The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild Wii U / Switch

[dazzybee]

Can you explain to me why, if the Wii U had the best games ever, why so few people picked the system up? It's something I have trouble wrapping my head around. So far nobody has provided me with a decent answer.

 

I don't know about you, but I've noticed that things that are pretty fucking rad do shift units. I mean, Final Fantasy VII pretty much sold the PS1. And Wii U was a decent price, right? It had a Pro controller option for traditional gamers. Even X1 has sold reasonably well after an initial god-awful pitching of their product so I don't think we can say it's just down to that.

 

Funny that people weren't all clamouring to buy the system when the next predictable and safe sequel released. I've said it before, but Nintendo are a shadow of their former self.

 

Oh boy.... I don't know why I bother. So the top ten grossing films are the best? Albums? ANYTHING!?!?!

 

I don't believe you are so stupid as to think things that are popular equals quality. I don't, so I'm not sure what your agenda is... other than just to be argumentative and irritate people for fun.

 

Maybe the system was too expensive, maybe it wasn't marketed, maybe there wasn't quite enough games, maybe people friends didn't have one... But the fact it wasn't popular does not equal the games are bad.

 

What's funny is I'm absolutely certain you argued against Wii saying it wasn't quality and sales don't mean anything at the time. I've literally never met anyone who uses anything they can so desperately to prove their own point.

[Kav]

I thought you were only disappointed at the lack of online on them all. Barring online (which isn't relevant to Zelda) you were disappointed in those games?

 

Absolutely! Splatoon & MK8 have an appalling lack of options online for gaming with friends, swapping up custom gear on Splatoon and an abysmal Battle Mode in MK8 etc

 

 

All those games reviewed extremely well. @Serebii is obviously talking about how they were received critically in the industry, not to him personally as @Ashley suggested. The above five have 81, 88, 92, 93 and 87 scores on Metacritic respectively.

 

I'm not disputing they're good, as I said, just to me they felt disappointing.

[dazzybee]

No I'm asking a simple question. If Wii U had the best games, as in games that most people genuinely people thought were the best (as counter to Serebii's comment about Ashley being an outlier), then why did few people pick the system up to play these games?

 

Can you answer this question?

 

People have. Many times. I just did. Marketing and Image I think are two HUGE reasons the Wii U failed and the PS4 succeeded.

 

Sorry, huge.

[Ronnie]

No one is saying the Wii U has "the best" games, although most people consider its Mario Kart and Smash Bros to be the best in the series, all Serebii was saying was that it had great games, because it does. The Wii U has some fantastic games, 3D World, Mario Maker, Splatoon, Paper Mario, Bayonetta, Pikmin, Yoshi, Captain Toad, Lego City, Wonderful 101, Donkey Kong etc. It wasn't that long ago the console had 4 GOTY contenders in a single year. That's all dazzybee and Serebii were saying, see:

 

But this is a game? That many people have played and loved it. Nintendo rarely let us down on games. So it doesn't apply. It's just this boards fascination with being painfully negative about almost everything. Even when the people who actually experience it have been unanimously positive about it.

 

Aside from amiibo Festival, every single game Nintendo put out themselves on the Wii U was at worst really good and at best phenomenal. Yes, the Wii U had some questionable design choices and there are OS features that would have been nice, but the games themselves have been amazing.

 

I have no doubts that Nintendo's software on Switch will be equally as good

 

It really isn't that controversial to suggest. But of course, positivity gets jumped on.

 

People have. Many times. I just did. Marketing and Image I think are two HUGE reasons the Wii U failed and the PS4 succeeded.

 

Sorry, huge.

 

Hell the PS4 sold truckloads in it's first year without any games, let alone quality games.

Edited December 21, 2016 by Ronnie
Automerged Doublepost

[Sheikah]

Oh boy.... I don't know why I bother. So the top ten grossing films are the best? Albums? ANYTHING!?!?!

 

I don't believe you are so stupid as to think things that are popular equals quality. I don't, so I'm not sure what your agenda is... other than just to be argumentative and irritate people for fun.

 

Maybe the system was too expensive, maybe it wasn't marketed, maybe there wasn't quite enough games, maybe people friends didn't have one... But the fact it wasn't popular does not equal the games are bad.

