Tee, I just have to wonder, and this is an honest question and I will defer to your knowledge of the PS3 for it. I think anyone would agree that great games sell well, and great games can also not sell so well, but shitty games do not sell (And I am talking the big numbers here, the ones the matter). So, why is it that with all the "Great 1st Party Exclusives" on the PS3, that we do not see the kind of numbers to support how great they are? I mean, sure there are some great games that just don't sell, but a vast majority of the PS3 exclusives just aren't selling (If I am remembering the Top 10's correctly). Why is this? I am honestly wondering.

1) This is the NPD we're talking about here. The PS3 is a severe underdog in this region compared to the 360 and Wii, in terms of total hardware units sold. Lower numbers of PS3 owners = lower software numbers.

2) Uncharted 2 just sold over 1M units, so they're selling just fine-- they're just not putting up New Super Mario Bros. numbers because...

3) The Wii has almost no good games. So when it DOES release a good game (New Super Mario Bros.) the Wii owners will buy it in droves. They're STILL buying Mario Kart Wii because there's literally nothing else worth buying. I think comparing this phenomena to the numbers the 360 and PS3 can put up with their exclusive titles is counter-productive, since they have no problems putting out multiple 1M sellers each year and arguably balances out the Wii's software success (the Wii constantly has the same 3-4 games in the Top 10 for several months at a time, thus cannibalizing the majority of their software library).

Secondly, Tee, you seem to think that Nintendo doing well is bad for gamers. I fail to see how. Shitty games will be made on every platform (I would be interested to see how the Metacritic scores of 4.0 or lower would compare on the Wii and the PS2, I am willing to bet the PS2 has a much larger number of 4.0s or lower, do you have these?). Nintendo is all about fun, and gamers (and if I must use the term "Real Gamers") only care about fun, they don't care about a "console of choice", they own them all. They don't care about who is competing with who, they don't care about graphics, they don't care about scores, they care about fun. Gaming is supposed to be fun, and the bottom line is that the Wii is fun, people may not agree with it, but people wouldn't buy so many if it wasn't fun. I feel a little sad for you that you seem to have closed yourself off to all other consoles but the PS3, join the rest of us here in just having fun ^_^

First of all, I don't own a PS3 (sold it). I own a PS2, and I assure you I'm having MUCH more fun than any Wii owner is with the PS2's library! :D

My roommates own, respectively, a Wii and a 360. I have a decent gaming PC. So please, don't assume that I'm closing myself of to anything like Anenome and other fallacious antagonists do in this thread. I'm personally waiting until FFXIII to buy another PS3, but until then my roommate's boyfriend has a PS3 and I'm getting my God of War Collection fix anytime I want. :)

Sure, I have fun with the Wii-- playing Wii Sports and Mario Kart Wii. These are literally the ONLY games we ever play on the Wii. This is not a good thing, please don't pretend like it is.

Now, take at look at the December NPD results again. What do you think developers will say about the Wii's success? Well, back in 2007 when the Wii was already a surefire hit, devs jumped on the bandwagon and made a bunch of games that tried to capitalize on the hardware's success. Now I ask you-- did they succeed?

Fast forward to 2010, and the Wii 1st party lineup is STILL the only thing that sells on the Wii. The best-selling 3rd party title for 360/PS3 is WELL behind the Wii's best-selling titles. If I were a 3rd party game developer at this point, I would have my spirit broken at these numbers. Just like the Okami example, it's almost certain that anything I release would be a commercial failure in comparison to the Wii 1st-party juggernauts. So why even bother making a critically-acclaimed game? Let's focus on making games we know will sell-- i.e. shallow, uninspired shovelware with cute mascots and heavy marketing to counter the utter lack of funfactor. To do anything else would be to lose money, quite literally.

Is this the direction you want gaming to go in?

[TeeCakes]

Also i do appreciate the big games like FF and metal gear. Its guys like you that have to dog everything else out because its not selling like you think it should be that i have the problem with.

:facepalm: x 2

I'm not interested in things "not selling like I think it should be". As I said in my first comment, it's nice that North Americans are finally seeing the PS3 as a better value like the rest of the world already did-- but in the end I'm not a CEO of Sony. If nobody buys Uncharted 3 that's not going to make my enjoyment of the game suffer any bit.

[Mozain]

Fast forward to 2010, and the Wii 1st party lineup is STILL the only thing that sells on the Wii. The best-selling 3rd party title for 360/PS3 is WELL behind the Wii's best-selling titles. If I were a 3rd party game developer at this point, I would have my spirit broken at these numbers. Just like the Okami example, it's almost certain that anything I release would be a commercial failure in comparison to the Wii 1st-party juggernauts. So why even bother making a critically-acclaimed game? Let's focus on making games we know will sell-- i.e. shallow, uninspired shovelware with cute mascots and heavy marketing to counter the utter lack of funfactor. To do anything else would be to lose money, quite literally.

Is this the direction you want gaming to go in?

Well now I have to be the one to ask for proof. Show me which "shallow, uninspired shovelware with cute mascots and heavy marketing that countered an utter lack of funfactor" that has actually sold well. Please do because I for one just don't see shovelware selling well at all. So yes, this is a perfectly fine direction, one in which only games that deserve to sell well, actually do. Sure, there are examples of great games (Okami for example) that do not sell well which deserve to, but this kind of thing existed long before the Wii. Hell Okami didn't sell well on the PS2, and it certainly didn't sell well on the Wii. But in no way is a game that is selling well undeserving of it.

[Anenome]

Tee, if you had any credibility I might've bothered responding. I'll let the readers decide who's engaging in hyperbole.

[Grumsh]

Fast forward to 2010, and the Wii 1st party lineup is STILL the only thing that sells on the Wii. The best-selling 3rd party title for 360/PS3 is WELL behind the Wii's best-selling titles. If I were a 3rd party game developer at this point, I would have my spirit broken at these numbers. Just like the Okami example, it's almost certain that anything I release would be a commercial failure in comparison to the Wii 1st-party juggernauts. So why even bother making a critically-acclaimed game? Let's focus on making games we know will sell-- i.e. shallow, uninspired shovelware with cute mascots and heavy marketing to counter the utter lack of funfactor. To do anything else would be to lose money, quite literally.

Is this the direction you want gaming to go in?

Call of Duty 2 would beg to differ just to use 1 example. A good game I guarantee you would not fail on the Wii especially if we use your logic that Wii owners are starving for a good game, hence why all 1st party games sell like gangbusters.

[SwitchBlade_Jax]

On VGChartz:

Top 50 game sales of all time has 35 Nintendo titles.
*6 of those are Wii games, that is when you DON'T count Wii sports, Wii Fit and Wii Fit Plus. So 9 if you count them all.
*No PS3 games until spot 75 which is CoD2:MW2, not even a Sony produce or exclusive game. Also outsold by its 360 counter part, #43
*There are 10 more Nintendo games on the list BEFORE the #75 spot.
*Two of those are Wii games, one being Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games produced by Sega
*Sony only has 5 games in the top 50, all 4 Gran Turismos and FF7

I haven't found the sales totals to date for all games for each system so I can't say for those but if the PS3 has the "best games" why don't they sell?

All game reviews are subjective. You could score every PS3 game 1000, won't matter if they don't sell.

Why do people complain about Nintendo outselling other companies on their console? They have always done that since the damn NES. They may of been beaten by someone on the SNES but I don't think I can find the numbers to prove either way. Nintendo would outsell any damn one no matter the console. They make good games.

So claim the best games all you want, but Sony still hasn't out sold DUCK HUNT for the NES.

Duck Hunt for NES: 28.3 Million
PS3 Consoles: 26.9 Million

They did just recently move past Nintendogs though at only 23.4 Million.

[TekkenZaibatsu]

how many times can people play the same fucking mario brothers game. seriously?

I concur. I mean, I'm a HUGE Mario fan (who STILL plays SMB3 religiously to this VERY day), but New Super Mario Bros. was played once on my DS and I haven't touched it since. I really do wonder how the same game can possibly be sold THAT much on two different systems.

[TekkenZaibatsu]

I feel a little sad for you that you seem to have closed yourself off to all other consoles but the PS3, join the rest of us here in just having fun ^_^

I gotta say, a few games on the Wii are fun to me, but as a "hardcore" gamer who's been playing games his whole life (and not a mother, grandmother or child that is new to gaming), I don't find the massive library of terrible games (that require ridiculous movement of a controller) "fun." From what I've seen there have been many games that attempted to REALLY take full advantage over the "potential" the Wii had with it's motion sensing, and all I've seen is failure to do so.

IMO, the only reason the Wii sells so well is because in ADDITION to the "hardcore" crowd that actually enjoys some games on it, add the endless amount of crowds that are new gamers and are attracted to its style and look what you have.

In short, my point is that the Wii manages to sell well because of the base it is catered to, in spite of all its massive failures.

[SwitchBlade_Jax]

In short, my point is that the Wii manages to sell well because of the base it is catered to, in spite of all its massive failures.


The Wii did everything thing that Nintendo wanted it to do, how could it ever be a failure? Just b/c something isnt how YOU want it to be doesn't make it a failure. If that was the case then I would call all the consoles this generation a failure. The is isn't HD or very online friendly at all, Xbox live isn't free, the PS3 is backwards compatible and the Blu-ray player in it is a moot point now that I bought a Blu-ray player on Black Friday for $78.


More from VGChartz:
PS3 total game sales to date ~207 million units from 411 titles.
Wii total game sales to date ~447 million units from 809 titles.
Wii total game sales to date not counting Wii Sports and only the top 411 titles ~369 million units.

*Mahjong Taikai IV is listed at the 411 position for PS3 at 0.01 million units sold.
*Bratz Kidz is listed at the 411 position for Wii at 0.12 million units sold.

If you can find any major fault in Nintendo, then Sony is in some serious trouble.

[SwitchBlade_Jax]

The Wii is isn't HD or very online friendly at all, Xbox live isn't free, the PS3 isn't backwards compatible and the Blu-ray player in it is a moot point now that I bought a Blu-ray player on Black Friday for $78.

*whoops, edits made in bold

[lockwoodx]

http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/105/1056419/ign-au-console-showdown-2009-x2013-part-4-20091217083159789.jpg
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/105/1056419/ign-au-console-showdown-2009-x2013-part-4-20091217084500998.jpg



That's "what". Feel free to keep ignoring the facts (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/105/1056419p1.html) all you want though, Chuckles. Might wanna stay informed or something though, instead of living in your own personal jazzy galaxy where the PS3 doesn't rate better than the competition in every critical category.

Critical acclaim > Popular acclaim


LOL reviews... Gurtsman proved they are less than credible.

[blackzc]

I concur. I mean, I'm a HUGE Mario fan (who STILL plays SMB3 religiously to this VERY day), but New Super Mario Bros. was played once on my DS and I haven't touched it since. I really do wonder how the same game can possibly be sold THAT much on two different systems.


You still play SMB3 because it takes you back, back to a simpler time of barn dances and buggy rides, before life was cheapened by the heartless internet...

Anyhoo the point is there is a kid right now playing the shit out of new SMB and will do the same thing in 20 years. Not that its a better game but you get the idea.

[TekkenZaibatsu]

The Wii did everything thing that Nintendo wanted it to do, how could it ever be a failure? Just b/c something isnt how YOU want it to be doesn't make it a failure.

LOL. Certainly I don't need to mention how many basic and technical aspects the Wii lacks or does poorly. I believe to any "hardcore gamer," that's a big letdown.

[SwitchBlade_Jax]

LOL. Certainly I don't need to mention how many basic and technical aspects the Wii lacks or does poorly. I believe to any "hardcore gamer," that's a big letdown.


You're not understanding. As history will write about the Wii, it will not be called a failure. It may fail to meet my desires for the ultimate system, but so do all the other systems. All this generation consoles are let downs. No doubt by anyone here. But the Wii has been a huge commerical success and will not be written about as being a failed system when compared to something like the N64. The Wii attained all of its goals and then shattered all common expectations of game consoles, especially when combined with Xbox Live's penetration creating a standard for game console's internet connectivity.

When the next consoles come out if Sony doesn't find any new ideas, because they didn't have one fresh idea be fruitful this round, then they will only trying to imitate Nintendo and MS. That is not the position to be in when only 3 years ago you were the industry's leader.

Sony spent all their time focused on trying to win the Blu-ray war and their console suffered. They were not thinking about how to advance gaming. MS is always looking to the future and Nintendo, well I don't know how they come up with their shit. Nintendo is the company that released a controller with 3 handles on it and was still a finacial success with that console(I said finacial, not commerical).

[Johan]

LOL. Certainly I don't need to mention how many basic and technical aspects the Wii lacks or does poorly. I believe to any "hardcore gamer," that's a big letdown.

LOL. :rolleyes:

That island you're on must be getting pretty lonely and isolated. At least you'll have fresh water, what with all the bitter tears from the "hardcore gamers" there. :D

You're not understanding.

He understands. It just doesn't cater to his whims as a "hardcore gamer" and he, like other elitists, can't tolerate that. It's fun to watch.

[Mozain]

I gotta say, a few games on the Wii are fun to me, but as a "hardcore" gamer who's been playing games his whole life (and not a mother, grandmother or child that is new to gaming), I don't find the massive library of terrible games (that require ridiculous movement of a controller) "fun." From what I've seen there have been many games that attempted to REALLY take full advantage over the "potential" the Wii had with it's motion sensing, and all I've seen is failure to do so.

Well again, I am unsure of the numbers but I am more than willing to bet that the PS2 has, at this time, a much larger library of terrible games on it. Bad games on a system does not tarnish a system. It is a lack of good games which can do it. And one may argue that there are no good games on the Wii, or the PS3, or the 360, and certainly that is a valid point. I personally feel that there are no games worth enjoying on the PS3, not one single title made me want to run out and get one, and I'm a guy who bought the first X-box just because of an online component for Guilty Gear (Which I already owned on the PS2 and which turned out to be oh so terrible lol). I bought one for the Blu-Ray with the expectation that in the future there may be a game I really want to play.

The numbers for Wii games sold do say there is more to the games than people give it credit for, and I believe the so called "Hardcore" gamers (how one can call themselves "hardcore" without owning all the systems I will never understand) sell themselves short by thinking it is all waggle and no substance. If the Wii sells games because people are starved for anything good and will grasp at the simplest thread of a "decent" game, well PS3 owners much be terribly anemic... I know I am.

[Johan]

Bad games on a system does not tarnish a system. It is a lack of good games which can do it.

This is true, but to hardcore elitists like TZ, the presence of titles on the platform that he doesn't approve of reinforces his belief that he is more than justified in crapping on the system as a whole.

It's a bit like walking in a store, seeing some stuff on the shelves you don't like, and urinating on the store's floor to express your displeasure at their choice to stock stuff you don't buy. It's moronic, to say the least. Don't like the selection? Terrific...don't buy and walk out! Take the pee/crap with you, too!

It's a big world out there, and gaming is a bigger and bigger hobby as the years go by. There's room for people to find what they enjoy and enjoy what they find, without feeling the need to denigrate what they don't like. For some, it's hard to let go of being the center of the gaming world's attention. That's tough to see slipping away for them. It's entertaining for those who just enjoy playing the games, however, and don't care where they land or how to get them.

[TeeCakes]

Show me which "shallow, uninspired shovelware with cute mascots and heavy marketing that countered an utter lack of funfactor" that has actually sold well. Please do because I for one just don't see shovelware selling well at all.

*There are 10 more Nintendo games on the list BEFORE the #75 spot.
*Two of those are Wii games, one being Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games produced by Sega

Metacritic's got this stinker rated at a very generous 67/100, but I trust the unbaised Game Informer review (4.0/10) the most.

BTW, Switchblade, you should pay more attention-- those are nice stats and all, but I was never making a case for best selling = best quality games. Where have you been? :confused:

[Anenome]

Metacritic's got this stinker rated at a very generous 67/100, but I trust the unbaised Game Informer review (4.0/10) the most.

BTW, Switchblade, you should pay more attention-- those are nice stats and all, but I was never making a case for best selling = best quality games. Where have you been? :confused:
Yeah, metacritic, which is agglomeration of reviews from all over the web, is biased by Gamer Informer, a lone voice, is not. You actually think we're all stupid, don't you? You cherry pick a single reviewer to keep your point intact after it's been demolished because you can't admit to being wrong? What the hell is wrong with you? You've got a lot of growing up to do. God help the woman that marries you if you don't change this terrible personality trait of yours. Take some responsibility and face facts.

[TeeCakes]

Well again, I am unsure of the numbers but I am more than willing to bet that the PS2 has, at this time, a much larger library of terrible games on it. Bad games on a system does not tarnish a system. It is a lack of good games which can do it. And one may argue that there are no good games on the Wii, or the PS3, or the 360, and certainly that is a valid point. I personally feel that there are no games worth enjoying on the PS3, not one single title made me want to run out and get one, and I'm a guy who bought the first X-box just because of an online component for Guilty Gear (Which I already owned on the PS2 and which turned out to be oh so terrible lol). I bought one for the Blu-Ray with the expectation that in the future there may be a game I really want to play.

I find this bewildering. You say there's not one game on the PS3 for you at all? Clearly you're in the minority, as the charts I've been showing in this thread clearly show that most critics believe that the (exclusive) games released for PS3 are of better quality than anything the 360 or Wii has been able to offer.

