Commonly called "worst Zelda game" = easiest Zelda to mine for good ideas?
WHAT IS THIS
"Resident Evil sold about 300k more on the Wii, whose install base is something like 4 times that of the Gamecube. The others mentioned from Capcom sold similarly, meaningly they actually did WORSE."
It doesn't work that way. "Bigger install base" doesn't always mean "1:1 increase in the size of the audience for a particular genre or niche." Fact of the matter is, Wii DID have more customers for games like Resident Evil, Sonic, etc. than ...
That "something" is that developers would rather make games they want to make than actually serve customers. They would rather draw lines in the sand about which titles are "hardcore" and "casual" - which they imply means "good" or "crappy" - and draw as much attention as they can to the stuff they want, instead of going out there and making the stuff that people in general will actually play.
We saw the same thing with EA and...
So, what I'm wondering is: if third-party developers are obviously capable of making successful Wii games, and in Activision and Ubisoft's cases, if those Wii games are actually the MOST PROFITABLE TITLES in their catalog, why didn't we see more awesome Wii games last-gen?
Proof? The data says it didn't.
It's more than Just Dance, though. What was the best-selling in-house Disney game ever? Epic Mickey. What was the best-selling console Monster Hunter title? Tri. The best-selling Sonic title on Nintendo platforms? Colors.
That's absurd. People even bother to think gaming is going to be bigger in today's economy than it was before?
This may be the first time someone's talked about Wii's relationship to "core" Nintendo gamers that actually involves data. Hardcore gamers beware.
Wii's "GameCube-style" games still did just as well if not better than the actual GameCube games.
If you take 15-20 million Wii owners out of the equation as people who just bought Wii Sports and/or Wii Fit (since many people seem to believe that there are a large number of Wii owners who bought one game and then never played it again), that leaves about 80 million Wii owners and 829 million game sales.
That actually results in an attach rate fo...
Every time Nintendo tries to do things the Industry Way, Nintendo suffers badly for it. Clearly the Industry Way is at odds with the actual values at the center of Nintendo's biggest games, so Nintendo should continue to ignore Industry values and focus exclusively on Nintendo values, like they did with Wii.
Trying to juggle both, like they're doing with Wii U, doesn't work because it just comes off as two-timing and disingenuous. You'll get the super-dedicat...
I think Nintendo also shot themselves in the foot by pricing Wii U WAY out of the range it should have been. Even considering they're taking a loss on the current price, given their main market, there's no way anything but a price penetration approach was going to work. Wii had massive hype behind it among the general population, and I think that's the only reason $250 was acceptable; bumping it up to $350 with little to no solid public support is just insane.
NES was awesome because it was the place where a genre was born. Nintendo took the original Mario Bros. and turned it into Super Mario Bros., and then a whole slew of similar games were released. The SNES era continued this with stuff like Donkey Kong Country.
We saw a similar trend with New Super Mario Bros. Wii, and then games like Donkey Kong Country Returns, the Wii Kirby games, Rayman Origins, etc...
Nintendo doesn't seem interested in doing this wi...
By "changes" they mean "new content," not "gimmicky gameplay mechanics."
That entry's been there for at least a week, and refers to a past system update. (You know, the one that was released last month, hence after the "before December 4" update?)
As I put it elsewhere:
3DS: Ocarina of Time 3D + A Link to the Past 2
Wii U: The Wind Waker HD + Twilight Princess 2?
Just because Super Mario Bros. 3 took place in the Mushroom World doesn't mean its world was a copy of Super Mario Bros. 1.
I'm HOPING the game substitutes new areas for the Dark World parts of LttP. I'd be fine with the first few dungeons in the old world, as long as there's something new to explore later on.
But with the NSMB track record, I'm not believing anything until I see it.
It's too bad that I really like the concept, but really don't like how Nintendo keeps insisting "same world, new dungeons/puzzles and story." Do we REALLY want to experience the same world? I think not. Maybe we want to see Hyrule in a different way - but that doesn't mean we want Hyrule to be more or less remade pixel-for-pixel.
"Don't even bring Gabe into this" is the EXACT logic I'm arguing against. When you're complaining about players in the "required online services" side of the industry, EVERYONE needs to be brought to task.
To be fair, it really doesn't matter which logos they're using before the official logo has been revealed.