 

What's funny is I'm absolutely certain you argued against Wii saying it wasn't quality and sales don't mean anything at the time. I've literally never met anyone who uses anything they can so desperately to prove their own point.

 

For christ's sake man, come on. Even you're not believing what you're typing.

 

The system was the cheapest of the lot, has been for a while. X1 was pitched like total horse shit and has done far better than the Wii U could have ever hoped to have. Marketing and price cannot continue to be the reasons that the staple Nintendo loyalist fall back on time after time to justify the Wii U's poor system sales.

 

Why? Because if it has the games everyone really wants, that they think are the best games worth having, then everyone would want to buy the system. Wii Sports sold the Wii. Minecraft sold god knows how many consoles and PCs. You might want to believe that Nintendo make the games everyone thinks are the best, but I can assure you no amount of reviews are going to change reality.

 

My opinion? Nintendo's games now on the Wii U aren't great. Not by a long shot. What I mean by that is that they're not exciting. I've seen and done most of what they continue to do many times before. Worst of all, I think there's a massive lack of diversity. For instance, I reckon a lot of people who bought SM3DW also bought Mario Kart. I don't think they have enough different kinds of games to draw in other kinds of people who wouldn't buy some of their other games.

 

They make highly polished, structurally and technically sound games that are essentially impossible to score low. You could make a NSM3DW sequel following the exact same formula they used last time with different levels and I can almost guarantee it will score in the top 5-10% of games every time. Yet every time, I would find that game boring.

Edited December 21, 2016 by Sheikah

[Ashley]

Can we please just remember this started as a discussion about being "disappointed". Disappointment is not necessarily related to the quality of a game. You can be disappointed with something that is objectively good (i.e. good quality design), but enjoyment is more than that. That is why people can be disappointed in a game that has a 100% rating on metacritic but enjoy a crappy game like Knack (as an example).

 

That is what I was trying to suggest to Serebii as he said "us", implying everyone, was enjoying Nintendo's software as if enjoyment (as an invesion of disappointment) is purely down to quality. Maybe he didn't mean it, but that is what I wanted to point out. I didn't expect it to snowball like this.

 

Baiscally a game can be great for the majority but disappointing for others.

 

It's not about positivity getting jumped on. It's about trying to discuss different views in an open way. And personally it was about not being spoken for by someone else.

[Happenstance]

At least we can all agree that this new Zelda looks great/average/poor.

[Ronnie]

What I mean by that is that they're not exciting. I've seen and done most of what they continue to do many times before.

 

What does excite you on the competition this gen then out of curiosity? What new, innovative, fresh big budget experiences are there out there that amaze you with their polish, quality and above all ability to bring something new to the table? I'm struggling here.

 

I take it you think the Wii had the best software last gen then?

[Ashley]

What does excite you on the competition this gen then out of curiosity? What new, innovative, fresh big budget experiences are there out there that amaze you with their polish, quality and above all ability to bring something new to the table? I'm struggling here.

 

I take it you think the Wii had the best software last gen then?

 

Again why must everything be a competition? It is up to Sheikah if he wants to answer that, but why can we not discuss if we're excited/disappointed in Nintendo software without having to leverage it against another console?

 

If you're interested in what is exciting people on the PS4, maybe ask them in the PS4 thread? It's there for a reason.

[dazzybee]

For christ's sake man, come on. Even you're not believing what you're typing.

 

The system was the cheapest of the lot, has been for a while. X1 was pitched like total horse shit and has done far better than the Wii U could have ever hoped to have. Marketing and price cannot continue to be the reasons that the staple Nintendo loyalist fall back on time after time to justify the Wii U's poor system sales.

 

Why? Because if it has the games everyone really wants, that they think are the best games worth having, then everyone would want to buy the system. Wii Sports sold the Wii. Minecraft sold god knows how many consoles and PCs. You might want to believe that Nintendo make the games everyone thinks are the best, but I can assure you no amount of reviews are going to change reality.

 

My opinion? Nintendo's games now on the Wii U aren't great. Not by a long shot. What I mean by that is that they're not exciting. I've seen and done most of what they continue to do many times before. Worst of all, I think there's a massive lack of diversity. For instance, I reckon a lot of people who bought SM3DW also bought Mario Kart. I don't think they have enough different kinds of games to draw in other kinds of people who wouldn't buy some of their other games.