But if you say Uncharted 1/2, InFamous, MGS4, WipeOut HD, LittleBigPlanet, Demon's Souls, Valkyria Chronicles, Disgaea 3, Flower, and the rest of the critically-acclaimed games only available on the PS3 are "worth enjoying", I guess that's your opinion. Personally, I have a difficult time agreeing that you're a 'hardcore' gamer if you don't enjoy at least one of those different genres, and suspect you might be a little bit fanboyish in your support of the Wii (and I would know!)

[TeeCakes]

Yeah, metacritic, which is agglomeration of reviews from all over the web, is biased by Gamer Informer, a lone voice, is not. You actually think we're all stupid, don't you? You cherry pick a single reviewer to keep your point intact after it's been demolished because you can't admit to being wrong? What the hell is wrong with you? You've got a lot of growing up to do. God help the woman that marries you if you don't change this terrible personality trait of yours. Take some responsibility and face facts.

Sorry, but Game Informer is a well-respected magazine, not some mom-and-pop online reviewer that gets a metacritic "vote" after only being online for 4 months. I'm going with people that have integrity, I remember them being the reason why I got into RPG's in the first place (rating Final Fantasy VI for the SNES a 9.3/10 wayyyy back in the day).

So I'm sorry you continue to hyperbolize like a raving madman, but no, I don't think I'm cherrypicking here. Rather, I think everyone else was afraid to rate down a game with Mario and Sonic as the mascots because they would definitely get blasted by Wii fanboys, and the Big N themselves.

And if you continue to take personal shots at me, I'll be forced to report you to a mod, keep it on topic, dude.

[Anenome]

Except that we live in the real world, and grown-ups know that there's no such thing as a unbiased critic. That's the first juvenile assertion you made, using it as very thin reasoning for tossing out the very well respected Meta-critic ratings. No one cares how much you revere GI, meta-critic has more cred by virtue of how it works.

There can be no unbiased critics in the game industry, much less among professional reviewers. Not when game websites and magazines rely on game ad sales from the same companies they're reviewing and continually accept free review copies and other perks--including intangible ones like access.

Personal shots? I'm worried about you, not attacking you, I think you have an unbalanced personality. Seriously, and I truly mean this from the bottom of my heart, get some help.

[TeeCakes]

Except that we live in the real world, and grown-ups know that there's no such thing as a unbiased critic. That's the first juvenile assertion you made, using it as very thin reasoning for tossing out the very well respected Meta-critic ratings. No one cares how much you revere GI, meta-critic has more cred by virtue of how it works.

I 'tossed them out', did I? Is that why I quoted Metacritic's score FIRST, before going into my (clearly personalized) agreement with an outlying review from Game Informer?

The Hyperbole Monster strikes again!

There can be no unbiased critics in the game industry, much less among professional reviewers. Not when game websites and magazines rely on game ad sales from the same companies they're reviewing and continually accept free review copies and other perks--including intangible ones like access.

The very reason why I hesitate to trust most reviews on a Mario/Sonic game. Of course this is exactly what I stated earlier, but you're failure to understand written English, or read at a 5th grade level must've someone gotten lost in translation.

Personal shots? I'm worried about you, not attacking you, I think you have an unbalanced personality. Seriously, and I truly mean this from the bottom of my heart, get some help.

*hint* telling someone to "get some help" is a personal attack. Reported.

[Anenome]

I 'tossed them out', did I? Is that why I quoted Metacritic's score FIRST, before going into my (clearly personalized) agreement with an outlying review from Game Informer?

The Hyperbole Monster strikes again!
- Yeah, you quoted it and then explained why you were tossing it out and ignoring it. Are you denying that you decided to ignore the metacritic rating in favor of GI? Because that would make you delusional too.

You can claim personal preference for GI, I didn't knock you for that. I'm saying that you're cynically choosing GI because it helps proves your point. And calling GI unbiased is laughable.

The very reason why I hesitate to trust most reviews on a Mario/Sonic game. Of course this is exactly what I stated earlier, but you're failure to understand written English, or read at a 5th grade level must've someone gotten lost in translation.
- Reported *smirk*, not really, I can take the personal attacks, my confidence in my own reading comprehension is unassailable.

But back to point. The reason a metacritic rating should be trusted over any single source is precisely because game reviewers are biased.

For the uninitiated: Metacritic is an average of the ratings given to a game by critics all across the web and can often represents dozens of individual reviews.

What answer do you have then to the easily-made charge that the GI reviewer simply didn't like that genre, maybe he was having a bad day, maybe he just broke up with his girlfriend, maybe he hates the Wii, maybe he was assigned to the game by an editor and dislikes that genre in general. The Metacritic rating is designed to avoid such individual biases, and most people would agree gets a lot closer to a true rating on a game than any single review. Choosing a single review over metacritic is ludicrous, and I think most people would agree.


*hint* telling someone to "get some help" is a personal attack. Reported.
No it's not, not if help is really needed. Truth is always a defense against slander. I genuinely think you need help with this inability to admit that you're wrong on any issue. I've never once seen you back down, even in the face of obvious wrongness.

And before you level the same charge at me, I can show many places where I ceded points and said I was wrong so don't even try it.

I genuinely think you could benefit from seeing a therapist. If the mods decide that's more then they want me to say than so be it, I'll hold my tongue, but I genuinely think you could use some advice from a professional. The inability to back down and admit you're wrong, at your age, is a personality flaw with long-term consequences for your happiness and relationships in general.

I used to think you were only that way about the PS3, and were just having fun as a fanboy, but now I'm convinced it goes deeper.

[Johan]

The inability to back down and admit you're wrong, at your age, is a personality flaw with long-term consequences for your happiness and relationships in general.

Anenome, this isn't a personality flaw on the Internet, it's a hard-wired feature of the medium.

Also, psychoanalyzing someone based upon forum posts is, shall we say, foolish to the extreme. You stated yourself that it's difficult to even discern sarcasm from text. How you think discerning sarcasm can be difficult, but discerning psychological flaws isn't, is, shall we say, interesting.

[TeeCakes]

http://evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1832750#post1832750

[Anenome]

http://evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1832750#post1832750
So you're quoting another place where I admitted I was wrong? I'm not seeing the point.

[Mozain]

I find this bewildering. You say there's not one game on the PS3 for you at all? Clearly you're in the minority, as the charts I've been showing in this thread clearly show that most critics believe that the (exclusive) games released for PS3 are of better quality than anything the 360 or Wii has been able to offer.

But if you say Uncharted 1/2, InFamous, MGS4, WipeOut HD, LittleBigPlanet, Demon's Souls, Valkyria Chronicles, Disgaea 3, Flower, and the rest of the critically-acclaimed games only available on the PS3 are "worth enjoying", I guess that's your opinion. Personally, I have a difficult time agreeing that you're a 'hardcore' gamer if you don't enjoy at least one of those different genres, and suspect you might be a little bit fanboyish in your support of the Wii (and I would know!)

Oh I never said that did I... I said that none of these games sold the system for me, not a single one (BlazBlue was going to be the one for me before it went multi-platform). I own both Uncharted and Demon's Souls now, the two games I bought for my PS3, but they are both a far cry away from being able to justify $500 (at launch) or even $300 (which is what I paid for the slim). The other games I have absolutely zero interest in (Save for Little Big Planet, but I don't think I'll get that, still far too expensive). I mean I am certainly enjoying Demon's souls, but it isn't a system seller by a long shot. Also, critical acclaim doesn't make a game good, something like that is a bit too subjective to argue, which is why we usually go by numbers sold (people who have fun with it will buy it). However, a good game can undersell too, my case with the PS3 is that a large majority of these supposed "Great Games" are underselling compared to the so called shitty games on the Wii.

As for Mario and Sonic at the Olympics, you left out all the 70% and above scores it got, Eurogamer, Game Pro, IGN (which gave it a 7.9), hell you left out the 60%'s and above too, EGM, Edge, Gamespot. You gotta take the good with the bad, and in this case, well it seems there is more good doesn't it? ^_^

[Anenome]

Anenome, this isn't a personality flaw on the Internet, it's a hard-wired feature of the medium.

Also, psychoanalyzing someone based upon forum posts is, shall we say, foolish to the extreme. You stated yourself that it's difficult to even discern sarcasm from text. How you think discerning sarcasm can be difficult, but discerning psychological flaws isn't, is, shall we say, interesting.

No you're right, there will always be fanboys on the internet. But some poeple seriously take it too far, they're willing to openly lie to make a point. If I ever had to lie to make a point--I simply can't do it. I say what I believe and let the chips fall where they may, and when I'm wrong, or if someone has a better idea or a better understanding I accept it. I think that's normal.

For instance, how many times have we shown Tee that %age increases in PS3 sales mean nothing and is a lying statisic, yet he keeps using that same metric.

If I were touting a %age increase and someone pointed out that the PS3 still lost market-share, and how easy it is to deceive people using %age increases, I would stop using.

Not Tee.

He just keeps using it to lie. I think that's a major personality flaw. Obviously I can't diagnose people over the tubes much less treat them. I've said my peace, I probably won't ever bring it up again.

[Anenome]

As for Mario and Sonic at the Olympics, you left out all the 70% and above scores it got, Eurogamer, Game Pro, IGN (which gave it a 7.9), hell you left out the 60%'s and above too, EGM, Edge, Gamespot. You gotta take the good with the bad, and in this case, well it seems there is more good doesn't it? ^_^
I know, right? This is what I'm talking about. He has to assume the entire internet is biased, except GI, in order for his point to be true, and he still rolls with it so that he doesn't have to retract his point and say he was wrong, etc. It's unbelievable, fanboyism taken too far.

[TeeCakes]

Now he's calling me a liar as well. Modeps will have a field day when he gets to read his PMs. :D

[Anenome]

http://evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1832750#post1832750
Here's a great example of a guy doing something you've never done, admit he misspoke, in the same thread even:
http://evilavatar.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1832996&postcount=47

[Anenome]

Now he's calling me a liar as well. Modeps will have a field day when he gets to read his PMs. :D
Calling you a liar for no reason, maliciously, is different from showing how you've lied and it being true. Again, truth is a defense against slander. I'm not saying shit purely to offend you, that would be wrong, I'm pointing out what's really there.

I can't believe you're seriously whining to the mods like a little baby. Seriously, grow a pair, man.

[JazGalaxy]

http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/105/1056419/ign-au-console-showdown-2009-x2013-part-4-20091217083159789.jpg
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/105/1056419/ign-au-console-showdown-2009-x2013-part-4-20091217084500998.jpg



That's "what". Feel free to keep ignoring the facts (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/105/1056419p1.html) all you want though, Chuckles. Might wanna stay informed or something though, instead of living in your own personal jazzy galaxy where the PS3 doesn't rate better than the competition in every critical category.

Critical acclaim > Popular acclaim

You're an idiot.

Firstly, you can't support the claim "PS3 has the best games of the this console generation" with a graph that shows the game journalism(!) scores of 2009(!).

How many of those games were Sony First Party games? How many Sony First Party games were released in 2009? How many first party titles did Microsoft release in 2009?

Just because Sony first party spammed 2009 with titles does not mean it's games are IN ANY WAY qualitatively "the best of the generation".

You finish off by saying that, somehow, game criticism is worth more than popular opinion. IN WHAT FREAKING WORLD? THESE ARE VIDEOGAMES! THEY'RE MEANT FOR ENTERTAINMENT!!! THERE'S NO FREAKING SCORE! THERE IS NO WINNER!! If everyone LIKES playing what xbox or nintendo offers, but doesn't like what sony offers, in what ridiculous dimension can you actually form your mouth to say "yeah, but Sony still has the best games". That's like saying "We lost all our games this season, but we're still the best team." Or "I failed geometry, but I'm still the smartest person in that room".

[Anenome]

^ voice of reason.

[TeeCakes]

Oh I never said that did I... I said that none of these games sold the system for me, not a single one (BlazBlue was going to be the one for me before it went multi-platform). I own both Uncharted and Demon's Souls now, the two games I bought for my PS3, but they are both a far cry away from being able to justify $500 (at launch) or even $300 (which is what I paid for the slim). The other games I have absolutely zero interest in (Save for Little Big Planet, but I don't think I'll get that, still far too expensive). I mean I am certainly enjoying Demon's souls, but it isn't a system seller by a long shot. Also, critical acclaim doesn't make a game good, something like that is a bit too subjective to argue, which is why we usually go by numbers sold (people who have fun with it will buy it). However, a good game can undersell too, my case with the PS3 is that a large majority of these supposed "Great Games" are underselling compared to the so called shitty games on the Wii.

You're arguing a few different things here. You're saying the $300 price point doesn't justify the PS3 when you only have two games worth buying for it-- but isn't that a similar case with the Wii? How many games do you have for that, may I ask?

And furthermore, if you discount critical acclaim than there really isn't much to debate here. My entire point is that the PS3's critical acclaim means more to me as a gamer than commercial success in the NPD results, since I would have much more fun with the PS3 library than with the 1-2 offerings per year that the Wii has. Do you have a Wii "must buy" list similar to the one I provided with the PS3? I'll tell if there are any titles in there that I would deem 'system sellers', much like you've done.

As for Mario and Sonic at the Olympics, you left out all the 70% and above scores it got, Eurogamer, Game Pro, IGN (which gave it a 7.9), hell you left out the 60%'s and above too, EGM, Edge, Gamespot. You gotta take the good with the bad, and in this case, well it seems there is more good doesn't it? ^_^

I didn't leave them out, as I said it got a 67% on Metacritic. That's honestly not a good score for such a high-selling game, in my opinion. Seriously, if you were a developer for this title would you be happy your game got basically a D on an A-F ranking? Well, if you didn't care about the quality level of your game and only cared about the commercial success, I guess it's a moot point (which is what I'm afraid many more developers are starting to think like these days.)

But that's not the only game, there are dozens more low-scorers that are all 1M+ sellers in North America alone:


Carnival Games (http://www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=7221) - 56/100 (http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/wii/carnivalgames)
Wii Music (http://www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=24657) - 63/100 (http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/wii/wiimusic)
High School Musical: Sing It! (http://www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=12565) - 64/100 (http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/wii/highschoolmusicalsingit)
Link's Crossbow Training (http://www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=13012) - 68/100 (http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/wii/linkscrossbowtraining)

Developers will find it all too easy to slap a popular mascot on their dreck and allow the uninspired mess to sell like hotcakes because of the mentality you seem to share in that if it sells well, it doesn't matter how crappy the game is. I'm of the opinion that any game lower than an 7.0 that's at the top of the sales charts thanks to casual sheeple is pretty much a negative for the video game industry's focus.

[Anenome]

Sony seems to believe that exclusives were a large factor on the PSX and PS2, as in FFVII, and GTA respectively, and that with a wing and a prayer they might be able to find the same kind of traction even late in the game.

So they're strategy has been to purchase everything under the sun and try to force buyers to purchase a PS3 by having sole rights to a "must own" game. Sadly for them, this hasn't worked this gen. And it's also anti-gamer, as it artificially prevents cross-platform games from happening.

Of course, they have little choice. Sony absolutely refused to stop producing the PS3, despite their losses. That would mean they couldn't release a PS4, so they've eaten the losses with a long-term view. That's all well and good, I have high hopes for their 4th console and its motion control system.

Yes, the PS4 is at the top of my purchase list among the next gen consoles, I think they're going to have learned a lot from this humbling generation. And they'd better not release another dual-shot clone :P

[TeeCakes]

You're an idiot.

Firstly, you can't support the claim "PS3 has the best games of the this console generation" with a graph that shows the game journalism(!) scores of 2009(!).

Haha, and your rebuttal to this SOURCE is-- what, actual evidence? Or your emotional argument?

/pointless question

How many of those games were Sony First Party games? How many Sony First Party games were released in 2009? How many first party titles did Microsoft release in 2009?

Just because Sony first party spammed 2009 with titles does not mean it's games are IN ANY WAY qualitatively "the best of the generation".

So let me get this straight, Sony's "spamming" 2009 with 'good games' shouldn't count, because... because... I'm sorry, what is your ridiculous point again why we shouldn't count the highest rated games on any console again?? :rolleyes:

Oh that's right, because you don't want them to count and you'll type in all-caps until everyone (Anenome) agrees with you! Good job!

/sarcasm

You finish off by saying that, somehow, game criticism is worth more than popular opinion. IN WHAT FREAKING WORLD? THESE ARE VIDEOGAMES! THEY'RE MEANT FOR ENTERTAINMENT!!! THERE'S NO FREAKING SCORE! THERE IS NO WINNER!! If everyone LIKES playing what xbox or nintendo offers, but doesn't like what sony offers, in what ridiculous dimension can you actually form your mouth to say "yeah, but Sony still has the best games". That's like saying "We lost all our games this season, but we're still the best team." Or "I failed geometry, but I'm still the smartest person in that room".

Firstly, wipe off the drool from your mouth, bro. No need to get so worked up over someone else's opinion-- unless someone's spreading unfounded lies and personal attacks against you like Anenome's doing to me in this thread.

