Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner with common sense!

The funny thing is, it seems 3Dude is the only one that actually does have any common sense.

Your actual quote said that anyone enjoying the game needed to stop hyping the game up because you'd played it and it wasn't that good.

3Dude has been completely reasonable, and not once has he said that anyone is wrong for not liking it. Read the thread back.

The funniest bit is bring up 'opinions', because that's the biggest get out clause going for talking nonsense.

It's an OPINION. You really need to learn to stop taking thing so literal and serious on a forum, especially where some might not share the same ideals as you. I think that this game is heavily overhyped. You don't. Am I questioning you or trying to attack me like you did to anyone person that disagreed with you? No I'm not. I'm simply responding to you. I'm not the only one that had problem with the touch controls. Users on IGN, GameFAQs, Gamespot, Serebii's forums, and NeoGAF also had problems. Stop it. Seriously. You argue cause you try, note the keyword "try" to countlessly win arguments like they are some kind of accomplishment. I'm entitled to post whatever I feel on the game, you don't like it? Too bad, suck it up and go back to debating meaninglessly about the specs of the Wii U. I'm done with you. I'm not the only who sees your counter-argument as incredibly not good.


Yes its definitely common sense. 3Dude definitely has the right to attack anyone who doesn't like The Wonderful 101 or fines a flaw in the game! Get out "clause?" That utterly ridiculous nonsense. I'm not trying to get out of nothing. I don't fear 3Dude nor am I afraid to debate with him. However, when you want to argue for hours upon hours about difficulties somebody found with the controls and they didn't like it, you obviously have issues to work out. Not every game is for everyone, he doesn't seem to comprehend that because die-hard love for Nintendo is too strong.


I'm pretty sure I was clear when I said "I found the line/circle drawing to be unresponsive"

The thing is, you're complaining about your opinion not being respected, yet don't seem to realise that telling people they are overhyping something is by definition telling them they are wrong.

You not liking it is as valid as 3Dude loving it, so how can you say someone really enjoying it is 'overhyping' it?

Ultimately it seems ridiculous to me to deny yourself a game you were looking forward to just because they've removed something you'd never touch anyway.

Much the same as all the Rayman anger, if you don't buy something you were looking forward to because of something that doesn't affect you then that's frankly a bit silly isn't it?

A lot of us own a PC capable of running the game, or a second console where the version will not be gimped.
So we can further the trend of third parties thinking they're doing it right.

At least send them a tweet or email saying why you're not supporting it on Wii U if this unicorn tongue bothers you.
Probably won't have any effect at all, but if we don't let them know they'll just think they did it all right.

I have an Xbox here as well, but I like playing on the Wii U.

Again, if you don't care about multiplayer then it doesn't matter if you buy the Wii U version.

What are you supposed to do? Tweet them complaining how they have left out something you didn't care about?
And if they put it in, paying money to develop and run servers for Wii U and then all of you that complained then don't play it because you don't care about it, then they've wasted all that time and money.

Not exactly sure which part of any of that sounds 'right'.

I have 8.

NSMBU + Luigi U
Nintendo Land
Pikmin 3
Lego City Undercover
Batman Arkham City
Sonic Racing
Tekken Tag 2
Lego Batman 2

Wonderful 101 and Rayman will be added to that in the next couple of weeks

It's an additional feature.
How can I like something I haven't tried yet?
The cost of servers is almost nothing, the cost of developing it is the same as it is for the other consoles.

Clearly not otherwise it would be being developed.

Impressive logic.

There's also the point I didn't bother to type out where if WB ever plan to make another Wii U game with online multiplayer, they'd already have infrastructure, and the netcode to make it happen.
Meaning the Return on Initial Investment now, would help them immensely.

Well that's a rather large 'if'.

Your whole post doesn't make sense imo...