 

They make highly polished, structurally and technically sound games that are essentially impossible to score low. You could make a NSM3DW sequel following the exact same formula they used last time with different levels and I can almost guarantee it will score in the top 5-10% of games every time. Yet every time, I would find that game boring.

 

I don't think Nintendo make the best games for everyone no. Not by a long shot. I'm just saying just because they're not popular/successful it doesn't reflect on the quality of their games. Personally, I'm fine with that, I do think they make the best games, by some considerable distance. Also remember that you talk about success and flying off the shelves, but we've chatted about this before too, but Wii U games have sold incredibly well; better than a lot of PS4/XB1 games; why does only the sales of the console itself have any bearing?

[Sheikah]

I don't think Nintendo make the best games for everyone no. Not by a long shot. I'm just saying just because they're not popular/successful it doesn't reflect on the quality of their games. Personally, I'm fine with that, I do think they make the best games, by some considerable distance. Also remember that you talk about success and flying off the shelves, but we've chatted about this before too, but Wii U games have sold incredibly well; better than a lot of PS4/XB1 games; why does only the sales of the console itself have any bearing?

 

But what does that even mean? Quality?

 

Isn't a game quality if it elicits enjoyment from the user - isn't that what entertainment is for, after all? And if a game does produce a high level of enjoyment, don't you think it's going to help sell that system?

 

So when I play Destiny with 5 other friends, blowing the lid off a raid in an experience I've simply never had anything close to before, wouldn't you say that that's a quality experience?

 

I would go so far as to say that Nintendo are prioritising all the wrong things if they're more concerned with technical quality above new and exciting experiences. And even that, in my view, that doesn't necessarily constitute a 'quality' game or experience.

[Ronnie]

I don't think they have enough different kinds of games to draw in other kinds of people who wouldn't buy some of their other games.

 

Splatoon, Mario Kart 8, Starfox Zero, Bayonetta 2, Smash Bros, Pikmin 3, Mario 3D World, Captain Toad, Xenoblade Chronicles X, Hyrule Warriors.

 

An online team based shooter, a kart racer, an arcade space shooter, an fast paced action game, a brawler, a strategy adventure game, a 3D platformer, a puzzle game, an JRPG and a hack n slash. Just a handful of titles, all wildly different games without even getting into the likes of Pokken, Yoshi's Woolly World, Wonderful 101, Zelda etc which are even more unique genres still.

 

Now, I type in PS4 games on Amazon and I get:

 

Watchdogs 2 (openworld game), Battlefield 1 (shooter), Call of Duty (shooter), Red Dead Redemption (openworld), Skyrim (openworld), FIFA (another FIFA), Fallout (openworld), Lego Star Wars, Battlefront (shooter), Uncharted, Titanfall 2 (shooter), Tomb Raider, The Division (shooter).

 

Your lack of diversity argument is utter rubbish.

 

Also remember that you talk about success and flying off the shelves, but we've chatted about this before too, but Wii U games have sold incredibly well; better than a lot of PS4/XB1 games; why does only the sales of the console itself have any bearing?

 

Great point, and it's just blown Sheikah's already flimsy, nonsensical argument to pieces.

[dazzybee]

But what does that even mean? Quality?

 

Isn't a game quality if it elicits enjoyment from the user - isn't that what entertainment is for, after all? And if a game does produce a high level of enjoyment, don't you think it's going to help sell that system?

 

So when I play Destiny with 5 other friends, blowing the lid off a raid in an experience I've simply never had anything close to before, wouldn't you say that that's a quality experience?

 

However you determine quality, whatever that is, sales success doesn't determine it. Which is the whole point. So explain it however you want.

 

And you say if a game produces a high level of enjoyment will that help sell a system? No. When people don't even play it how would they know if it's enjoyable or not? How many times have games sold insanely, films been successful etc purely on hype? Lots. Your argument is baseless.

[Happenstance]

I know its stupid of me to read Ronnie's posts when I have him on ignore but seeing his weird use of gaming genres is always a highlight of my day.