Your entire argument is in support of the popular opinion. I'll remind you, the North American people voted for G.W. Bush, twice-- they go to see Twilight movies, a large portion of us believe in Creationism over Evolution, and think that the Greenhouse Effect is a hoax. So yes, for me critical acclaim > commercial success-- and once again based on the facts of the NPD results Sony seems to be having the best of both worlds due to their strict support of great 1st-party exclusives.

Try to come up with something other than your own hot air if you want me to take your counter-opinion seriously, Chuckles.

[Anenome]

You're arguing a few different things here. You're saying the $300 price point doesn't justify the PS3 when you only have two games worth buying for it-- but isn't that a similar case with the Wii? How many games do you have for that, may I ask?
I can only think of a few games I'd want to play on a PS3. Nothing I couldn't miss. That's the PS3's main problem. And I have abouter 7 Wii games myself, and will probably pickup the Metroid pack, which is 3 more.

And furthermore, if you discount critical acclaim than there really isn't much to debate here.
- Except of course for the actual point of this thread, which is actual sales numbers. If we speak purely actual sales numbers, the PS3 is in last place and always has been.

My entire point is that the PS3's critical acclaim means more to me as a gamer than commercial success in the NPD results, since I would have much more fun with the PS3 library than with the 1-2 offerings per year that the Wii has.
- You didn't qualify it with "to me" you made a general statement, a truth claim. And your obvious pro-Sony biases mean that your claim to having more fun on the PS3 carries no weight. Furthermore, it's an implicit attack on those whom have fun on other systems.


I didn't leave them out, as I said it got a 67% on Metacritic. That's honestly not a good score for such a high-selling game, in my opinion.
- It's also 27% higher than what you claimed was it's true legitimate score.


But that's not the only game, there are dozens more low-scorers that are all 1M+ sellers in North America alone:
Carnival Games (http://www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=7221) - 56/100 (http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/wii/carnivalgames)
Wii Music (http://www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=24657) - 63/100 (http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/wii/wiimusic)
High School Musical: Sing It! (http://www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=12565) - 64/100 (http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/wii/highschoolmusicalsingit)
Link's Crossbow Training (http://www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=13012) - 68/100 (http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/wii/linkscrossbowtraining)

- Again, we should expect some games to be flawed on a system with a radical control system. Making a game is harder on a Wii because the category of what makes for fun gameplay is an open question. It's easier to go wrong during the development process.

Developers will find it all too easy to slap a popular mascot on their dreck and allow the uninspired mess to sell like hotcakes because of the mentality you seem to share in that if it sells well, it doesn't matter how crappy the game is. I'm of the opinion that any game lower than an 7.0 that's at the top of the sales charts thanks to casual sheeple is pretty much a negative for the video game industry's focus.
- Not necessarily, since reviewers are by definition hardcore gamers and what they may knock for being shallow, etc., might be a perfectly acceptable party game for many Wii players--we know there's been a lot of new players.

You may say that's not the direction you want the game industry to go down but commit the error of assuming the industry can only go in one direction, can only cater to one crowd. But that's not true. Hardcore can survive alongside the softcore crowd, and there will be much shifting of players between the two.

But the Wii's ability to attract new players into the industry definitely is positive, not to mention historic.

[Anenome]

unless someone's spreading unfounded lies and personal attacks against you like Anenome's doing to me in this thread.
- Keep tellin' yourself that ^_~


Try to come up with something other than your own hot air if you want me to take your counter-opinion seriously, Chuckles.
- Tee accusing others of blowing hot air, not there's hilarity.

You realize my entire critique of you, Tee, is that you have never taken anyone's counter-opinion seriously, on this site, ever.

[Mozain]

You're arguing a few different things here. You're saying the $300 price point doesn't justify the PS3 when you only have two games worth buying for it-- but isn't that a similar case with the Wii? How many games do you have for that, may I ask?

Certainly, I have 12 games for my Wii, and you and I differ because unlike you I would not presume to tell you what games you "Should" be enjoying. A large selection of good games would make any system worth buying, hell even one spectacular game would do it (For me anyways). But in terms of how the PS3 is doing, well the games just aren't there for me, and I suspect this is a large reason for most people given the the poor (comparatively) install base and lack of game sales overall.


And furthermore, if you discount critical acclaim than there really isn't much to debate here. My entire point is that the PS3's critical acclaim means more to me as a gamer than commercial success in the NPD results, since I would have much more fun with the PS3 library than with the 1-2 offerings per year that the Wii has. Do you have a Wii "must buy" list similar to the one I provided with the PS3? I'll tell if there are any titles in there that I would deem 'system sellers', much like you've done.

Oh that is just my personal stance, I am of course attempting to say to you how critical acclaim has very little bearing in the real world if the sales aren't there. As a gamer you should be believing that critics mean very little, just like critics mean little in the film industry, or the music industry, or any other industry. All the more so if what they deem to be "Critically acclaimed" does not stand up in the real world. The very idea that someone can tell you what is fun and what isn't is laughable don't you think? Which is why we largely rely on the numbers, as a general trend.



I didn't leave them out, as I said it got a 67% on Metacritic. That's honestly not a good score for such a high-selling game, in my opinion. Seriously, if you were a developer for this title would you be happy your game got basically a D on an A-F ranking? Well, if you didn't care about the quality level of your game and only cared about the commercial success, I guess it's a moot point (which is what I'm afraid many more developers are starting to think like these days.)

I think as a developer they would be thinking that they have proved the critics wrong because their game sold so well... Don't you? As a developer would you be happy that your game got a 90%+ and didn't sell at all, forcing your company to shut down because of it? I should think not. I'm afraid of the trend you endorse, that developers will only care about critic responses (And thus buy them off or deny reviews all together) and lose sight of what truely matters, the fun.


Developers will find it all too easy to slap a popular mascot on their dreck and allow the uninspired mess to sell like hotcakes because of the mentality you seem to share in that if it sells well, it doesn't matter how crappy the game is. I'm of the opinion that any game lower than an 7.0 that's at the top of the sales charts thanks to casual sheeple is pretty much a negative for the video game industry's focus.

I would have to disagree with you again. Would you attribute MW2's success to slapping a popular mascot on their dreck (The CoD name). It is a fine game, I can't say I enjoy it at all, but that doesn't stop it from being the success it is that alot of people have fun with. I also wouldn't say it is "Casual". Do you think developers don't want a piece of that pie? Sure, there are some houses that will push out garbage, and it will sell, but it won't hit the big impressive numbers. There will always be developers who push for the big numbers, who push limits, and who will succeed. They aren't going anywhere, just because some smaller guys want the crumbs. The games you love will still be made, and they are not tarnished in the least by crappy games existing (Or even selling). Nor are the current developers going to turn around and start making worthless games that sell moderately well, they all want to hit it big time, and you don't do that by making "O.k" games. The good games aren't going anywhere.

[TekkenZaibatsu]

Well again, I am unsure of the numbers but I am more than willing to bet that the PS2 has, at this time, a much larger library of terrible games on it. Bad games on a system does not tarnish a system. It is a lack of good games which can do it.

Not to attack you, but this paragraph seems both pointless AND confusing to me. Of COURSE the PS2 has a lot of bad games on it; it's a MUCH older system, thus has a LOT more games. What does that statement prove? But it also has a lot more GREAT games than the Wii could dream of right now... but as I said, the PS2 is much older, so I won't try to make an actual argument out of that. But with that last statement, you seem to be suggesting the PS2 had a lack of good games since you're for some reason comparing the PS2 to the Wii (an asinine comparison in every respect), and that's simply not true.

[TeeCakes]

Certainly, I have 12 games for my Wii, and you and I differ because unlike you I would not presume to tell you what games you "Should" be enjoying. A large selection of good games would make any system worth buying, hell even one spectacular game would do it (For me anyways). But in terms of how the PS3 is doing, well the games just aren't there for me, and I suspect this is a large reason for most people given the the poor (comparatively) install base and lack of game sales overall.

Again, would you mind naming your list of 12 so that I can likewise assess whether any of them are "system sellers" to me or not? Seeing as how your entire argument is based on your thinking that none of the PS3 library contains a title worth purchasing a PS3 for.

I would be of the same opinion on the Wii's worth, but obviously I'm in the minority with that line of thinking judging by the NPD results.

Oh that is just my personal stance, I am of course attempting to say to you how critical acclaim has very little bearing in the real world if the sales aren't there. As a gamer you should be believing that critics mean very little, just like critics mean little in the film industry, or the music industry, or any other industry. All the more so if what they deem to be "Critically acclaimed" does not stand up in the real world. The very idea that someone can tell you what is fun and what isn't is laughable don't you think? Which is why we largely rely on the numbers, as a general trend.

Again, this is an NPD thread. If you lived in Japan, would you then make the argument that since nobody is buying 360s, or purchasing any 360 titles that the system is simply "not as fun" as a PS3? No, of course not.

My reason for using critics as a source is twofold-- one, it shows easily that there are only 1-2 games per year on the Wii that people would deem "fun". Looking at the NPD shows you that-- do you honestly think 'Wii Play' is the best game ever made? It's certainly in the record books as one of the top selling games of all time-- but to make a case for this title being 'fun' is ridiculous.

At some point you have to realize the fact that people make buying decisions not because they're opting for maximum quality. They do it for a variety of reasons, and I for one would rather game developers be mostly invested in a title's quality, rather than completely focusing on it's selling points (i.e. putting in a free controller pack-in, or pasting Mario/Sonic's face to the label).

I think as a developer they would be thinking that they have proved the critics wrong because their game sold so well... Don't you? As a developer would you be happy that your game got a 90%+ and didn't sell at all, forcing your company to shut down because of it? I should think not. I'm afraid of the trend you endorse, that developers will only care about critic responses (And thus buy them off or deny reviews all together) and lose sight of what truely matters, the fun.

I do think so, which again I see as a negative to the industry. Don't bother trying to make something meritorious or fun, just make sure it sells and you'll be vindicated. You miss the entire point of why video game critics have jobs in the first place-- they are the first line of defense against shovelware becoming the status quo. Saying that critics are meaningless is quite the danger to the industry's health, IMHO.

I would have to disagree with you again. Would you attribute MW2's success to slapping a popular mascot on their dreck (The CoD name). It is a fine game, I can't say I enjoy it at all, but that doesn't stop it from being the success it is that alot of people have fun with. I also wouldn't say it is "Casual". Do you think developers don't want a piece of that pie? Sure, there are some houses that will push out garbage, and it will sell, but it won't hit the big impressive numbers. There will always be developers who push for the big numbers, who push limits, and who will succeed. They aren't going anywhere, just because some smaller guys want the crumbs. The games you love will still be made, and they are not tarnished in the least by crappy games existing (Or even selling). Nor are the current developers going to turn around and start making worthless games that sell moderately well, they all want to hit it big time, and you don't do that by making "O.k" games. The good games aren't going anywhere.

CoD is a perfect example of people buying something that's (arguably) dreck just because of the marketing. Halo is an even better example, but let's talk about CoD. Did you miss the fact that MW2 was EvilAvatar's Shame of the Year for 2009? But yet it broke all kinds of sales records anyway-- again, this is not a good thing. We shouldn't reward developers taking steps backwards in terms of quality just because they know the game will sell no matter what.

But even MW2 scored above 8.0 on Metacritic, so it's not really an example like the ones I've stated above. Anyway, if New Super Mario Bros. remained in the #1 spot for Wii I'd be happy, but somehow I know that Wii Fit will sneak up above it again come Feb. 2010, and that's the real shame.

[Anenome]

Well his point does seem sound, that simply having bad games released for a system does tarnish it as long as there are good games available.

[Anenome]

^ *does not
And seriously, calling Halor dreck? Come on.

[TekkenZaibatsu]

Again, would you mind naming your list of 12 so that I can likewise assess whether any of them are "system sellers" to me or not? Seeing as how your entire argument is based on your thinking that none of the PS3 library contains a title worth purchasing a PS3 for.


EVERY system has a good enough collection of excluives worth buying it for. Anyone who thinks the PS3 has no good exclusives in on crack; it has arguably the BEST.

I own a PS3 for franchises like Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank, Resistance, Killzone, and multi-platform games I like the interface on the PS3 more (mostly fighting and action games).

I initially bought a 360 for Halo, Gears and Bioshock for the most part. I lost interest in the first two but still like random exclusive that come out and prefer shooters on the 360 because of the superior FPS controls over the PS3.

If I could afford a Wii, I would buy one jut to play SMB Galaxy and Super Paper Mario without a second's thought.

[TeeCakes]

^I agree, but honestly the only games I would buy on the Wii are all the Mario platformers, every new "Zelda" and the rest of the time I would play Wii Sports with my friends when they come over (which is all we do on my roomie's console).

I occasionally browse the demos on the crippled Wii-Ware store, I haven't found a game yet worth buying (I've played about a dozen demos to date). This is why I legitimately want to know what Mozain finds so fun about the Wii.

[Anenome]

Realize a lot of console preference is going to come down to genre preference as well. Me, I'm not a big FPS player, nor vs multiplayer. Nor did I expect to get that kind of game on the Wii. I knew I would get Zelda, and that's what I like. Etc.

[Mozain]

Not to attack you, but this paragraph seems both pointless AND confusing to me. Of COURSE the PS2 has a lot of bad games on it; it's a MUCH older system, thus has a LOT more games. What does that statement prove? But it also has a lot more GREAT games than the Wii could dream of right now... but as I said, the PS2 is much older, so I won't try to make an actual argument out of that. But with that last statement, you seem to be suggesting the PS2 had a lack of good games since you're for some reason comparing the PS2 to the Wii (an asinine comparison in every respect), and that's simply not true.

Oh not at all, my point with this statement was only proving that having bad games on a system does not tarnish the system. A large part of Tee's argument is that there is just pitiful shovelware on the Wii, and that in some way devalues both the system and the industry. My counterpoint to that is that the PS2 has a far larger selection of shovelware, yet I think few would say that it and the industry were reduced because of it. I was not at all saying the PS2 has a lack of good games on it.

[blackzc]

Your entire argument is in support of the popular opinion. I'll remind you, the North American people voted for G.W. Bush, twice-- they go to see Twilight movies, a large portion of us believe in Creationism over Evolution, and think that the Greenhouse Effect is a hoax. .


I voted for bush, my GF likes twilight, i think its entirely possible we were created and global warming is bullshit, so fuck you.:mad:

Keep showing your colors, your looking more and more the fat mad nerd that bangs away on his keyboard furiously day in and day putting everyone down that doesn't agree with you. Oh fuck obama, hes a fake.

[Mozain]

Again, would you mind naming your list of 12 so that I can likewise assess whether any of them are "system sellers" to me or not? Seeing as how your entire argument is based on your thinking that none of the PS3 library contains a title worth purchasing a PS3 for.

I would be of the same opinion on the Wii's worth, but obviously I'm in the minority with that line of thinking judging by the NPD results.

Tee, I know your stance on the Wii and it's games already, I have enough faith in your reading of game reviews to know that if there was a system seller in there for you, you would have bought one already.



Again, this is an NPD thread. If you lived in Japan, would you then make the argument that since nobody is buying 360s, or purchasing any 360 titles that the system is simply "not as fun" as a PS3? No, of course not.

If I were living in Japan the Wii would still be on top, and having lived there I know I would indeed make that argument. Hell I buy alot of Japanese games right now, but even being region free the PS3 is lacking, and since the 360 is not region free, the Japanese have to put up with what they get, which does in turn affect what is available for it (And import versions of games are ridiculously over priced believe me), and by consequence lowers the selection and limits the amount of potential "fun".[/QUOTE]


My reason for using critics as a source is twofold-- one, it shows easily that there are only 1-2 games per year on the Wii that people would deem "fun". Looking at the NPD shows you that-- do you honestly think 'Wii Play' is the best game ever made? It's certainly in the record books as one of the top selling games of all time-- but to make a case for this title being 'fun' is ridiculous.

Are you saying that no one, ever, in any way shape or form could ever get any amount of enjoyment out of "Wii Play"? Well I'm sorry but that just isn't true. The people who bought it got (and perhaps still are getting) enjoyment out of it. It is fun for them, thus it is in the record books as you say. And to your first point, if these people aren't deeming these games "fun", why are they buying them? The Wii sells more than just 1-2 games per year, and you just said people would only deem the 1-2 "fun", so why are they buying the others? Games don't serve any other purpose, you can't turn them into food or anything, they exist solely for the purpose of fun. If what you said was even remotely the truth then the Wii would only have their 1-2 games sell, and nothing else, ever.


At some point you have to realize the fact that people make buying decisions not because they're opting for maximum quality. They do it for a variety of reasons, and I for one would rather game developers be mostly invested in a title's quality, rather than completely focusing on it's selling points (i.e. putting in a free controller pack-in, or pasting Mario/Sonic's face to the label).

Exactly, people make buying decisions without consulting critics, or reviews. It doesn't impact their enjoyment if it scored a 10/10 or a 4/10, not one bit. If I am understanding your correctly, you are saying that developers will abandon quality for maximum profitability. But with all the great games on the horizon how can this be even remotely true? Quality games will either sell, or not sell (usually attributed to marketing), but nothing of poor quality will sell (Hehe except perhaps the 360 right? ^_^)


I do think so, which again I see as a negative to the industry. Don't bother trying to make something meritorious or fun, just make sure it sells and you'll be vindicated. You miss the entire point of why video game critics have jobs in the first place-- they are the first line of defense against shovelware becoming the status quo. Saying that critics are meaningless is quite the danger to the industry's health, IMHO.