-Splinter Cell isn't getting released on the X1/PS4. So don't expect much improvement from the Wii U version (except lighting etc).
-Yes, the gamepad features in general are better compared to other consoles (well atleast in my opinion).
-The price is just the same for both versions
-Wii U runs just fine like the other versions (except cutscenes, where it's "bad" on all versions).

Absolutely spot on. To me, games like this really show how the Wii U can enhance a game. Not the end of the world to play on 360, but just easier and more accessible on Wii U. The same thing I thought about Batman for Wii U.

Yeah, especially if they don't ever start making any games with online, by removing them even though it's in the spec for all the other versions of the same game.

If it was worth them doing it then they would have. At the end of the day multiplayer in games like this is usually tacked on, and gets largely ignored.

Also, you are aware that Warner Bros have already done an online game for Wii U aren't you?

It's the install base and nothing more.

If 2M people decided to buy Mario AND Assassins Creed then we wouldn't have to have the same discussions over and over. The games don't sell so they don't get made.

The specs talk is nonsense, as the gap isn't huge this time, not to mention how 360 and PS3 are going to be supported for a long time.

And the gamepad stuff is also nonsense, as quite frankly you don't need to be a genius to stick a map on there, or some weapon switching like Splinter Cell.

It is quite simply the lack of people buying these games.

Looking forward to the graphics/performance comparisons that will surely surface. So far it's good to know that the Wii U version is the only one to have zero screen tear unlike PS360.

I hated the screen tear in previous Splinter Cell games dating right back to the original Xbox game. Possibly the worst screen tear I have ever seen.

All Ubisoft games have been awful for it, so it's good to see Wii U manages to rid the game of it.

you're right it does take 3rd party support to get an install base but the thing is 3rd party devs don't want to take a risk on something they don't know if it will pay for itself i.e vita and wiiu

yep but the thing is devs don't know if its worth it to put on the WiiU so if Nintendo doesn't pay for 3rd party support they're not going to get it example Nintendo payed for timed exclusive of Resident Evil Revalations Nintendo payed for the development of Wonderful 101 and Bayonetta 2 and what 3rd party games are Nintendo getting that are fully featured for the WiiU the only one I can think of is Watch dogs because Blacklist has framerate issues and it didn't ship with all the modes that its 360 counterpart did

and how is this not true when was the last time Nintendo had solid 3rd party support 3rd parties have hated Nintendo for a very long time because they tried to control 3rd parties and apparently not enough has been done to fix this


Specs are something Devs take into account and the specs are a huge leap from WiiU to PS4 http://www.ign.com/w...omparison_Chart but besides that you're right

The specs are as huge a leap as the Xbox was from the PS2. There's not going to be a massive difference, and if the games for Wii U sold loads then they'd make it work no matter what.

I agree that the 3rd parties don't want to take risks, which is down to the ridiculous budgets they've all set.

umm they really can't look at minecraft on xbox the worlds aren't infinite which is a huge feature reduction or look at all the games that are a million times better on PC

Give us some examples of games that are loads better on PC. Minecraft is a good one but what else?
Not just graphics wise, I want actual gameplay differences.

my first instinct was to go straight to modding because that's where gaming is going its a huge part of games like minecraft and skyrim but I'm not going to modding so games that are better on pc: Super Meat boy( on pc it has a level editor and way more unlockable characters), Blood Bowl( xbox version didn't even have online leagues or tournaments plus pc had more than triple the races), Starcraft was released on n64( controller enough said also I included this one for strategy games in general they usually just don't come to consoles because of controls), team fortress 2( 4 years of updates to pc none to the xbox version) also little know thing the pc version of gears of war is better more maps, more chapters, and more multiplayer modes, portal 2 with tons of user created custom maps. so that was a couple of them I could name more but really pc games are usually better than console games because of the modding community, along with more frequent updates, and graphics

And none of that is down to hardware. Sure, those are all reasons why the PC version is best, but that not because the PC has more powerful hardware.

I would like to point out that install base is not everything.