[Ashley]

Splatoon, Mario Kart 8, Starfox Zero, Bayonetta 2, Smash Bros, Pikmin 3, Mario 3D World, Captain Toad, Xenoblade Chronicles X, Hyrule Warriors.

 

An online team based shooter, a kart racer, an arcade space shooter, an fast paced action game, a brawler, a strategy adventure game, a 3D platformer, a puzzle game, an JRPG and a hack n slash. Just a handful of titles, all wildly different games without even getting into the likes of Pokken, Yoshi's Woolly World, Wonderful 101, Zelda etc which are even more unique genres still.

 

Now, I type in PS4 games on Amazon and I get:

 

Watchdogs 2 (openworld game), Battlefield 1 (shooter), Call of Duty (shooter), Red Dead Redemption (openworld), Skyrim (openworld), FIFA (another FIFA), Fallout (openworld), Lego Star Wars, Battlefront (shooter), Uncharted, Titanfall 2 (shooter), Tomb Raider, The Division (shooter).

 

Your lack of diversity argument is utter rubbish.

 

The problem when you do this (and you do it often) is you decide what the genres are and then criticise based on your crtieria so there's no objectivism there.

 

For example, you've put Watch Dogs 2 as "openworld", whereas it's labelled as Action-Adventure Third-Person on Wikipedia. I know that would be a problematic method as well (variety of editors) but at least there would be some consistency. Hell you could use the genres Amazon list (WD2 is Adventure in that case).

 

You seem to lump tihngs together to suit your mood. You said Mario 3D World, Captain Toad and Yoshi's are all different, but someone else could come along and just say "platformer, platformer, platformer" based on their own crtieria, like how you've listed many things as either openworld or shooter, ignoring the fact those genres can be subdivided anyway.

 

Also if I repeat your stated methodology "type in 'PS4 games'" I get other stuff (Rocket League, Deadpool, Just Dance) which suggests you've intentionally picked games to suit your desired argument.

 

If you want to do a proper comparison I recommend trying to implement a methodology that can provide a better comparison. As mentioned above, this can be simply by using one source for genre (e.g. Amazon) rather than defining it yourself so its more objective.

 

You may also want to use the pre-populated list of best selling Wii U games and best selling PS4 games (although as far as I'm aware there's no indication of what timeframe 'best seller' is referring to, but presumably they will be the same as its from the same source).

 

This would provide a better comparison and a better source of conversaiton and discussion.

[Ronnie]

The problem when you do this (and you do it often) is you decide what the genres are and then criticise based on your crtieria so there's no objectivism there.

 

Basically, what everyone does, all the time. "The Wii U had too many platformers" is exactly the same, but you don't argue with people who say this over and over.

 

For example, you've put Watch Dogs 2 as "openworld", whereas it's labelled as Action-Adventure Third-Person on Wikipedia.

 

The perspective is irrelevant and action-adventure doesn't really say very much. But fine, I'll call it an action adventure, and lump Red Dead, Fallout, Uncharted, Tomb Raider in with it as fellow action adventures. Would that be better?

 

Also if I repeat your stated methodology "type in 'PS4 games'" I get other stuff (Rocket League, Deadpool, Just Dance) which suggests you've intentionally picked games to suit your desired argument.

 

No, I picking the big budget releases as a fair comparison with the equivalent on Nintendo, and so ignored those three.

[Ashley]

Basically, what everyone does, all the time. "The Wii U had too many platformers" is exactly the same, but you don't argue with people who say this over and over.

 

The perspective is irrelevant and action-adventure doesn't really say very much. But fine, I'll call it an action adventure, and lump Red Dead, Fallout, Uncharted, Tomb Raider in with it as fellow action adventures. Would that be better?

 

No, I picking the big budget releases as a fair comparison with the equivalent on Nintendo, and so ignored those three.

 

1) I'm actually trying to help you get your point across in a way that is less open to critique.

 

2) What I was arguing for was a consistent approach, if the approach then helps you with your point then yes it is better.

 

3) Explain the methodology better than. Something you called me out on when I mentioned the other day to exclude handhelds from whatever we were talking about. I should have better explained why.

[somme]

We've had this genre argument so many times. Just like we did with the PS4's "lack of colour" we proved just how diverse the PS4's library is, with pictures! And that was over a year ago and it's had hundreds of games released since. Ronnie ignores any rebuttal and then uses the same argument a few months down the line.