Critics are in no way shape or form a defense of shovelware, and if they are they are doing a piss poor job at at (Have you seen how much is out there?). The average consumer does not read reviews, doesn't care what it scored, is largely ignorant of who made it. Just as you firmly believe that getting rid of them is a danger to the industries health, I firmly believe having them is a danger to the industries health. You think developers will abandon quality and go solely for the bottom line (Which is, in fact reached highest by producing quality), well reviewers are only concerned with the bottom line, and lost their objectiveness long ago (If they ever had any to begin with). They will do anything to make more money and more name, including skewing results to be the first one to review, or for kickbacks, which makes them the biggest danger in my opinion.


CoD is a perfect example of people buying something that's (arguably) dreck just because of the marketing. Halo is an even better example, but let's talk about CoD. Did you miss the fact that MW2 was EvilAvatar's Shame of the Year for 2009? But yet it broke all kinds of sales records anyway-- again, this is not a good thing. We shouldn't reward developers taking steps backwards in terms of quality just because they know the game will sell no matter what.

But even MW2 scored above 8.0 on Metacritic, so it's not really an example like the ones I've stated above. Anyway, if New Super Mario Bros. remained in the #1 spot for Wii I'd be happy, but somehow I know that Wii Fit will sneak up above it again come Feb. 2010, and that's the real shame.

CoD is the perfect example isn't it. And I couldn't agree with Halo more hehe, but there you go again, thinking that what you find fun, everyone finds fun (or should). People love playing CoD MW2 (I did up until this title myself infact) and people love playing Halo (I never did myself). We here at Evil Avatar are not indicative of the population at all! It is our shame of the year because we are cynical and pick things apart and perhaps even hate it for its success. But again this in no way reduces how much fun alot (and I mean ALOT) of people are having with it, can't you be happy for them Tee? They have a game they like (One of my friends is so addicted that his 360 red ringed last night and he ran out and bought a new one straight away, even though it is covered by warranty).

Wii fit is selling because people are buying it, these people that buy it use it. These people that use it are obviously enjoying it (I would also accept doing it because they feel they should for health reasons, but I doubt it's ability to provide such results). If they didn't enjoy it, or if they didn't get some benefit in any way shape or form, well it wouldn't sell now would it? And a game (or, fitness thing... Whatever Wii fit it) selling is good for the industry, no matter what it is. It provides money and jobs. You may be upset that other developers are getting out shone by the commercial success of other companies (and I know you do), that they aren't getting their fair share and despite having a quality product will ultimately go out of business. It is a shame indeed, but there is no way to stop this as these developers are largely niche and will always be niche (hence the small sales). But if steam has shown us anything, it is that even tiny developers with great ideas will make it big. What is clear, is that piss poor companies will not make commercial successes, and while they will remain afloat, they hardly steer the industry. So you see, there really isn't anything to worry about. You may not like the direction things are headed now, but you are clearly the minority and there will always be developers to come along and provide products you like, so just sit back and enjoy the ride ^_^.

[JazGalaxy]

And furthermore, if you discount critical acclaim than there really isn't much to debate here. My entire point is that the PS3's critical acclaim means more to me as a gamer than commercial success in the NPD results, since I would have much more fun with the PS3 library than with the 1-2 offerings per year that the Wii has.



NO it's not.

You said "PS3 has the best games of this console generation" and that anybody who doesn't agree is only doing so out of bias.

If what you EVER said was "I like my PS3" NOBODY would have a problem with you.

As for Sony Spamming 2009 with first party titles, YES that makes all the difference in the world. MS produced something like only 4 titles this year many of which were dedicated to expanding it's portfolio like "Lips". The products it DID make for the hardcore audience, which is what would reflect in gaming journalism, scored VERY HIGHLY.

SO what you're essentially saying is "My opponent didn't show up so I declare myself the BEST BOXER WHO EVER LIVED!!!". That's not a valid statement. It's fully of all kinds of logical holes.

You like Sony. Okay. But when you start trying to say that Sony is better than MS or Nintendo when both companies are sticking it to Sony HEAVILY this generation, and Sony had the CRAP kicked out of them from their standing last generation, you should probably preface your sony love with massive doses of humility to allow for the fact that many people.. indeed probably most people... do not agree.

If people do not agree that Sony's games are the "best of this generation" it is NOT "just because they're biased".

[SwitchBlade_Jax]

Metacritic's got this stinker rated at a very generous 67/100, but I trust the unbaised Game Informer review (4.0/10) the most.

BTW, Switchblade, you should pay more attention-- those are nice stats and all, but I was never making a case for best selling = best quality games. Where have you been? :confused:


*from another post* And furthermore, if you discount critical acclaim than there really isn't much to debate here.

*also* I occasionally browse the demos on the crippled Wii-Ware store, I haven't found a game yet worth buying (I've played about a dozen demos to date). This is why I legitimately want to know what Mozain finds so fun about the Wii.

You were saying PS3 had the best games, bar none. Quality in a video game is subjective for a huge part. That can't be fruitfully argued at all. What can be argued is the fact that no matter how well or awful a game is rated by critics(which you seem to argue should hand pick the games I play, anything with an overall bad rating could never be fun at all - why should I think for myself?) No matter those ratings, the public votes by spending their money. So no matter what a critic says, if Sony never sold a game vs the Wii always selling games they would go bankrupt. Commericial success determines every company's future. Critical acclaim can help that success but it will not solely make commericial success.

As for your last quote, sampling 12 games out of 809 is only 1.48% of the Wii's game library. You have totally sampled a huge amount of the avialable games for sure, I am so amazed, oh my god. Your on hand expeirence with so many games avialable to the Wii is just jaw dropping.

Nothing said will change the fact that the Wii has dominated Sony and MS. If Nintendo was doing a bad job Darksiders wouldn't play like a great Zelda clone, but it does. If the "Wii waggle" was a failure then we wouldn't be hearing about Natal and Sony's wand or whatever its proper name is.

I'm sorry Sony f'cked up. I enjoyed my PS2. But b/c of their mistakes I haven't enjoyed a PS3 at all yet. And I don't care that you have. Millions of other people don't give a damn shit that you love or anyone loves a PS3, because they found something else to enjoy, a Wii.

Seriously, how is the Wii a bad thing? So what if "bad" games sell a lot of units. Find me ten people that have bought a bad video game and then after that experience swore off video games and never bought a video game in their life(or atleast for a ten year span). You won't find it. Companies have produced and sold crappy games since the damn Atari, you want to tell me E.T. was just f'cking awesome? The Atari still did well though.

Why does anyone bother saying this system or that system is bitching awesome and all others should die a terrible death? Its counterproductive and if you look back, Nintendo has always been one of the major driving forces in video gaming. Sony wouldn't of even have a gaming system if Nintendo had worked out a deal with them on the N64. That is probably the only instance of Sony fighting a format war working well for them.

Nintendo has always done a good job, not always the "best" but they have never completely f'cked themselves over. The N64 being their worse game system to date they still created several video game defining moments. Mario 64, Zelda - Ocarina of Time, and they fit Resident Evil onto a cartridge. Oh yeah, and they had Rare re-define console FPS with Goldeneye.

Nintendo has a shit ton of reasons why they do well and they won't apologize to Sony for doing well when Sony failed to innovate, failed to inspire people to buy a PS3 compared to a wii or 3600, and failed to recapture the reasons they did well commericially in the first place.

Fanboy all you want Tee, it won't help Sony make good financial choices.

[Anenome]

If the "Wii waggle" was a failure then we wouldn't be hearing about Natal and Sony's wand or whatever its proper name is.
- Apparently Sony's motion control solution is called "Gem."

[Anenome]

^I agree, but honestly the only games I would buy on the Wii are all the Mario platformers, every new "Zelda" and the rest of the time I would play Wii Sports with my friends when they come over (which is all we do on my roomie's console).

I occasionally browse the demos on the crippled Wii-Ware store, I haven't found a game yet worth buying (I've played about a dozen demos to date). This is why I legitimately want to know what Mozain finds so fun about the Wii.
Fiiiiiiinally ^_~

[TeeCakes]

I voted for bush....

I stopped reading here, tbh. :p

Are you saying that no one, ever, in any way shape or form could ever get any amount of enjoyment out of "Wii Play"? Well I'm sorry but that just isn't true. The people who bought it got (and perhaps still are getting) enjoyment out of it. It is fun for them, thus it is in the record books as you say. And to your first point, if these people aren't deeming these games "fun", why are they buying them? The Wii sells more than just 1-2 games per year, and you just said people would only deem the 1-2 "fun", so why are they buying the others?

Well I could ask you, how many times have you played Wii Play in the last month? The past year? Since you picked it up? Answer honestly-- as for me, I've never seen anybody play that game on their console once although all my Wii-owning friends have it but of course I'm "biased".

Show me what other games have sold on the Wii like New Super Mario Bros., I guarantee you it's a very very short list.

Exactly, people make buying decisions without consulting critics, or reviews. It doesn't impact their enjoyment if it scored a 10/10 or a 4/10, not one bit. If I am understanding your correctly, you are saying that developers will abandon quality for maximum profitability. But with all the great games on the horizon how can this be even remotely true? Quality games will either sell, or not sell (usually attributed to marketing), but nothing of poor quality will sell (Hehe except perhaps the 360 right? ^_^)

If you've noticed the recent response on FFXIII, many people are saying that it's a shallow game, and far too 'linear' (whatever that means). Seems like Square-Enix is trying to make their main franchise more accessible, or more 'casual' in order to improve sales at the expense of quality. This is not a good thing, and I squarely blame the Wii's success with shallow titles for this trend.

Critics are in no way shape or form a defense of shovelware, and if they are they are doing a piss poor job at at (Have you seen how much is out there?). The average consumer does not read reviews, doesn't care what it scored, is largely ignorant of who made it. Just as you firmly believe that getting rid of them is a danger to the industries health, I firmly believe having them is a danger to the industries health. You think developers will abandon quality and go solely for the bottom line (Which is, in fact reached highest by producing quality), well reviewers are only concerned with the bottom line, and lost their objectiveness long ago (If they ever had any to begin with). They will do anything to make more money and more name, including skewing results to be the first one to review, or for kickbacks, which makes them the biggest danger in my opinion.

Wow, and people call me delusional?? :eek: Seriously, where is this anti-review stance coming from?

Just because there are a few questionable reviews doesn't mean everyone's on the take. As you yourself point out, people will pretty much buy whatever they want to buy regardless of scores, so why would companies need to buy off reviewers if they don't really affect sales?



CoD is the perfect example isn't it. And I couldn't agree with Halo more hehe, but there you go again, thinking that what you find fun, everyone finds fun (or should). People love playing CoD MW2 (I did up until this title myself infact) and people love playing Halo (I never did myself). We here at Evil Avatar are not indicative of the population at all! It is our shame of the year because we are cynical and pick things apart and perhaps even hate it for its success. But again this in no way reduces how much fun alot (and I mean ALOT) of people are having with it, can't you be happy for them Tee? They have a game they like (One of my friends is so addicted that his 360 red ringed last night and he ran out and bought a new one straight away, even though it is covered by warranty).

Again, CoD was never my example because it scored over 8.0. Defend Carnival Games to me, instead. Do you want every game in the future to be a clone of that atrocity, because a bunch of brain-dead idiots will buy it by the dozens and it's cheap and easy to develop? Again, just because it sells doesn't mean it's fun/a good game.

What is clear, is that piss poor companies will not make commercial successes, and while they will remain afloat, they hardly steer the industry. So you see, there really isn't anything to worry about. You may not like the direction things are headed now, but you are clearly the minority and there will always be developers to come along and provide products you like, so just sit back and enjoy the ride ^_^.

I agree. Which is why I said a few pages ago, even if nobody buys Uncharted 3 it won't make me enjoy the game any less. I'm glad that for whatever reason (in a bid to regain their lost marketshare or just to save their rep or whatnot) that Sony's PS3 is seemingly the anti-Wii/pro-hardcore haven of this generation.

[TeeCakes]

Seriously, how is the Wii a bad thing? So what if "bad" games sell a lot of units. Find me ten people that have bought a bad video game and then after that experience swore off video games and never bought a video game in their life(or atleast for a ten year span). You won't find it. Companies have produced and sold crappy games since the damn Atari, you want to tell me E.T. was just f'cking awesome? The Atari still did well though....

Fanboy all you want Tee, it won't help Sony make good financial choices.

When the PS2 was on top, what games were selling? GTA, God of War, Shadow of the Collosus, etc.-- this is a FAR cry from the games that the Wii's been selling each month (Wii Play, Wii Play, and... more Wii Play). This is why the Wii is a bad thing, and just calling me 'fanboy' and plugging your ears doesn't magically change that fact.

Also for the people like you who continue to fail at reading:

I only care about having fun when I game, and DS and PS3 are the only two consoles I need for the best of the best in gaming, period.

Show me where I say PS3 having the best games is anything but my own opinion, or stop falsely quoting me Chuck.

[Mozain]

Well I could ask you, how many times have you played Wii Play in the last month? The past year? Since you picked it up? Answer honestly-- as for me, I've never seen anybody play that game on their console once although all my Wii-owning friends have it but of course I'm "biased".

That game is not part of the 12 I own lol... So I guess the answer is... Zero? As for your friends purchasing the game... Good for them? Maybe they have outplayed it. Hell I buy tons of games that I have yet to even get to, I buy them much faster than I can finish them... But one day... One day ^_^


Show me what other games have sold on the Wii like New Super Mario Bros., I guarantee you it's a very very short list.

Just as good as them? or better, cause ummmm, just doing a quite wiki search (I won't be bother to repost their sources here) SSBB, Super Mario Galaxy, for the 8-9 mill... Though Wii sports, Wii play, Wii fit, and Mario kart Wii are all ahead of them, and their worst for the "Top 10 wii games sold" tLoZ:TP beat out the number 1 PS3 game GT5: prologue. At least according to these guys.


If you've noticed the recent response on FFXIII, many people are saying that it's a shallow game, and far too 'linear' (whatever that means). Seems like Square-Enix is trying to make their main franchise more accessible, or more 'casual' in order to improve sales at the expense of quality. This is not a good thing, and I squarely blame the Wii's success with shallow titles for this trend.

I have noticed that, just like I notice it with every game... But I think such things are naturally "skewed" and do not indicate the whole. People who are extremely intense about what they like or dislike post on forums like that and complain, where as people who don't mind the changes, or who may not even care (myself for example) do not. Hmmm, I bet they outnumber the guys who hate the changes, and it will still be widely successful. To say that Final Fantasy isn't "Accessible" well, I think that is a bit out there, they are always successful and played by millions (About as "accessible" as you can get really). Are you trying to say they are somehow "turning their backs" on gamers by making changes to the franchise? I fail to see the correlation here. If you can show me one game that has come out, that didn't have people on forums complaining about it, well I might give it a second thought.



Wow, and people call me delusional?? :eek: Seriously, where is this anti-review stance coming from?

I think it comes from seeing people rely on critics too much instead of going out and playing the games for themselves before making judgments. I mean, I'm a big advocate of thinking for yourself instead of letting someone else tell you what is good.


Just because there are a few questionable reviews doesn't mean everyone's on the take. As you yourself point out, people will pretty much buy whatever they want to buy regardless of scores, so why would companies need to buy off reviewers if they don't really affect sales?

This one is quite simple really. Ego. Never underestimate how far someone (Or a company) will go to make it look like they did everything right, even if they are wrong, they will still tell you, and everyone else through so called objective "Critics" they are right. They doth protest too much.


Again, CoD was never my example because it scored over 8.0. Defend Carnival Games to me, instead. Do you want every game in the future to be a clone of that atrocity, because a bunch of brain-dead idiots will buy it by the dozens and it's cheap and easy to develop? Again, just because it sells doesn't mean it's fun/a good game.

Ah, but it means it is a fun/good game to enough people to matter. You could have the best game in the world! The most fun game ever created! Yet if you only sell 1 copy, does it matter? Can it be said to be that fun then even? I mean, if it was, wouldn't it sell more? People want fun, no one ever says "No... Take your fun and get the hell out! I'll stick with my rock bashing against my skull thank you!" Is carnival games an "atrocity" just because you don't like it? I mean, I don't like it, but I'd hardly call it a gaming atrocity. Enough people had their fill of it, and got some sort of benefit out of it that it sold well... For you to call them all "Brain-dead idiots" only makes you look insular and too self centered. Remember, your definition of fun is not everyone else's... If you want to have a discussion with someone you have to remember this. To think that every company will just abandon everything and go for a "Carnival Games" only production... Well I think more games come out that aren't "Carnival Games" so that proves my point right there.


I agree. Which is why I said a few pages ago, even if nobody buys Uncharted 3 it won't make me enjoy the game any less. I'm glad that for whatever reason (in a bid to regain their lost marketshare or just to save their rep or whatnot) that Sony's PS3 is seemingly the anti-Wii/pro-hardcore haven of this generation.

