That is true. However, just because they've made bad games doesn't mean the good ones should be overlooked or passed on or deemed "not enough" which is the general tone I get from this thread.
Nobody is saying that you
should overlook them, just why they
are being overlooked. Don't know where you got the idea that this thread's original intent was a call to boycott third parties.
Looking at this from a business perspective, would it have been such a wise decision to support the Wii from day one?
Yes it would have, obviously. I think from seeing that massive line at E3 2006 could have probably tipped them off that it was going to be a big hit and should have seen the potential. But especially after it rocketed to the top in 2007 and basically began to outpace everybody they should have changed their entire approach. They needed to have the kind of foresight to read trends. But instead, they read wrong on a "casual boom," and read wrong on Wii made a bunch of garbage, and more's the pity.
I'm afraid I read this statement as "What they need is to make games that appeal to me and my ilk."
No. Most of their games get horrible reviews AND sell basically nothing despite it. Commercial and critical failures = bad games, period. They needed to have made better ones, and marketed them way better.
The audience? Everyone.
So the "completely different audience" the Wii is aimed at is "everyone?" And all those casual games failed, right? So everyone hates casual games right? Just looking at the games Nintendo has published, I'm just not seeing all this difference. Sure the Wii itself might have been marketed initially, through commercials, showing off the new motion controller and showing people having fun and all that, but that doesn't mean that's the entire userbase. Which ones did most of the third parties focus on though? The non-existant "Casual Market." And they were cranking out some 20 games a year, not realizing these games were killing their reputation and flooding the market. Only a few sold well in the early years, and virtually none sold well at all in 2009. Any that reached a modicum of success were squarely in the $20-$30 impulse range.
They've treated this "new audience" (i.e. everybody) like idiots thinking they'd buy all this cheap crap. When it all failed, the cocky attitude turns to sourness at people who proved smarter than they thought.
Unfortunately, what they may need is a helping hand rather than a brigade of people pointing out every little fault.
All the constructive criticism was given for years prior to this. When they started pointing fingers at others is when the constructive criticism stops. You can only tolerate so much.
When someone from a foreign country is trying to learn English, would you point out every little spelling and grammar mistake and tell them they suck and aren't putting in effort, or would you commend them on what they got right and tell them you'd like to see some improvements? Which method is more encouraging?
All have tried the latter. It didn't take, they didn't improve, and when they fail again, they blame the teacher, the language, the country, etc. These walls are simply showing that their mistakes are
their mistakes, not anybody else's.
The constructive criticism is to make better games, market them better, and stop acting like you know what the "Wii audience" wants, when it's pretty clear that they don't. Fans have been saying that here. Customers have been indirectly saying it by not buying their shovelware. Besides, nobody is "blasting" third parties by simply posting their entire libraries and noticing that most are pretty bad and commercial failures to boot. It's just a mirror to the truth, what your average customer sees when he looks at a Wii game rack. He apparently thinks most third party games are crappy too.
Show Posts