[Ronnie]

We've had this genre argument so many times. Just like we did with the PS4's "lack of colour" we proved just how diverse the PS4's library is, with pictures! And that was over a year ago and it's had hundreds of games released since. Ronnie ignores any rebuttal and then uses the same argument a few months down the line.

 

You "proved" it, did you :laughing:

[somme]

You "proved" it, did you :laughing:

 

All hail the PS4!!

 

Well, yes. You always say the PS4 only had shooters. You're absolutely and categorically wrong and no matter how many times you state it, you'll never be right.

[Ronnie]

Well, yes. You always say the PS4 only had shooters. You're absolutely and categorically wrong and no matter how many times you state it, you'll never be right.

 

How pathetic this has become. I don't "always say the PS4 only has shooters". Obviously that isn't the case and it's as stupid as those who say over and over and over and over that the Wii U "only has platformers". It's a generalisation. My point has always been that big budget AAA games are samey and depressingly lacking in variety and I think the above examples illustrate my point pretty well.

 

So no, you didn't "prove" anything about the diversity.

[Ashley]

Can I flip this on its head purely out of academic curiosity.

 

The PS4 is doing very well. The biggest selling games on the PS4 are from a limited pool of genres (there's still a wide range across the console, but just looking at the biggest selling). Thus, does this show that the gaming public as a whole aren't interested in what Nintendo is offering? It would be interesting to compare how this compares across consoles, although you'd probably have to adjust for install base to get something decent out of.

 

Just wondering if one could argue that Nintendo's games may be great and as a developer they may do lots of interesting things, but the wider audience simply don't want it?

[Ronnie]

Can I flip this on its head purely out of academic curiosity.

 

The PS4 is doing very well. The biggest selling games on the PS4 are from a limited pool of genres (there's still a wide range across the console, but just looking at the biggest selling). Thus, does this show that the gaming public as a whole aren't interested in what Nintendo is offering? It would be interesting to compare how this compares across consoles, although you'd probably have to adjust for install base to get something decent out of.

 

Just wondering if one could argue that Nintendo's games may be great and as a developer they may do lots of interesting things, but the wider audience simply don't want it?

 

I absolutely agree, you've nailed it.

[Shorty]

I don't think comparing a subjective list of your favourite Wii U games to... the top 10-or-so list of... games amazon is trying to sell to parents at Christmas is the fairest approach anyway.

 

Can we agree to disagree again for a bit and go back to talking about Zelda?

[Sheikah]

However you determine quality, whatever that is, sales success doesn't determine it. Which is the whole point. So explain it however you want.

 

I disagree. For instance, I think that the PS4 is giving people a high number of quality experiences; a large part of this I believe is due to the online aspect of many games and third party support for a variety of fresh ideas. And as a result of these quality experiences, the system sells. People want to share these quality experiences with their friends. Have you played Overwatch, for instance? It is leagues ahead of anything Nintendo have done recently in terms of freshness and social fun, and it perfectly encapsulates that fresh-game, exciting feeling that I used to get from Nintendo's games. And no surprise, it has sold very, very well.

 

And you say if a game produces a high level of enjoyment will that help sell a system? No. When people don't even play it how would they know if it's enjoyable or not? How many times have games sold insanely, films been successful etc purely on hype? Lots. Your argument is baseless.

 

Come off it, people aren't daft. They can form opinions based on footage, opinions of friends, and playing it at other people's houses. You can't say that Nintendo's system might be the perfect package but a lot of people just don't know this because they don't have it. A lot of people have bought these games in past generations and don't see enough value in buying another system just to play similar Nintendo sequels. For the semi-casual gamer for instance, who might have Mario Kart on the Wii, it may be that they don't see the value in buying a Wii U to play MK Wii U.

 

Your argument that shit can also sell well is not without merit. But generally speaking, if the Wii U is packed full of games that are the cream of the crop and exciting/must-haves, it should really be selling a lot more. Sure, something that is great might be overlooked, but a whole console of these 'top games'? Clearly the system doesn't have something. In my opinion, they haven't produced many exciting or fresh games and that is ultimately why I haven't enjoyed their content as much.

Edited December 21, 2016 by Sheikah