Exactly! So, tell me who is right then... Somebody who says "Uncharted 3" is the best game ever, or someone who says "Uncharted 3 is shit"? Do you think Uncharted 3 will sell less than Carnival games? I don't think it will, thus wouldn't you say "Well, it looks like it is a better game, see how good it is doing? People like it." Of course, if it can't beat Carnival games, then wouldn't you be thinking it has some game breaking flaw with it? Or maybe that Sony isn't moving enough PS3's that it's exclusivity is killing it? In such a case the real enemy to Sony is... Sony. It makes me sad to think that people think the PS3 is a "pro-hardcore haven" hehe, as I have said before, the "Hardcore" would have access to everything, not only that but the "Hardcore" would demand the best of the best, and as we all know multiplatform titles fall flat on their faces on the PS3 (largely due to technical reasons, only proving they aren't as "hardcore" as some people think... I mean, missing textures, tearing?!) You want Hardcore. Mario, there. "Real Gamers" love Mario (I am of course just playing devil's advocate here). Right now I think only the select few believe that Sony is a bastion for gaming, I see them as being too busy pushing proprietary formats, and trying to catch up after dreadful sales (In comparison). It seems to me that they forgot about making games, which is why I hope this year works out better for them (there are quite a few appealing titles, but I'll reserve judgment on them until I can play them). As for me, I'll keep being a real gamer and playing whatever I want to play, and you know what, I bet I'll have alot of fun doing it ^_^.

[JazGalaxy]

If you've noticed the recent response on FFXIII, many people are saying that it's a shallow game, and far too 'linear' (whatever that means). Seems like Square-Enix is trying to make their main franchise more accessible, or more 'casual' in order to improve sales at the expense of quality. This is not a good thing, and I squarely blame the Wii's success with shallow titles for this trend.



I'd say your wrong. Sony itself has been pushing shallow gameplay for years. The only difference between sony's version of shallow gameplay and nintendos version of shallow gameplay is the fact that nintendo calls it "reaching a new audience" and sony calls it "evolving cinematic gameplay".

The Sony mantra has always been "graphics graphics graphics" and graphics will ALWAYS come at the expense of gameplay. The nerfing of difficulty and open-ness of final fantasy has been a steady devolution starting with Final Fantasy 7 and continuing on.

Final Fanatsy 13 looks very pretty, but even months ago when the demo first came out in Japan it looked like Final Fight with command windows. This isn't the wii's fault, it's the fault of everyone who wanted to do away with overworld map screens, random battles, and icon-based navigation.

[saulob]

Of course PS3 sold more units (hardware) this year.

All the other years it was a failure :)

[saulob]

Last yer, 2009, they finally got some great games (Uncharted 2 I'm looking at you) to impulse it. That's normal.

[TeeCakes]

That game is not part of the 12 I own lol...

Good man! At least you're not trying to defend Wii Play like some of the Wii fanboys have tried to do in the past (not calling you a fanboy, btw).

Just as good as them? or better, cause ummmm, just doing a quite wiki search (I won't be bother to repost their sources here) SSBB, Super Mario Galaxy, for the 8-9 mill... Though Wii sports, Wii play, Wii fit, and Mario kart Wii are all ahead of them, and their worst for the "Top 10 wii games sold" tLoZ:TP beat out the number 1 PS3 game GT5: prologue. At least according to these guys.

Exactly, while PS3 has many new games that broke 1M this year alone, the Wii sells the same handful of games over and over. This only changes when the newest 'Mario' or 'Zelda' comes out once every 1-2 years and their handful of games gets a +1. 3rd parties aren't making money with the Wii, only Nintendo is (look at your list of games again).

When the PS2 was in the lead, everybody made money, especially 3rd parties. Nowadays, the only 3rd parties making money are the ones that can afford big-budget next-gen games on the PS3/360 (i.e. only a small fraction of existing 3rd parties). The industry will have to change if it wants to stay profitable, because of the Wii's 'shallow games' success model. I get that your position is people are having 'fun' with the shovelware-infested Wii library so there's no need for doom and gloom, but I think you're missing the point. Nintendo are the market leaders right now, and we already see Sony and MS trying to emulate their success (Sony wand/Natal). Why wouldn't developers likewise follow suit to stay alive?

And thus, progress in the video game industry (and their journey to be considered 'high art') is derailed by the casual gaming market and it's flawed software sales model (Wii owners buying the same games for 3-4 years and the console having a vastly lower attach rate than their competition is seriously flawed).

I think it comes from seeing people rely on critics too much instead of going out and playing the games for themselves before making judgments. I mean, I'm a big advocate of thinking for yourself instead of letting someone else tell you what is good.

When Carnival Games has a 56/100 MC rating, it should be a given that the game is unredeemable. But as already mentioned, the Wii's sotware sales are seriously flawed, so unscrupulous devs will get rewarded for making shovelware trash on that console. This shouldn't be a trend that's emulated, but sadly it is for the Wii library.

This one is quite simple really. Ego. Never underestimate how far someone (Or a company) will go to make it look like they did everything right, even if they are wrong, they will still tell you, and everyone else through so called objective "Critics" they are right. They doth protest too much.

I will agree with you that most critics are rating big-name games entirely too high (or 10/10s for games with serious flaws like HALO and etc.), and this is another reason why I tend to gravitate towards Game Informer, as they're generally more harsh on even the big boys of the industry.

Is carnival games an "atrocity" just because you don't like it? I mean, I don't like it, but I'd hardly call it a gaming atrocity. Enough people had their fill of it, and got some sort of benefit out of it that it sold well... For you to call them all "Brain-dead idiots" only makes you look insular and too self centered.

I guess we'll agree to disagree. For my money, there's no way a game could receive an aggregate score of 56% unless it has serious problems. I mean god, Shaq-Fu is rated higher than Carnival Games!!

It makes me sad to think that people think the PS3 is a "pro-hardcore haven" hehe, as I have said before, the "Hardcore" would have access to everything, not only that but the "Hardcore" would demand the best of the best...

It's funny with the Wii's sales in North America alone that you think there's somebody out there who doesn't own one yet. ;)

Anyway, I think we already established in this thread that I think the 'best of the best' is my PS3/DS/PC combo I have going on. I have all of Nintendo's 1st-party titles on the DS (and the vastly superior 3rd party DS games compared to the Wii's), plus every top-selling 360 title for my PC, and the PS3 exclusives.

Best of the best (IMO). :D

...and as we all know multiplatform titles fall flat on their faces on the PS3 (largely due to technical reasons, only proving they aren't as "hardcore" as some people think... I mean, missing textures, tearing?!)... I see them as being too busy pushing proprietary formats, and trying to catch up after dreadful sales (In comparison). It seems to me that they forgot about making games, which is why I hope this year works out better for them (there are quite a few appealing titles, but I'll reserve judgment on them until I can play them). As for me, I'll keep being a real gamer and playing whatever I want to play, and you know what, I bet I'll have alot of fun doing it ^_^.

Well if December's sales are any indication, the PS3 will continue outselling the 360 for the forseeable future. What does that tell you, when it's agreed that the 360 generally gets the better 3rd party multiplats? To me, it says that the exclusives on the PS3 are simply that much better than the 360's offerings, but of course I can't say that and avoid the dreaded 'fanboy' label around here.

So you tell me, why did the PS3 beat the 360 this December? And don't say "recent price-cut", because price meant nothing when the 360 pulled ahead of the PS3 in November '09 hardware sales.

[TeeCakes]

I'd say your wrong. Sony itself has been pushing shallow gameplay for years. The only difference between sony's version of shallow gameplay and nintendos version of shallow gameplay is the fact that nintendo calls it "reaching a new audience" and sony calls it "evolving cinematic gameplay".

Uncharted 2 is an example of that 'evolving cinematic gameplay'. Are you calling that a "shallow game"? :rolleyes:

The difference between Wii and PS3 is that PS3 games actually receive decent review scores, while Wii is lucky to have a tenth of their library rated as high, critically.

Final Fanatsy 13 looks very pretty, but even months ago when the demo first came out in Japan it looked like Final Fight with command windows. This isn't the wii's fault, it's the fault of everyone who wanted to do away with overworld map screens, random battles, and icon-based navigation.

Well call me a sucker, because I think Final Fantasy 7 is my favorite title in the franchise, and I thought FF12 had an incredibly deep combat engine/storyline and is my second favorite. I agree that the best titles (in terms of quality) are probably all the SNES titles, but to steal Mozain's phrasing a lot more people had fun with FF7 than either FF6/FF4.

[Syl]

Good man! At least you're not trying to defend Wii Play like some of the Wii fanboys have tried to do in the past (not calling you a fanboy, btw).
Most people buy Wii play for the extra wii-mote. not for Wii-play. If sony/microsoft had a $10 pack-in game with a new controller, i'm sure it'd sell hotcakes as well.

I love my Wii, i play it multiple times a week. but you just don't seem to care that there ARE good games for Wii. I don't give a fuck which ones sell the most. (Even though I do, admittedly, own almost all the best sellers). I care about fun and there is certainly fun to be had on the Wii.

Well if December's sales are any indication, the PS3 will continue outselling the 360 for the forseeable future. What does that tell you, when it's agreed that the 360 generally gets the better 3rd party multiplats? To me, it says that the exclusives on the PS3 are simply that much better than the 360's offerings, but of course I can't say that and avoid the dreaded 'fanboy' label around here.
I highly doubt this. I have a feeling that in FEBRUARY we will see the 360 sell more than the PS3 due to Mass Effect 2. This will probably continue indefinately with Bioshock 2 and other various games.

[SwitchBlade_Jax]

Well call me a sucker, because I think Final Fantasy 7 is my favorite title in the franchise, and I thought FF12 had an incredibly deep combat engine/storyline and is my second favorite.


Wait, so you complain about FF13 supposedly being more shallow and then you say you liked FF12's combat system where you could set up the game to do fight actiions without your input? Didn't that feature make that game more shallow? Now I didn't experience the game myself, all I know is what I read, so those are genuine questions. I've never liked an FF since FF6, the last one on the SNES.

Also TeeCakes you keep saying 3rd parties aren't doing well on the Wii but then you follow right behind then saying all sorts of shallow games are being successful on the Wii, most of those shallow games not being made by Nintendo.

Without further ado we can settle this bullshit with the numbers. I went to VGCharts and have done the math based on any game to date world wide that has sold atleast 0.5 million units. I picked 500,000 units as a divider b/c I think we can mostly agree that any game having sold that many units should of made a profit.

(decimals rounded to 1/100th)
VGChartz:
* The PS3 has 112 games that have sold atleast 0.5 million units.
* Of those 112, 49 games have sold atleast 1.0 million units.
* 20 of the 112 were published by Sony, 92 were 3rd party.
* 20/112 = 17.86% 1st party games vs 92/112 = 82.14% 3rd party games.

* The Wii has 153 games that have sold atleast 0.5 million units
* Of those 153, 73 have sold atleast 1.0 million units.
* 27 of the 153 were published by NIntendo, 126 were 3rd party.
* 27/153 = 17.65% 1st party games vs 126/153 = 82.35% 3rd party games.

Sales can't lie, Sony has a higher percentage of first party games in its top sales than Nintendo.

Looking at the exact numbers there is no way you can say that Nintendo is hurting sales of 3rd party games. Its percentage of 3rd party games in it's top sales bracket is higher than Sony, the "3rd party heaven".

Nit picking aside, those numbers are so damn close that neither system is really different when it comes down to it. So feel free to claim Nintendo are game killing bastards, but then you put Sony in the boat with them.

[blackzc]

I stopped reading here, tbh. :p





No you didnt....

[SwitchBlade_Jax]

Well if December's sales are any indication, the PS3 will continue outselling the 360 for the forseeable future. What does that tell you, when it's agreed that the 360 generally gets the better 3rd party multiplats? To me, it says that the exclusives on the PS3 are simply that much better than the 360's offerings, but of course I can't say that and avoid the dreaded 'fanboy' label around here.

So you tell me, why did the PS3 beat the 360 this December? And don't say "recent price-cut", because price meant nothing when the 360 pulled ahead of the PS3 in November '09 hardware sales.

The PS3 hasn't yet sold as many consoles as the Xbox 360. Its roughly 32 mil to 37 mil still in the 360's favor. Your statement assumes that every single person, 1.36 million that bought a PS3 didn't already own an Xbox360. You really think that is accurate? There is no way to gauge why someone bought a console by looking at NPD numbers. Hell, half of those people could of bought BOTH systems in December. Some people might of been buying a PS3 to replace one that broke.

Numbers don't explain why a person made a choice. It just shows they made a choice.

[Anenome]

I have a feeling that in FEBRUARY we will see the 360 sell more than the PS3 due to Mass Effect 2. This will probably continue indefinately with Bioshock 2 and other various games.
- I agree, to call the PS3 beating 360 a continuing trend based off a few months evidence is not a responsible claim. Furthermore, it didn't beat the 360 by very much, some 50,000 units, that's peanuts in the hardware game.


Sales can't lie, Sony has a higher percentage of first party games in its top sales than Nintendo.
- I love it, you proved it, but remember that Tee is pathologically incapable of backing down on his assertions. I expect he will dismiss your evidence as well.

[SwitchBlade_Jax]

I love it, you proved it, but remember that Tee is pathologically incapable of backing down on his assertions. I expect he will dismiss your evidence as well.


Honestly, I'm surprised myself at the numbers. I thought there would be more of a distinction. For prosparity I just did the Xbox360 numbers:

For the Xbox360
* 177 games sold atleast 0.5 mil units
* Of the 177, 90 sold over 1.0 mil units
* 22 were MS published, 155 3rd party games
* 22/177 = 12.43% 1st party, 155/177 = 87.57% 3rd party

Xbox is the only system that has a more significant percentage difference but its still small. Each system has atleast 20 1st party games in its top sales bracket. Pretty neat to see those numbers.

[Syl]

Anyone taking bets that he will dismiss it based upon this:
"VGCHARTZ IS INACCURATE LOL!"

I need to get muscle march.

[RMan]

I highly doubt this. I have a feeling that in FEBRUARY we will see the 360 sell more than the PS3 due to Mass Effect 2. This will probably continue indefinately with Bioshock 2 and other various games.
Although they're close in the US, I doubt ME2 and B2 will make that much of an impact, since they're sequels to games already on the console. I'd wager FF13's release in march will do more for PS3 sales, even with it being multiplatform, than those two games combined. I think the games themselves will do great, I just think their hardware pushing abilities are low. I just don't think there's nearly as many people in the US that have been holding off on buying a 360 as have been holding off to buy a PS3. I think when tax refunds are rolling in and FF13 hits in march, that $300 PS3 will look like a pretty reasonable purchase.

[SwitchBlade_Jax]

Anyone taking bets that he will dismiss it based upon this:
"VGCHARTZ IS INACCURATE LOL!"

I know VGChartz isn't going to be perfect but unless the complete site was a lie, then any possible mistakes would only swing a title or two per system either in or out of the top bracket of 0.5 million sales that I set. The small swing would never change the numbers enough to still show anything other than Sony and Nintendo are almost exactly the same when it comes to 1st party vs 3rd party games that make a profit.


Now if we could only see the number of games confirmed by their company as having made a profit. With development costs varying that would be the best way to show which system tends to be the best bet for profit.

[RMan]

Xbox is the only system that has a more significant percentage difference but its still small. Each system has atleast 20 1st party games in its top sales bracket. Pretty neat to see those numbers.
Good of you to do the legwork, but I've always considered the 3rd party thing to be a pretty silly argument, regardless of what people parrot. I mean, all the systems have strong competitors, It makes no difference to me as a 3rd party if my overwhelming competition is coming from the console maker, or another 3rd party that's not me, and it dang sure shouldn't matter to gamers. I think it's just another situation where fans want to spin the numbers in their favor somehow, and if you can't knock Nintendo's success as a software developer directly, you have to somehow make their success look like it's bad for others dealing with them. I've little doubt, MS and Sony would love to have Nintendo's development capabilities (MS proved it with their checkbook).

[Anenome]

MS took sloppy seconds on Rare and look where it got them :P A lackluster Kameo port, Perfect Dark: Fail, and Viva Pinata, the Little Big Planet of the 360 :P

[Johan]

MS took sloppy seconds on Rare and look where it got them

A $375 million STD? :D

[TeeCakes]

Wait, so you complain about FF13 supposedly being more shallow and then you say you liked FF12's combat system where you could set up the game to do fight actiions without your input? Didn't that feature make that game more shallow? Now I didn't experience the game myself, all I know is what I read, so those are genuine questions. I've never liked an FF since FF6, the last one on the SNES.

You should play FF12, then. The gambit system is hard to do justice when reading someone's description of it-- you should rent the game and try it out yourself. You basically can make the characters/gameplay as deep as you want, literally everything about combat is customizable. You also can control each characters' actions manually if you wish, it's just faster/more fun to set up gambits and see if your strategy skills are enough to defeat enemies without issuing any commands!

Also TeeCakes you keep saying 3rd parties aren't doing well on the Wii but then you follow right behind then saying all sorts of shallow games are being successful on the Wii, most of those shallow games not being made by Nintendo.

You'll note, I'm not the person who brought up the Okami example, initially. But that is what I meant-- that people making serious 3rd party games for the Wii are being outsold by these shallow party games.

Without further ado we can settle this bullshit with the numbers. I went to VGCharts and have done the math based on any game to date world wide that has sold atleast 0.5 million units. I picked 500,000 units as a divider b/c I think we can mostly agree that any game having sold that many units should of made a profit.