The Wii had a huge early lead in consoles sold due to the popularity of the gimmick. But when the dust settled, the 3rd party games were far more popular on the PS and Xbox.

Same thing will happen here except for the fact the public was not enthralled with this gimmick. We won't even have the benefit of the huge install base.

Nintendo should have made the platform more powerful and more RAM. Price it a bit higher... $400 or so.

Oh well. .. too late now! 8)

That's still because the audience wants Nintendo games. Multiplatform games just don't sell.

How would more RAM and a higher price help anything?

3rd parties don't like Nintendo because Nintendo fans don't buy 3rd party games.

more like 3rd parties are just lazy and are also terrified that they'd have to actually use design and cleverness on the Wii U as opposed to playing smoke and mirrors to try and mask their stagnant talent. Plus they'd have to live with playing second fiddled on the system as opposed to Sony and MS where their the thing. It's a lot of different things, but it's mostly political bs.

This lazy stuff is BS, but this second fiddle stuff might have some truth to it.

There are plenty of talented people at 3rd parties but the business people are clearly stifling it. Budgets are too high to risk creative games.

When budgets are this high a Wii U game will be a huge risk too.

yeah you're right although most devs won't spend the time to shoehorn a port to the WiiU because of the small install base and because they hate Nintendo

So basically specs don't matter, it's the install base / lack of software sales then.

What about all the exclusives & third party games that won't be on the WiiU ?
There is no support for the WiiU & nobody seems to think it will improve.

Then buy those systems if you want to play those games.

As 3Dude said previously, there was a time when not all systems had exactly the same games.

I think the most ridiculous thing is that YOU bought the Wii U. No one forced you to. Why did you if you don't like anything on it? Why didn't you just get a PS4 instead?

But all of these are minor things that most people won't bother with.

You can keep sitting there refusing to buy games because of minor things, and then you can enjoy when the next round of games don't come to Wii U at all, and then you can all complain some more about how the world hates you.

Or you could just buy Batman and enjoy its great single player mode.

He likes to complain about the Wii U (here and on Neogaf).

Oh I know, I just find it ridiculous. I understand wanting more games, but just constantly moaning on about everything gets old.

Either enjoy the Wii U or sell it and move on.

Offline co-op is sooooooo much better.

But online is good for when you don't have friends over.

So true, and this is the focus for Nintendo.

Nintendo's experience is all about playing games with other people in the same room.
They don't put the same effort into online. But then apart from a small number of huge online games I think online is made out to be bigger than it is.

Call of Duty is a massive online game, I doubt Pikmin 3 would have the same kind of audience. I suppose it would be nice to have the option though.

And whose fault is it that budgets have gotten this prohibitively expensive? 3rd parties. They're the ones who have gone wild and kneecapped themselves financially. And the sad part is that they could stop at any moment. They COULD stop spending so damn much, scale back budgets, bring variety to their portfolios instead of relying on a handful of titles, and organize themselves better, but they won't. Why?...I don't know. No one is twisting their arm, demanding that they spend so much so a LOT of problems 3rd parties have is due to their own idiocy, lack of foresight, and weirdly stubborn nature. I am not going to feel sorry for 3rd parties if they make such blatantly idiotic decisions.

Yes you're completely right. The reason is basically people are greedy and they see some things making a load of money so they want that over and over, instead of realising that that kind of thing is unsustainable.

It will be the same talk with Nintendo. If the make a profit on Wii U then they've done their job, but the world of business needs to see 'growth'.

It won't look good to 'business' people to see sales drop from 100M Wiis to say 20M Wii Us.

3rd party's don't want to see a load of low budget games making a small profit. They want mega hits that make millions.