(decimals rounded to 1/100th)
VGChartz:
* The PS3 has 112 games that have sold atleast 0.5 million units.
* Of those 112, 49 games have sold atleast 1.0 million units.
* 20 of the 112 were published by Sony, 92 were 3rd party.
* 20/112 = 17.86% 1st party games vs 92/112 = 82.14% 3rd party games.

* The Wii has 153 games that have sold atleast 0.5 million units
* Of those 153, 73 have sold atleast 1.0 million units.
* 27 of the 153 were published by Nintendo, 126 were 3rd party.
* 27/153 = 17.65% 1st party games vs 126/153 = 82.35% 3rd party games.

Sales can't lie, Sony has a higher percentage of first party games in its top sales than Nintendo.

Well, I'm glad you called your argument "bullshit" and not me! What exactly is this 500K measurement supposed to prove? 1) You've set the bar so low that you count sales behemoths like New SMB and Wii Play the same as something like Hanna Montana Wii, even though Mario's game make literally 100x as much money for Nintendo. (Can you say, "flawed metric"? I knew you could! :D) 2) You're just proving what I said earlier-- that Sony's gameplan is to increase the number of great exclusives as a way to regain their marketshare. They'll have a lot more 1M-sellers than Nintendo has by the end of this gen (as supported by your numbers)-- but make no mistake Nintendo's still making ridiculous amounts of money on their Wii Play's and 3-year-old Mario games in the meantime.

Clearly, your numbers don't tell me how much more money (and it is a LOT) the Wii's 1st party games are making over all the 3rd parties. My entire point was that it's easy for 3rd parties to make decent money back (i.e. sell 500K) simply because of the large Wii user base, so again thanks for helping me prove my point.

Now allow me to give you some real data:

PS3 Top Ten Sellers in NA (http://vgchartz.com/worldtotals.php?page=1&results=50&name=&console=Wii&minSales=0&publisher=&genre=&sort=America) (first parties in bold)

Call of Duty: MW2 3.3M
Grand Theft Auto 4 2.7M
Call of Duty 4: MW 2.5M
Call of Duty: WaW 2.1M
MGS4 2.0M
Madden NFL '10 1.6
Assassin’s Creed 1.6
Madden NFL '09 1.5
MotorStorm 1.5M
Resistance 1.4M

Yep, if it weren't for those PS3 1st party games (that don't even make up HALF of the 3rd parties' sales) Sony would be broke right now amirite?

Now, for the Wii's Top Ten (http://vgchartz.com/worldtotals.php?page=1&results=50&name=&console=Wii&minSales=0&publisher=&genre=&sort=America):

Wii Sports 20.6
Wii Play 13.9
Wii Fit 9.6
Mario Kart Wii 9.2
Wii Sports Resort 5.4
SSBB 5.1
New SMB 4.8
Super Mario Galaxy 4.4
Wii Fit Plus 4.0
Mario Party 8 3.5

That is not a typo. They're all in bold, because they're all first party games. Even the most popular 3rd-party shallow-game Guitar Hero III (at #11) has no chance to even approach the sales of any of those 1st party titles, but hey I guess it's okay since Wii's 1st party percentage is lower than the PS3's, right? :rolleyes:

Maybe you should actually understand what it is you're trying to argue against before you prove me right, next time!

[TeeCakes]

^Also, going by those numbers (I love VGChartz, btw) it's pretty sad that the top PS3 3rd party game has outsold the top Wii 3rd party game. There is no excuse for that when the Wii enjoys such a large console base advantage-- face facts, people are only buying 1st party games on the Wii and struggling 3rd parties realize they'll make 'just enough' cash to pump out a shallow title that manages to reach 500K sales without much effort. What a bad environment for gaming the Wii has become.

[TekkenZaibatsu]

Sony itself has been pushing shallow gameplay for years.

Just a big, long LOL. Every PS system to date has had some of the best games ever made. I'd like to hear about this "shallow gameplay," epecially placed next to the idea of wiggling around a remote to control both simple AND intricate character actions/movements; IMO, that facet of the Wii is downright stupid.


The only difference between sony's version of shallow gameplay and nintendos version of shallow gameplay is the fact that nintendo calls it "reaching a new audience" and sony calls it "evolving cinematic gameplay".

Such a vague generalization; useless. Would you care to make some comparisons? First off, the PS3's graphics are vastly superior to the Wii's. Second, play games like Heavenly Sword, Ratchet and Clank, Killzone 2 and Uncharted 1 and 2 and tell me you don't understand what they mean when they say "cinematic gameplay."


The Sony mantra has always been "graphics graphics graphics"

You're kidding, right? PS2's graphics were never all that great. In fact, some of it's BEST games (GTA Vice City says "Hi!") were frankly not good graphically. The PS3 DOES focus more on graphics now, but still pumps out excellent games that contain them. But to see Sony has always been about graphics shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about whatsoever.

[SwitchBlade_Jax]

Well, I'm glad you called your argument "bullshit" and not me! What exactly is this 500K measurement supposed to prove? 1) You've set the bar so low that you count sales behemoths like New SMB and Wii Play the same as something like Hanna Montana Wii, even though Mario's game make literally 100x as much money for Nintendo. (Can you say, "flawed metric"? I knew you could! :D) 2) You're just proving what I said earlier-- that Sony's gameplan is to increase the number of great exclusives as a way to regain their marketshare. They'll have a lot more 1M-sellers than Nintendo has by the end of this gen (as supported by your numbers)-- but make no mistake Nintendo's still making ridiculous amounts of money on their Wii Play's and 3-year-old Mario games in the meantime.

Clearly, your numbers don't tell me how much more money (and it is a LOT) the Wii's 1st party games are making over all the 3rd parties. My entire point was that it's easy for 3rd parties to make decent money back (i.e. sell 500K) simply because of the large Wii user base, so again thanks for helping me prove my point.



I set the bar low? Are you seriously kidding me?

Wii:
153/811 = 18.91%, meaning I only used the top 19% of the Wii's games

PS3:
112/411 = 27.25%, meaning I only used the top 27% of the PS3's games.

So by a grades standard, since you like that, by a profitability standard I never went below a B grade game on the Wii, compared to going into the D's for the PS3. If I held the PS to the same top % then they would of only been allowed 77 games.

Dude, companies stay in business if they make a profit, not if they make a game that sells enough copies to get into the top 4% off all games sold on that system to date. When taking about companies that want to make money, they want a profit. 500,000 units sold at the standard price of $50 is $25 million in gross sales. That is not a flawed metric. Thinking that if only the top 2.5% of games out there represents a good picture of a gaming system then thats stupid. You don't really think that the top 2.5% of games sold are the only ones that matter when companies want to make money?


Since you only did the top ten your sample is bad b/c that is the top 2.5%
of PS3 games vs only the top 1.25% of Wii games. 411 titles on the PS3 vs 809 on Wii, rounded to 400 and 800. So if you then sample the next 10 games on the Wii to even out the sample size, you find:

GH3 at 3.2 million units vs CoD:MW2 at 3.3 million units on PS3, real big difference
Mario and Sonic at 2.7 million units
GH World Tour at 2.5 million units
Carnival Games at 1.9 million units

Not as many 3rd party titles as the PS3 but they are still there. Plus, there is the fact that Nintendo has been making video games since near the invention of Pong. Sony is still way new to the game compared to Nintendo.

Also the Wii had 73 1.0 million units sold or more games while the PS3 only had 49....how does that show the PS3 will eventually have more? If you remove ALL of Nintendo's published games that would make the numbers 46(Wii) to 49(PS3). At Sony's same rate 20 profitable games in 3 years(I'm not gonna pick hairs on which of their first party games actually moved more than 1.0 units) then it would take them 3.6 YEARS to make up the million unit game difference that stands now. Nintendo is slow to make some games but they won't take a 3 and a half year break.

Nintendo is always going to make more money than 3rd party companies b/c Nintendo has always made some of the best games to date. If people didn't like Mario and his kin all they would do would be to stop buying them and use that money to buy a new system. If your ideas held true then you want to think people would buy any bad game instead of buying a new system.

[Anenome]

See, it's pathological. Don't even bother, evidence means nothing to him, he lives in his own delusional world.

[TeeCakes]

^Again, you're not arguing against anything I've said in this thread. I KNOW Nintendo makes more money. I've SAID that Nintendo's 1st party games are great. But I've SHOWN that those are the only games worth buying for the majority of Wii owners-- simply because shallow 3rd parties can push out crappy shovelware and have it get 500K sold is precisely the reason why I think the Wii is a negative influence on the industry.

To Mozain's point, it should be clear the way that people comparatively buy only 1st party titles for the Wii, while even the PS3's (and certainly the 360's) 3rd party sales are actually GREATER despite LESS consoles out in the wild means that nobody will be rewarded for putting heavy production costs/effort into a 3rd party Wii game like they would on the PS3/360. In fact, they'd lose money to make a serious 3rd party Wii game, when Okami proves it would probably make just as much/less than something like Carnival Games.

The data mining is interesting, because the data you're pulling doesn't counter this argument at all (in fact it supports my opinion).

[Johan]

See, it's pathological. Don't even bother, evidence means nothing to him, he lives in his own delusional world.

That didn't need to be said...and repeatedly, too. :|

Familiar? :D

[TeeCakes]

See, it's pathological. Don't even bother, evidence means nothing to him, he lives in his own delusional world.

And you remind me of the obsessed homeless lunatic on the street corner constantly shouting at anyone who'll listen about he apocalypse. Take your weird fixation with me and write about it in your own personal journal or something. But leave it out of this public news forum, for the last time.

[Anenome]

That didn't need to be said...and repeatedly, too. :|

Familiar? :D
There's not an ad hominem in there, so, your point is?

[Anenome]

And you remind me of the obsessed homeless lunatic on the street corner constantly shouting at anyone who'll listen about he apocalypse. Take your weird fixation with me and write about it in your own personal journal or something. But leave it out of this public news forum, for the last time.
Yeah, 'cause I'm the only one in this thread who's gotten on your case for what you've said here. Please. I'll stop calling you out on your BS when your BS stops.

[SwitchBlade_Jax]

LittleBigPlanet Sony Computer Entertainment 0.17 1.40 1.47 3.04
God of War Collection Sony Computer Entertainment 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.52
SingStar Sony Computer Entertainment 0.00 0.37 0.52 0.89
Buzz! Quiz TV Sony Computer Entertainment 0.00 0.24 0.49 0.73
SingStar Abba Sony Computer Entertainment 0.00 0.20 0.48 0.68
SingStar Vol. 2 Sony Computer Entertainment 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.20
BUZZ! Quiz World Sony Computer Entertainment 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05
SingStar Queen Sony Computer Entertainment 0.00 0.03 0.15 0.18
SingStar Latino Sony Computer Entertainment 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03
EyePet Sony Computer Entertainment 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.39
SingStar Motown Sony Computer Entertainment 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10
** 11 out of 38 = 28.95%



Wii Sports Nintendo 3.67 30.56 24.12 58.35
Wii Play Nintendo 2.83 13.82 9.97 26.62
Wii Fit Nintendo 3.61 9.54 9.45 22.60
Wii Sports Resort Nintendo 1.67 5.43 5.71 12.81
Wii Fit Plus Nintendo 1.47 4.02 3.46 8.95
Link's Crossbow Training Nintendo 0.28 2.83 1.23 4.34
Animal Crossing: City Folk Nintendo 1.26 1.49 0.97 3.72
Wii Music Nintendo 0.42 1.32 1.05 2.79
Big Brain Academy: Wii Degree Nintendo 0.41 0.91 2.09 3.41
WarioWare: Smooth Moves Nintendo 0.72 0.89 0.65 2.26
Pokémon Battle Revolution Nintendo 0.31 0.78 0.34 1.43
Endless Ocean Nintendo 0.09 0.43 0.46 0.98
Wario Land: Shake It! Nintendo 0.14 0.37 0.30 0.81
New Play Control! Mario Power Tennis Nintendo 0.24 0.27 0.65 1.16
Donkey Kong Barrel Blast Nintendo 0.11 0.19 0.29 0.59
New Play Control! Donkey Kong Jungle Beat Nintendo 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.43
New Play Control! Pikmin Nintendo 0.20 0.15 0.07 0.42
Endless Ocean: Blue World
**18 out of 34 games = 52.94%

Neither company has a great rate of shallow crap vs real games. As for the Wii keeping Animal Crossing in there is kind of iffy, as well as I was inclined to give Warioware a pass as well since the concept of it is awesome and its fun to play as well. But when it comes to it, it is a pretty shallow game. Pokemon was a hard call b/c it is a real game but when that title is compared to the regular Pokemon games then it becomes shallow so I left it as a sin.

Yes God of War collection is included because a re-release is shallow, just as all of Nintendo's re-releases were included.

So yes it can be agreed that Nintendo releases plenty of shallow games but they aren't even close to being alone. Sony is plenty quilty, 6 Singstar releases.

[Anenome]

Next up, TeeCakes tries to prove the PSP is better than the DS.

Wait, hasn't he already tried to do that already...? Absurdity and reality are once again melding together.

[TeeCakes]

LBP is a shallow game? I wouldn't call a robust online community, heavy emphasis on replayability, and lots of time/effort/capital spent in development for years a "shallow game". But the rest of the list is agreeable.

Now, I wish you'd linked up the VGChartz source you used-- it's 11/38 of what? According to what type of list? Are these just random games you picked out that fit the label of 'shallow'? Because honestly my Wii list would be a few pages longer than just this 18/34 one.

We agree that all consoles have some percentage of shovelware. It wouldn't even matter to me that the Wii has more if it weren't for the fact that these games will sell decent numbers (enough to make it profitable for these 3rd parties to keep releasing shovelware every year).

We seem to disagree about the implications of 3rd parties being the biggest breadwinner for PS3/360 versus 1st parties being the biggest for the Wii, it seems.

[SwitchBlade_Jax]

I've SAID that Nintendo's 1st party games are great. But I've SHOWN that those are the only games worth buying for the majority of Wii owners--

Ok since records of sales and profits don't seem to prove anything. Please tell me how you can PROVE what video games are worth buying without only using your opinion. Just in case you didn't know, the video game industry is trying to serve everyone, not just you. Unless you bought 3.3million units of MW2?

[SwitchBlade_Jax]

Just used the same VGCharts and used the list of every Sony published game released for the PS3 vs every Nintendo game published for the Wii. I shouldn't of assumed you would infer that.

[TekkenZaibatsu]

Ok since records of sales and profits don't seem to prove anything. Please tell me how you can PROVE what video games are worth buying without only using your opinion.

Shit, so now I need actual PROOF that Jenga isn't worth buying? SHIT! How am I gonna pull this off???

[SwitchBlade_Jax]

The only real goal of Little Big Planet is to just be creative and to be silly. Making a mecha penis dinosaur isn't deep for a video game. Unless there is an over arching story then yes I find it shallow. Doesn't mean the game is bad. If I missed something and it does have a story, one beyond, "Yay, toys are alive!" then it can be removed.

Tetris is a great game but it is shallow as hell. Shallow doesn't mean bad.

[TeeCakes]

Ok since records of sales and profits don't seem to prove anything. Please tell me how you can PROVE what video games are worth buying without only using your opinion. Just in case you didn't know, the video game industry is trying to serve everyone, not just you. Unless you bought 3.3million units of MW2?

You misunderstand. I "proved" it because quite simply millions more people have bought Nintendo's first party games than anything else that the system has to offer. This is why just setting the bar to 500K units is a 'flawed metric'-- Wii Play should not be set on equal ground as some random piece of shovelware just because they both are over 500K.

I "proved" it because the top 10 sellers for the Wii are all 1st party titles-- many of them have been on the chart for years, meaning people would rather buy these 2- or 4-year-old titles than anything new that's come out for the console. Sure, SOME people are buying the new Wii titles but it pales in comparison to the profits Nintendo gets from those top 10.

[Anenome]

That would make sense, if it weren't for the fact that Nintendo's 1st part developers are second to none. If Nintendo games were being released on the PS3, the top 10 list would look near exactly the same.

[Johan]

See, it's pathological. Don't even bother, evidence means nothing to him, he lives in his own delusional world.There's not an ad hominem in there, so, your point is?

Calling someone delusional isn't an insult? When are you publishing this new, updated dictionary with Anenome-isms? :rolleyes:

I'm going to recommend you get off the soap-box about insulting others, or stop doing so yourself; be consistent one way or another. Your armchair psychoanalysis isn't necessary or desired.

[SwitchBlade_Jax]

You misunderstand. I "proved" it because quite simply millions more people have bought Nintendo's first party games than anything else that the system has to offer. This is why just setting the bar to 500K units is a 'flawed metric'-- Wii Play should not be set on equal ground as some random piece of shovelware just because they both are over 500K.

I "proved" it because the top 10 sellers for the Wii are all 1st party titles-- many of them have been on the chart for years, meaning people would rather buy these 2- or 4-year-old titles than anything new that's come out for the console. Sure, SOME people are buying the new Wii titles but it pales in comparison to the profits Nintendo gets from those top 10.


Ok so let me get this straight, the only games worth buying are the top 10 that sell the most? Is that what you are saying?

[TeeCakes]

Ok so let me get this straight, the only games worth buying are the top 10 that sell the most? Is that what you are saying?

No, reread what I said. More people buying the Top 10 games (all of which are 1st party titles) = less people buying non-1st party titles.

To consumers (not to me) the Top 10 are the only titles worth spending money on (as proven by VGChartz) in a broad sense. The Wii's current attach rate is hovering around 6 (http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=89870). Meaning (ROUGHLY) the first 6 games on the Top Ten list is what the majority of each and every Wii owner owns. In other words, they are rarely buying 3rd party games.

I'm simply drawing conclusions from facts, here. Making an opinion based on observable data. If you disagree, that's fine with me but explain why the data seemingly supports my conclusion and not yours if you think I'm wrong.

[Anenome]

Calling someone delusional isn't an insult? When are you publishing this new, updated dictionary with Anenome-isms? :rolleyes:

Are you suggesting there's no case in which someone could be called 'delusional' which wouldn't be insulting? I know you're not, because that's obviously not true.

However, calling someone 'an idiot,' as you did, is always insulting. Stop trying. I was in no way trying to be insulting by calling him delusional, so you can't make it so. I'm surprised you didn't at least choose to use the recent thread where I actually called people idiots, as you did.

Just because I call you out on it doesn't mean I'm going to stop telling you to stop when I slip up myself. We should all aspire to a higher discourse. I don't claim to be perfect in the application of my own standard.

But even despite all of that, you're still neglecting my point in even calling you out, which is that you undercut your own credibility by engaging in ad hominem. You said you don't care, fine, you don't care. I'm still gonna call you out on it, as I would with anyone who should know better.

[Anenome]

No, reread what I said. More people buying the Top 10 games (all of which are 1st party titles) = less people buying non-1st party titles.
This 'zero-sum gain' thinking isn't consistent with actual consumer behavior, so I'll have to disagree. It's a false premise.

To consumers (not to me) the Top 10 are the only titles worth spending money on (as proven by VGChartz) in a broad sense. The Wii's current attach rate is hovering around 6 (http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=89870). Meaning (ROUGHLY) the first 6 games on the Top Ten list is what the majority of each and every Wii owner owns. In other words, they are rarely buying 3rd party games.

- If it were true that 3rd party's don't make money on the Wii then 3rd parties wouldn't be making games for the Wii, and the PS3/360 would have more 3rd party games.

That's not what we find however, not at all. Point destroyed.

[Johan]

Are you suggesting there's no case in which someone could be called 'delusional' which wouldn't be insulting?

Don't be an idiot. :D

[TeeCakes]

off topic rant

Unless you've got a doctorate, calling anybody 'delusional' is a personal attack. Even then, a doctor would first need to examine a patient before making such a serious claim.

A person who's NOT taking unrelated, unsubstantiated personal attacks would not call someone 'delusional' because they are unable to otherwise argue intelligently and remain on topic on an internet forum.

[TeeCakes]

This 'zero-sum gain' thinking isn't consistent with actual consumer behavior, so I'll have to disagree. It's a false premise.

What's false about it? GH3 (the highest selling 3rd party Wii title) has sold 3.1M units in North America. There are 10 games higher than this, and they are all 1st party.

Meaning, people buy 1st party Wii titles more often than they buy 3rd party titles. This is undebatable, quite frankly.

If it were true that 3rd party's don't make money on the Wii then 3rd parties wouldn't be making games for the Wii, and the PS3/360 would have more 3rd party games.

That's not what we find however, not at all. Point destroyed.

LOL@"point destroyed". Saying it doesn't make it true, lad. I'll remind you that the PS3's 3rd party sales are bigger/more profitable than the Wii's (look back a few pages if you need evidence). Besides, I've always maintained that it's too easy for a 3rd party dev to make profits on the Wii-- provided they don't take "unnecessary" steps like actually put time/money/effort into making their game fun, that is.

[SwitchBlade_Jax]

By VGChartz:

PS3:
206.77 million units total games sold
41.85 million units published by Sony
164.92 million units published by 3rd parties

Wii(Wii sports removed due to it being packed in since launch):
387.80 million units total games sold
178.10 million units published by Nintendo
209.70 million units published by 3rd parties

Nintendo has sold more units than every 3rd party publisher combined on the PS3 but 3rd parties have still sold more units than Nintendo on their own system.

The 3rd party publishers have moved more units on the Wii than ALL COMBINED sales on the PS3, how are they suffering? There is no way only shovelware moved near 210 million units on the Wii, if that is still your belief then we can all quit gaming since all the Wii grandma's now own our favorite past time.

[Anenome]

Unless you've got a doctorate, calling anybody 'delusional' is a personal attack. Even then, a doctor would first need to examine a patient before making such a serious claim.

A person who's NOT taking unrelated, unsubstantiated personal attacks would not call someone 'delusional' because they are unable to otherwise argue intelligently and remain on topic on an internet forum.
Really, let's analyze this logic. Are you saying that someone with a doctorate could not call someone delusional in a way that would be a personal attack?

I never claimed to make a medical diagnosis, naturally. That doesn't mean I can't suspect someone of being genuinely delusional. What if cousin Ed starts raving about bats crawling on his skin. Even without a PhD, I'm not insulting him by telling someone he's delusional.

So, I reject the claim. You're delusional about the PS3. That's fine. It's fanboyism taken to the Nth degree.

Really, I've already dropped it, you guys keep bringing it up.

[TeeCakes]

By VGChartz:

PS3:
206.77 million units total games sold
41.85 million units published by Sony
164.92 million units published by 3rd parties

Wii(Wii sports removed due to it being packed in since launch):
387.80 million units total games sold
178.10 million units published by Nintendo
209.70 million units published by 3rd parties

Nintendo has sold more units than every 3rd party publisher combined on the PS3 but 3rd parties have still sold more units than Nintendo on their own system.

The 3rd party publishers have moved more units on the Wii than ALL COMBINED sales on the PS3, how are they suffering? There is no way only shovelware moved near 210 million units on the Wii, if that is still your belief then we can all quit gaming since all the Wii grandma's now own our favorite past time.

Switchblade, again you're using a flawed metric. Let's use easy numbers. Figure Wii has something like 1,000 3rd party developers represented in those figures. Roughly 100 of the 1,000 are actually putting up decent numbers (1M units each), and the rest of the 900 devs have sold anywhere between 5K and 1 unit, each. It's easy for the TOTAL OF ALL 3RD PARTIES to look impressive when you lump them all together, but if you take each title independently it becomes plain that this is a case of quantity (Wii have a metric fuckton of 3rd party shovelware that all sell at least 1 unit) not being better than quality (PS3's higher selling 3rd party titles on an individual basis.)

There's no other way to explain the best 3rd party selling more on the PS3 than the best 3rd party selling less on the Wii, naturally.

[SwitchBlade_Jax]

No, reread what I said. More people buying the Top 10 games (all of which are 1st party titles) = less people buying non-1st party titles.

To consumers (not to me) the Top 10 are the only titles worth spending money on (as proven by VGChartz) in a broad sense. The Wii's current attach rate is hovering around 6 (http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=89870). Meaning (ROUGHLY) the first 6 games on the Top Ten list is what the majority of each and every Wii owner owns. In other words, they are rarely buying 3rd party games.

I'm simply drawing conclusions from facts, here. Making an opinion based on observable data. If you disagree, that's fine with me but explain why the data seemingly supports my conclusion and not yours if you think I'm wrong.


Ok then by the same standard, to consumers (not to you) not a single Sony published game(with sales of ~42 million units total) are not worth buying.

[Anenome]

What's false about it? GH3 (the highest selling 3rd party Wii title) has sold 3.1M units in North America. There are 10 games higher than this, and they are all 1st party.
Because buying one game doesn't mean you aren't therefore going to buy another game. Purchase decisions are flexible not absolute. I know you english majors tend to have a lot of trouble with basic economics, but I used to be an econ major myself apart from my own self-study on the topic so perhaps I have an advantage on this question :P

I think all of us here bought way, way more games than we expected to during the Steam holiday sale, the same phenomena can occur on a console which ends up having a lot of good games. To assume the pie of purchased games cannot expand, that the sale of one game cannibalizes sales of other games is not correct.

Meaning, people buy 1st party Wii titles more often than they buy 3rd party titles. This is undebatable, quite frankly.
No, the essential point about that list is not that they're first-party games, the essential point is that they are good games. That is, buyers buy good games. They often don't care nearly as much who made it.

I'll remind you that the PS3's 3rd party sales are bigger/more profitable than the Wii's (look back a few pages if you need evidence). Besides, I've always maintained that it's too easy for a 3rd party dev to make profits on the Wii-- provided they don't take "unnecessary" steps like actually put time/money/effort into making their game fun, that is.
- There's been crapware, middleware, and premium titles on every successful console to date. I don't see the relevance in arguing particulars, or even trying to use the numbers to argue one console better than the other, which is why I haven't been engaging in this debate with you and the others, except to excoriate you for using bad reasoning, bad mathematical proof methodology (% increases), etc.

In fact, everyone else--except you--has simply been arguing the one true rational point that all the consoles have great games and you can be entertained buying any of them.

To say only the PS3 is worth purchasing is, again, delusional.

[SwitchBlade_Jax]

Switchblade, again you're using a flawed metric. Let's use easy numbers. Figure Wii has something like 1,000 3rd party developers represented in those figures. Roughly 100 of the 1,000 are actually putting up decent numbers (1M units each), and the rest of the 900 devs have sold anywhere between 5K and 1 unit, each. It's easy for the TOTAL OF ALL 3RD PARTIES to look impressive when you lump them all together, but if you take each title independently it becomes plain that this is a case of quantity (Wii have a metric fuckton of 3rd party shovelware that all sell at least 1 unit) not being better than quality (PS3's higher selling 3rd party titles on an individual basis.)

There's no other way to explain the best 3rd party selling more on the PS3 than the best 3rd party selling less on the Wii, naturally.

How is using the total sales in units for each system a failed metric? I've already said there is only 809 games listed being published on the Wii, why are you using 1000? That makes no sense.

554 titles have moved over 5k units on the Wii. 357 on the PS3. I don't know why that figure has any meaning to you though.

[Anenome]

I would assume they don't even have to sell 500,000 to make a profit if it's a simple, young-oriented game.

At $40, if you sell only 250,000 units that's $10 million. If your dev cost was $3m, you've already tripled your dev cost.

[TeeCakes]

No, the essential point about that list is not that they're first-party games, the essential point is that they are good games. That is, buyers buy good games. They often don't care nearly as much who made it.

Of course you realize you've just admitted that the only good games on the Wii are the Nintendo 1st party games. Not that I disagree.

If you were an econ major, and you don't realize that the Top 10 being all 1st party Wii games means that 1st party titles are being bought more ON AVERAGE than 3rd party Wii titles, you must've flunked out, spectacularly.

In fact, everyone else--except you--has simply been arguing the one true rational point that all the consoles have great games and you can be entertained buying any of them.

To say only the PS3 is worth purchasing is, again, delusional.

Again, you're fallaciously defining me as 'delusional' because to me the PS3 represents the best value in gaming today (along with a DS and a PC). I guess that means Evil Avatar is 'delusional' too, he's said as much on many threads--

Hell, anybody that disagrees with your opinion is 'delusional', seems like. I'm often told that the truly insane think that they are the only sane people left in the world. :rolleyes:

I've given up trying to find logic in your posts a long time ago, but I guess it's my fault for even trying to explain how silly you sound with your repetitive, irrelevant personal attacks.

[TeeCakes]

How is using the total sales in units for each system a failed metric? I've already said there is only 809 games listed being published on the Wii, why are you using 1000? That makes no sense.

554 titles have moved over 5k units on the Wii. 357 on the PS3. I don't know why that figure has any meaning to you though.

809 and 554 were never in the data I quoted from you, so you might want to put them in next time if you don't want me to make up figures :rolleyes:

Anyway, my point still stands. You're comparing almost double the amount of titles and triple the amount of consoles with this Wii vs. PS3 total software sales, or apples vs. oranges. It doesn't really prove anything regarding which system is more 'profitable' for the average 3rd party dev, and certainly doesn't disprove my theory on PS3 being a better environment.

[SwitchBlade_Jax]

809 and 554 were never in the data I quoted from you, so you might want to put them in next time if you don't want me to make up figures :rolleyes:

Anyway, my point still stands. You're comparing almost double the amount of titles and triple the amount of consoles with this Wii vs. PS3 total software sales, or apples vs. oranges. It doesn't really prove anything regarding which system is more 'profitable' for the average 3rd party dev, and certainly doesn't disprove my theory on PS3 being a better environment.


You can source the same site I have, which you have already done instead of making numbers up. That isnt may fault.

Using the total sales of one console vs the total sales of another console IS apples to apples, not apples vs oranges. You are saying that I could only compare the two consoles when they have the exact same number of sales. That would probably only happen if game consoles became government standard issue.

[SwitchBlade_Jax]

Also using your same logic of apples vs oranges then you are saying that PS3 has the best PS3 games vs the Wii not having the best PS3 games. You do realize that, right? You do understand what you are saying, instead of just using common phrases to try and prove your point, right?

[Anenome]

Of course you realize you've just admitted that the only good games on the Wii are the Nintendo 1st party games. Not that I disagree.
Wait, you're suggesting that only games in the top 10 can be good? Delusional again? Is this really so hard to understand?

If you were an econ major, and you don't realize that the Top 10 being all 1st party Wii games means that 1st party titles are being bought more ON AVERAGE than 3rd party Wii titles, you must've flunked out, spectacularly.
You say that as if I said something that you're referring to. What I said was that users buy good games. How do you get "the Top 10 aren't selling well" from that. Maybe you're confusing my argument with someone else's, lord knows you're getting it from all sides in this thread.

Again, you're fallaciously defining me as 'delusional' because to me the PS3 represents the best value in gaming today (along with a DS and a PC). I guess that means Evil Avatar is 'delusional' too, he's said as much on many threads--
When you say "to me" no one disagrees, you're not making a truth claim when you qualify your statement like that. It's all the times you've made an objective truth claim by leaving out "to me" that people jump on you, and especially when you make silly statements using %age increases as proof. But again, I'm sure math isn't your strong point.

Hell, anybody that disagrees with your opinion is 'delusional', seems like. I'm often told that the truly insane think that they are the only sane people left in the world. :rolleyes:
- I haven't applied the appellation to anyone else. Nor is anyone else lying with statistics and not realizing it even after it's been pointed out to them. How to Lie with Statistics (http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728)

I've given up trying to find logic in your posts a long time ago, but I guess it's my fault for even trying to explain how silly you sound with your repetitive, irrelevant personal attacks.
- That's fine, you've never changed your mind or admitted you were wrong even once since I joined this site, why should I expect you to now. And no, they aren't personal attacks. I've told you over and over they were heart felt and genuine concern. Please believe me, I truly think you could use the help of a therapist. If you keep accusing me of saying it just to insult you I'll have to just keep defending myself by telling you why I really said it.

[Anenome]

Also using your same logic of apples vs oranges then you are saying that PS3 has the best PS3 games vs the Wii not having the best PS3 games. You do realize that, right? You do understand what you are saying, instead of just using common phrases to try and prove your point, right?
Sound methodology is not his strong point.

[Anenome]

Anyway, my point still stands. You're comparing almost double the amount of titles and triple the amount of consoles with this Wii vs. PS3 total software sales, or apples vs. oranges.
Uh, that's why he gave you %ages which does, in fact, give you an apples to apples comparison.

[TeeCakes]

Also using your same logic of apples vs oranges then you are saying that PS3 has the best PS3 games vs the Wii not having the best PS3 games. You do realize that, right? You do understand what you are saying, instead of just using common phrases to try and prove your point, right?

Do YOU understand why I said your argument is apples vs. oranges?

Nintendo has sold more units than every 3rd party publisher combined on the PS3 but 3rd parties have still sold more units than Nintendo on their own system.

If the Wii has almost twice as many 3rd party publishers making games, OF COURSE they will have sold more 3rd party titles than the PS3. It's a flawed metric, and I was simply pointing that out. Try a better source of data, one that's not flawed preferably, if you insist on trying to prove me 'wrong' somehow.

That's fine, you've never changed your mind or admitted you were wrong even once since I joined this site, why should I expect you to now. And no, they aren't personal attacks. I've told you over and over they were heart felt and genuine concern. Please believe me, I truly think you could use the help of a therapist. If you keep accusing me of saying it just to insult you I'll have to just keep defending myself by telling you why I really said it.

You're the absolute worst poster in EvAv, and you'll notice I didn't qualify that fact with a "to me".

[blackzc]

*whistles*, leaves, kicks tee cakes dog on the way out.

This thread is like disco, its run its course.

[Anenome]

You're the absolute worst poster in EvAv, and you'll notice I didn't qualify that fact with a "to me".
Do you perchance have some %age increase statistics to 'prove' this ^_~

[TekkenZaibatsu]

You're the absolute worst poster in EvAv, and you'll notice I didn't qualify that fact with a "to me".

I stay out of your arguments but normally find many of your posts insightful and intriguing... but if you are serious here, I've lost all respect for you. Worst poster on EvAv? Fact? LOL.