Figures from vgchartz (lol)
Platform: Xbox 360 = Global 4.51m
Platform: PlayStation 3 = Global 5.10m
Platform: Wii U = Global 0.17m

Also from VGChartz:
Xbox 360 (X360) 78.13
PlayStation 3 (PS3) 78.59
Wii U (WiiU) 3.36
If you want to scale the numbers to make Nintendo feel better, you could subtract 78 million from 3 for 75 million extra consumers for the other two.
Couple that with the game launching slightly earlier on those consoles, and convert the numbers to percentages.
360: 5.77%
PS3: 6.49%
Wii U: 5.06%
That's a decently comparable number of consumers who own the console buying Ass Creed 3, despite it launching later than on the other consoles, and little to no advertising for it on the console.

I see your point, and maybe they are happy with that kind of attach rate, but maybe they were hoping for 5% of 6M rather than 3M.

3 million consoles 9 months after release, I wonder how x1 and p4 will do after 9 months.
To me, that will be interesting.
Both will have all the third party support you can possibly get, and the games won't be stripped of features, come out on time, be advertised, and support DLC day one.
Many won't even have hundreds of thousands of bugs in them!

I really can't wait for the first game(s) to level the playing field with at least 6 year old consoles, let alone the new ones.

It will be very interesting to see sales figures for the new consoles. I really do wonder how desperate people are to pay a rather large amount of money for slightly nicer graphics when most of the games will already be on their 360.

The thing the margins aren't increasing and business isn't actually expanding. Instead of trying to become more welcoming in an attempt to bring in NEW customers, thus making the market bigger, devs and pubs are really just fighting over the SAME audience that is inevitably going to shrink. Except for Nintendo who are ALWAYS trying to bring in new players, thus keeping their market consistently healthy and diverse. It just amazes me at how publishers and developers haven't caught on to WHY these problems exists and ignore the ways to fix them.

Again, I agree. To me the lack of variety coming from 3rd parties is the worst thing.

I mean Sony said they're doing Knack so not everything is a shooter. Knack alone is not variety. This is why I like Nintendo. I know people say their games are often the same but the reason they still feel fresh to me is that they're the only ones making games like this.

I mean who else is making games like Pikmin?

Or i could just buy it on Xbox or PS3 and enjoy both! See whats going on here?

Yes I do, you will be part of the problem.

If you really do want to play the online then I suggest you get it for one of the other consoles. There's nothing wrong with that.

But if you're just doing it because you think you're going to show these companies something then you will do nothing but prove them right.

Batman Origins is already out?!
Or are you just guessing that it'll be great because it's made by a completely different team as the other two?

If we buy this rainbow, they'll keep doing it. If we don't buy their rainbow, they'll ignore the system altogether.
We won't win either way.

Again, you're not going to win by not buying it. If you don't care about online then get the Wii U version. If people start buying 3rd party games and the Wii U starts to sell more then it will be worth them adding things like this in the future.

And yeah I'm assume it will be good, if its not then I suggest you probably don't buy it anyway...

I too am loving this game. This and Rayman Legends were actually the reason I got a Wii U and so far Pikmin alone has been worth it.

I definitely couldn't play the game without the Wii Remote though. It just works so well, and really shows that there are games that are so much better with motion controls.

The problem is these Devs are giving us half-assed versions lacking compared to other consoles. When it comes down to why it didn't sell they're just to stupid to realize its their fault and not the consumer

So? And consumers are stupid for thinking they are going to change the actions of a massive company like Warner Bros.

It is the consumers fault if they don't care about the missing features.

Games like Splinter Cell are not half assed, they have features only found on Wii U. Yet everyone just jumps on the fact that its missing offline co-op. and I ask this people, if you had that feature would you actually play it?

If the answers no then you are the one being stupid.

You don't get it. Even if you arent really bothered about online multiplayer why would you buy a game with no mp when for the same price you could buy a version which has these extra features? It's not about changing warner bros decisions it's about the Wii u version not being worth the money when it has less content than other versions.

I get it but if you weren't going to play it then it doesn't matter.

Also, do Wii U features not make up for that? How much money are they worth?

Ultimately it doesn't matter either way. If you want more 3rd party games, buy them. If you don't care then you can stick to your protests.