[JazGalaxy]

Uncharted 2 is an example of that 'evolving cinematic gameplay'. Are you calling that a "shallow game"? :rolleyes:


Yes. I am. Or, more specifically Uncharted 1 which received MANY MANY MANY of your precious reviews that said the shooting was janky and the control was poor (which is gameplay) but that the story was "cool" and the game looked great.

My understanding is that Uncharted 2 fixed a lot of these problems, but most reviews seem to suggest that it still has a great deal of issues.

[SwitchBlade_Jax]

Do YOU understand why I said your argument is apples vs. oranges?

If the Wii has almost twice as many 3rd party publishers making games, OF COURSE they will have sold more 3rd party titles than the PS3. It's a flawed metric, and I was simply pointing that out. Try a better source of data, one that's not flawed preferably, if you insist on trying to prove me 'wrong' somehow.




Ok, first off its rude to answer a question with another question.

Secondly, saying that the Wii has almost twice as many 3rd party publishers making games for it versus the PS3 is rediculous unless you can provide any real numbers to prove that fact. All those companies names are there on VGChartz but I'm not going to do your counting and research for you, which untill you do that research we are going to pretend you understand the difference between titles released and the companies that published them.

Also please stop assuming just because a product was made that it has to sell a significant amount. It doesn't.

You're comparing almost double the amount of titles and triple the amount of consoles with this Wii vs. PS3 total software sales, or apples vs. oranges.

As you use the example here you are saying b/c the Wii sales more it is an apple and since the PS3 hasn't sold the same amount that makes it an orange. Which by your comparison, in some amazing future where the PS3 reachs the exact same sale numbers as the Wii, it will become an apple and stop being an orange.

Who here has seen an apple physically transform into an orange?

Maybe we can turn lead into gold next.

[TekkenZaibatsu]

Yes. I am. Or, more specifically Uncharted 1 which received MANY MANY MANY of your precious reviews that said the shooting was janky and the control was poor (which is gameplay) but that the story was "cool" and the game looked great.

My understanding is that Uncharted 2 fixed a lot of these problems, but most reviews seem to suggest that it still has a great deal of issues.

I hope you address my last post to you because some of the things you said were laughable.

If you are calling Uncharted 2 "shallow," you must have some pretty impossible standards. You called Sony graphics whores earlier as well, and that truly is worth a huge facepalm.

[bean19]

You're the absolute worst poster in EvAv, and you'll notice I didn't qualify that fact with a "to me".
I think Schnoogs is by far the worst. Not sure why you are flaming Anemone.

[TeeCakes]

As you use the example here you are saying b/c the Wii sales more it is an apple and since the PS3 hasn't sold the same amount that makes it an orange. Which by your comparison, in some amazing future where the PS3 reachs the exact same sale numbers as the Wii, it will become an apple and stop being an orange.

Who here has seen an apple physically transform into an orange?

Maybe we can turn lead into gold next.

Don't be an idiot, Jax. You're too intelligent to pretend like you don't understand what I'm saying with the apples/oranges thing. And if you honestly don't get it, then it's pointless for me to try to respond any further.

For the last time, the Wii having 60M consoles out in the wild, and 600 3rd party titles available is an APPLE. The PS3 having 30M consoles out, and 300 3rd party titles is an ORANGE. Trying to figure out whether an average 3rd party developer makes more money on the Wii or the PS3 making games cannot be determined by the data you've provided, and certainly doesn't disprove my stance that the PS3 is the better environment (ESPECIALLY when it's given that the best PS3 3rd party game of all time made MORE money than the best Wii 3rd party game of all time).

[TeeCakes]

I think Schnoogs is by far the worst. Not sure why you are flaming Anemone.

Well I'm not sure why he's incapable of staying on topic, either. But if it quacks like an obsessed troll then it generally is one.

You'll notice that Schnoogs ain't on these forums much, hence by default I think the Hyperbolic One claims the throne.

[Zeal]

i hate to recommend Wii games, but at least play Muramasa The Demon Blade and Sin and Punishment 2. I found those games extremely enjoyable.

or, if you're really smart, just get the two games and run them on Dolphin Wii emulator in 1080p. they look 1000x better.

[Zeal]

You're (Anenome) the absolute worst poster in EvAv, and you'll notice I didn't qualify that fact with a "to me".

he is, as it's been pointed out multiple times. why? because he will bombard a topic with the absolute worst form of trolling; spamming 5-6 posts back to back with self indulgence that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. also acting like his opinions are the ten commandments of gaming. ironically, i have yet to see him logically debate one game he has supposedly played. Johan doesn't play games either however, but at least his trolls are humors.

yes, you can call me a troll too, but at least i'm a professional one. I like you Mr. TeeCakes.

anyway, whatev.

[Zeal]

.....................................

and my wife just fucking logged into my account and changed my avatar to Wii fit. i don't know whether to start the lulz or physically beat her.

[TeeCakes]

.....................................

and my wife just fucking logged into my account and changed my avatar to Wii fit. i don't know whether to start the lulz or physically beat her.

Mrs. Zeal's got a real sense of humor! Hopefully she can make up a funny story about "falling down a flight of stairs" to explain her injuries at work! :D

[SwitchBlade_Jax]

Don't be an idiot, Jax. You're too intelligent to pretend like you don't understand what I'm saying with the apples/oranges thing. And if you honestly don't get it, then it's pointless for me to try to respond any further.

For the last time, the Wii having 60M consoles out in the wild, and 600 3rd party titles available is an APPLE. The PS3 having 30M consoles out, and 300 3rd party titles is an ORANGE. Trying to figure out whether an average 3rd party developer makes more money on the Wii or the PS3 making games cannot be determined by the data you've provided, and certainly doesn't disprove my stance that the PS3 is the better environment (ESPECIALLY when it's given that the best PS3 3rd party game of all time made MORE money than the best Wii 3rd party game of all time).


I don't know how you are using best in the above example you give but if you mean sales in total(worldwide):
Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games by Sega - 7.51 mil units on Wii
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 by Activision - 6.36 mil units on PS3

So your statement isn't a given.

Thats a million unit difference. If you meant by only North America sales I already showed that GH:3 and MW2 were only 100,000 units or so in differnce, which doesnt really matter that much when you've already sold over 3 million units. MW2 probably cost more to produce as well.

As for more money by actual profit we will never know that.


Since you don't want to put any effort into your claims, if we assume every single 3rd party game on the Wii is published by a different company the numbers come to:
*775 publishers
*Each one would average 270,580 units in total worldwide sales
*At a random average price of $35 a unit, nice middle of ground between $20-$50 since some of those have to be budget titles.
*$9,470,300 in gross sales at the $35 price
*$13.5 mil in gross sales at $50, $5.4 mil in gross sales at $20

That really is a terrible environment to try and make money in. Poor game companies, they better run to the PS3 right now.

[Zeal]

Mrs. Zeal's got a real sense of humor! Hopefully she can make up a funny story about "falling down a flight of stairs" to explain her injuries at work! :D

lol she's thinking about joining the board and creating her own username. i looked at her like this:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2267/2185066015_81f4f7c89e.jpg

[SwitchBlade_Jax]

Seriously, we are talking about wife beating and promoting it in the thread? Zeal and TeeCakes that is really, well terrible.

I'm done with you two.

[Zeal]

Seriously, we are talking about wife beating and promoting it in the thread? Zeal and TeeCakes that is really, well terrible.

I'm done with you two.

sighhhhh yeah, dude, we soooo totally beat our wives. all the while she's sitting beside me and laughin'. don't be a party pooper.

[Anenome]

Zeal, the self-professed "profesisonal troll" is calling me a troll? That = lol.
And, you know what, this idea that a thread has to stay on topic is silly. Threads eventually wind their way to other issues quite naturally. If you don't want to read then do not, click that little ignore button next to my name and we'll laugh at you behind your back.

[JazGalaxy]

I hope you address my last post to you because some of the things you said were laughable.

If you are calling Uncharted 2 "shallow," you must have some pretty impossible standards. You called Sony graphics whores earlier as well, and that truly is worth a huge facepalm.

Well then with this I exit this conversation with a big "you have no idea what you're talking about."

Sony is the definition of "Graphics whores" as you put it. In the original PSX days, Sony was at the point where they would not let developers publish 2d games for the system. They demanded that games feature complex 3d models and textures even when it caused games to run like a slideshow, look like mud, or be enshrouded in fog. I am a HUGE proponent of the original PSX, but that's just the truth and if you were following gaming at the time it was widely known. In fact, the ONLY reason Sony allowed FFVII to come to the USA (despite it's ban on RPGs being released in the states) was due to it's use of 3d graphics. (as opposed to the other two RPGs they allowed to be released, Suikoden and Beyond the Beyond.)

[Anenome]

Well, I have to agree that Sony is a graphics whore, but only because it's part of a larger principle of them trying to extend every trend in a console to the Nth degree.

[JazGalaxy]

Well, I have to agree that Sony is a graphics whore, but only because it's part of a larger principle of them trying to extend every trend in a console to the Nth degree.

Well, yeah, exactly. That has been their strategy for their entire existence and anyone who doesn't recognize it either doesn't follow the industry, or is a complete idiot.

And it's not entirely bad. People really do buy games based on face value. But Sony has always been obsessed with it. Whether it was photoshopping the graphics on the PSX ads, denying games release on the console if they didn't emphasize 3d graphics, outright lying about the power of the PS2 and saying it could render Toy Story in real time, or putting out fake pre-rendered trailers at E3 during the infamous Killzone debacle..

[TekkenZaibatsu]

Well then with this I exit this conversation with a big "you have no idea what you're talking about."

Sony is the definition of "Graphics whores" as you put it. In the original PSX days, Sony was at the point where they would not let developers publish 2d games for the system. They demanded that games feature complex 3d models and textures even when it caused games to run like a slideshow, look like mud, or be enshrouded in fog. I am a HUGE proponent of the original PSX, but that's just the truth and if you were following gaming at the time it was widely known. In fact, the ONLY reason Sony allowed FFVII to come to the USA (despite it's ban on RPGs being released in the states) was due to it's use of 3d graphics. (as opposed to the other two RPGs they allowed to be released, Suikoden and Beyond the Beyond.)

As I said before, Many of the best games ever made for the PS2 were mediocre to poor in graphics. Most others were good. To say Sony's main perogative is graphics when they've constantly pounded out many of the best games ever made is just entirely silly.

And the comments about Uncharted and others being "shallow" just made me laugh. Meanwhile, there's nothing shallow about simply waving around a remote to get a character to execute both basic AND complicated tasks?

I'd ask for an explanation, but I can't see one that would be sensible. Feel free to try, though.

[JazGalaxy]

As I said before, Many of the best games ever made for the PS2 were mediocre to poor in graphics. Most others were good. To say Sony's main perogative is graphics when they've constantly pounded out many of the best games ever made is just entirely silly.

And the comments about Uncharted and others being "shallow" just made me laugh. Meanwhile, there's nothing shallow about simply waving around a remote to get a character to execute both basic AND complicated tasks?

I'd ask for an explanation, but I can't see one that would be sensible. Feel free to try, though.

The fact that you compare the PS3 to the Wii shows where you're coming from quite clearly. I never said the wii was any better in terms of graphics.

And you're an idiot if you're trying to state that just because some PS2 games had poor graphics, that graphics weren't the point of the system. That's like saying the Houston Rockets had a poor season, so clearly they weren't trying to win. It's hard to find now because the news is buried from time, but it was all over the place during the age of the PS2 how difficult Sony was to work with and how much they pressured developers to push graphics at all costs. In fact, until whatever that first Atlus game was that broke out on PS2, Sony denied Atlus games release in the US because they weren't pretty enough.

I mean, I don't know how I'm even arguing with you about this. The fact that Sony is incredibly concerned with graphics is just a known quantity in the industry. It always has been. It's been a running controversy and debate since the days of the PSX. Whether it was then lying about the processing capabilities of the PS2, saying terrorist wanted it because it could navigate guided missles, saying it could render Toy Story in real time, saying the emotion engine could render faces indistinguishable from real people, or the fake renders of videogames for the PS3 at E3. Sony has always made graphics their chief concern. NOW whether those games actually LOOKED ANY GOOD OR NOT is an entirely separate matter.

[JazGalaxy]

that first sentence should read "... in terms of gameplay depth" not graphics.

[Anenome]

It's undeniable that Sony's been trying to compete on graphical prowess with their consoles. That doesn't mean they're going to prevent a game from being released that's good. It means they're pushing the hardware. With the PS3 they finally pushed a couple hundred dollars too hard is all.

[TekkenZaibatsu]

The fact that you compare the PS3 to the Wii shows where you're coming from quite clearly. I never said the wii was any better in terms of graphics.

And you're an idiot if you're trying to state that just because some PS2 games had poor graphics, that graphics weren't the point of the system. That's like saying the Houston Rockets had a poor season, so clearly they weren't trying to win. It's hard to find now because the news is buried from time, but it was all over the place during the age of the PS2 how difficult Sony was to work with and how much they pressured developers to push graphics at all costs. In fact, until whatever that first Atlus game was that broke out on PS2, Sony denied Atlus games release in the US because they weren't pretty enough.

I mean, I don't know how I'm even arguing with you about this. The fact that Sony is incredibly concerned with graphics is just a known quantity in the industry. It always has been. It's been a running controversy and debate since the days of the PSX. Whether it was then lying about the processing capabilities of the PS2, saying terrorist wanted it because it could navigate guided missles, saying it could render Toy Story in real time, saying the emotion engine could render faces indistinguishable from real people, or the fake renders of videogames for the PS3 at E3. Sony has always made graphics their chief concern. NOW whether those games actually LOOKED ANY GOOD OR NOT is an entirely separate matter.

Only because it seemed like YOU were comparing the two. Forgive me.

Funny thing to say. I'm sure I could offer you a similar analogy for making such a vague generalization as "the point of the system was graphics." What was SUPPOSED to be the point of the system? Good games? It has a MASS of them; so quite frankly I'm not understanding the point you are trying to make.

I definitely agree that graphics are a major point (the PS3 is evident of that), but it's not like it's generally being used in place of good gameplay; we're seeing plenty of that. Perhaps you are suggesting that because Sony are "graphics whores" that they are severely lacking in the gameplay department, which is not true. PLEASE explain what you mean by "shallow gameplay" because if Uncharted 2 is a shallow game you'll have to show me a game that isn't. At least give me your logic on this.

[TeeCakes]

I don't know how you are using best in the above example you give but if you mean sales in total(worldwide):
Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games by Sega - 7.51 mil units on Wii
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 by Activision - 6.36 mil units on PS3

Wow, you're actually using VGChartz data to quote worldwide numbers?? You know they're not at all accurate, right?

I was quoting their NPD numbers, Jax-- which is really all VGChartz is good for (since they use official numbers). And-- seeing as how this is an NPD thread-- I figured you'd take that as a "given".

Guess you aren't as intelligent as I originally thought. Oh well, just for you-- in NORTH AMERICA the best-selling 3rd party game on PS3 outsold the best selling game on the Wii-- IN NORTH AMERICA.

Choke on the logic, bud.

[Agnostic Pope]

What is up with all the fanboyism and people trying too hard to make other people change their own opinions? This thread got WAY of topic with a single PS3 sentence.

[Syl]

New Super Mario Bros Wii has already surpassed Modern Warfare 2 in worldwide sales.

Good for it.

[Anenome]

What is up with all the fanboyism and people trying too hard to make other people change their own opinions? This thread got WAY of topic with a single PS3 sentence.
So weigh in with your thoughts on motion-control, pick a side, let's do battle--there's the line, I've drawn it :P

[Agnostic Pope]

So weigh in with your thoughts on motion-control, pick a side, let's do battle--there's the line, I've drawn it :P
Only Black and White? No grey? Why battle? What is your xbox live gamer tag ;)

But if you are serious then let the guy love the that console even though he had it and then sold it cuz he loves it so much? (wha?)

[Agnostic Pope]

You guys are entertaining. Those last 3 pages. WOW. I like it here!

[TekkenZaibatsu]

You guys are entertaining. Those last 3 pages. WOW. I like it here!

Silly, naive new person :p

You probably haven't even met Johan. Welcome to hell, kid! Or rather, welcome to EvAv, where if your opinion doesn't agree with someone else's, you're an IDIOT!

[Anenome]

Only Black and White? No grey? Why battle? What is your xbox live gamer tag ;)

But if you are serious then let the guy love the that console even though he had it and then sold it cuz he loves it so much? (wha?)
No I just wanted to see how you'd respond :P And also, that's a line from Daniel Tosh's "Completely Serious," my favorite comedian. Actually don't own an X360.

[Agnostic Pope]

Everybody here a pc gamer then?

[Syl]

Everybody here a pc gamer then?

first and foremost!

Nintendo gamer second.

[Johan]

You probably haven't even met Johan. Welcome to hell, kid!

Are you our doorman? Well, at least you're useful. Somewhat. :D

Johan doesn't play games either however, but at least his trolls are humors.

But I do love games...especially browser-based games, like right here! ;)

Everybody here a pc gamer then?

PC -- 360 -- DS -- Xbox -- N64 -- ???

[Anenome]

Nah, Evil's not a PC gamer. I am a PC gamer, but I own a Wii and am going to buy one of the other consoles soon. Most people on here are rather platform agnostic, and rightly so--except for Teecakes who sleeps with his PS3 under the covers every night :P