Keith Wallace
New member
My first point wa simply that saying "I don't get" is pointless in the discussion, because it doesn't really offer anything, nothing more.
When I say "mature," I'm not really talking about Forza. I'm talking about the games whose visuals many parents find unsavory for children. I'm talking about the games Congress says are the cause of everything evil from gun violence to global warming (shooters). I basically mean M-rated games. To maybe expand on it a bit more, to generalize a "mature" game, I think we have to turn a bit to the PC Master Race. By doing this, I mean consider visuals. What gets kids attention with games? Usually bright colors and goofy characters. 8-year-olds don't TYPICALLY take to seeing a Lancer cut a Horde enemy in half and cause extreme carnage like they do seeing Pokemon, nor do I expect/want them to. "kid" games isn't really the right phrase, "kid-friendly" makes more sense. Nintendo caters to that crowd well, it's their wheelhouse.
Also, I think you spoke in a backward sense. You say "except Activision and Ubisoft," but they are the two who DO support Nintendo. It's EA who doesn't but part of that problem is that they offer SO MANY games. The Dead Space franchise didn't reach Nintendo's stuff. Madden won't. NBA LIVE won't. Heck, even 2K Sports is putting NBA 2K14 on iOS and Android (albeit a stripped-down, $7 experience), but not Nintendo consoles. BioShock Infinite missed Nintendo, as did Borderlands. EA and 2K are big publishers, and while Activision and Ubisoft might support Nintendo, that EA and 2K don't is bigger, in my opinion.I'm actually just kind-of looking into this stuff as I type, and I see that id (makers of Quake, DOOM, and Rage) don't support Nintendo either, though they also haven't released a new game in 2 years and have no ETA for their next game (DOOM 4). Bethesda doesn't go the Nintendo route, meaning no Fallout or The Elder Scrolls. GTA V didn't make it to Nintendo, either. It's like the more I look into it, the worse it gets, because Ubisoft and Activision are the only ones I found who DO support Nintendo well.
So when I think about the third-party issue, I have to ask if Mario, and maybe Animal Crossing are worth the compromise of losing Rage, Skyrim, Fallout 3 and New Vegas, BioShock, Borderlands, NBA 2K14 (the first of the series to not make it to Nintendo), and probably a lot more. That's all before I consider losing out on Forza, Halo, Gears, and so on from Microsoft. Microsoft at least has Rareware now, and they did well with Viva Pinata. Their Banjo-Kazooie remake actually got great reviews, and I own it, but I have too many other games I am trying to finish to get to it. Then there are Project Spark and Zoo Tycoon coming to the One.
My ultimate point is that, while both options have their strong suits, Microsoft at least TRIES to fill the gaps it has when matched up against Nintendo. They obviously don't touch the level of Mario or Zelda, and they don't get Rare to do enough of these high-quality, kid-friendly games, but there are plenty of great experiences in that niche. Nintendo completely ignores the realistic violence and M-rated stuff that really sells units. They don't offer shooters or realistic racing games or simulation sports games (because EA and 2K pretty much own all of the franchises, it seems). I've often said that when people argue if Sony or Microsoft makes the better first-party stuff, the right answer is "Nintendo," when considering HOW MANY good games they put out (I'd rank Halo above all Nintendo does, but Microsoft's first-party catalog just isn't as deep). It's just that their third-party support is third-rate, to the point where Microsoft and Sony try to trade tit-for-tat over minor exclusives for games (early DLC, silly in-game exclusives), while Nintendo can't even get the BASE games to their platform.
If you have the money to spare, I'd never say get a Wii U. If you're like me, and you have to pick one platform, Nintendo's probably a distant third to Sony, and that's coming from someone who doesn't want a Sony console whatsoever. I'd actually say that if you can own 2 consoles, make 1 Xbox or PlayStation, but make the second the Wii U, because Sony and Microsoft have a good bit of sameness with different games (Halo-Killzone, Forza-Gran Turismo, Ryse-God of War, etc.). So if you can pick ONE console, Nintendo's last. If you can pick 2, Nintendo's pretty-much first, because it differentiates so well from the other two that it will fill more gaps than getting an Xbox and a PlayStation ever would.
When I say "mature," I'm not really talking about Forza. I'm talking about the games whose visuals many parents find unsavory for children. I'm talking about the games Congress says are the cause of everything evil from gun violence to global warming (shooters). I basically mean M-rated games. To maybe expand on it a bit more, to generalize a "mature" game, I think we have to turn a bit to the PC Master Race. By doing this, I mean consider visuals. What gets kids attention with games? Usually bright colors and goofy characters. 8-year-olds don't TYPICALLY take to seeing a Lancer cut a Horde enemy in half and cause extreme carnage like they do seeing Pokemon, nor do I expect/want them to. "kid" games isn't really the right phrase, "kid-friendly" makes more sense. Nintendo caters to that crowd well, it's their wheelhouse.
Also, I think you spoke in a backward sense. You say "except Activision and Ubisoft," but they are the two who DO support Nintendo. It's EA who doesn't but part of that problem is that they offer SO MANY games. The Dead Space franchise didn't reach Nintendo's stuff. Madden won't. NBA LIVE won't. Heck, even 2K Sports is putting NBA 2K14 on iOS and Android (albeit a stripped-down, $7 experience), but not Nintendo consoles. BioShock Infinite missed Nintendo, as did Borderlands. EA and 2K are big publishers, and while Activision and Ubisoft might support Nintendo, that EA and 2K don't is bigger, in my opinion.I'm actually just kind-of looking into this stuff as I type, and I see that id (makers of Quake, DOOM, and Rage) don't support Nintendo either, though they also haven't released a new game in 2 years and have no ETA for their next game (DOOM 4). Bethesda doesn't go the Nintendo route, meaning no Fallout or The Elder Scrolls. GTA V didn't make it to Nintendo, either. It's like the more I look into it, the worse it gets, because Ubisoft and Activision are the only ones I found who DO support Nintendo well.
So when I think about the third-party issue, I have to ask if Mario, and maybe Animal Crossing are worth the compromise of losing Rage, Skyrim, Fallout 3 and New Vegas, BioShock, Borderlands, NBA 2K14 (the first of the series to not make it to Nintendo), and probably a lot more. That's all before I consider losing out on Forza, Halo, Gears, and so on from Microsoft. Microsoft at least has Rareware now, and they did well with Viva Pinata. Their Banjo-Kazooie remake actually got great reviews, and I own it, but I have too many other games I am trying to finish to get to it. Then there are Project Spark and Zoo Tycoon coming to the One.
My ultimate point is that, while both options have their strong suits, Microsoft at least TRIES to fill the gaps it has when matched up against Nintendo. They obviously don't touch the level of Mario or Zelda, and they don't get Rare to do enough of these high-quality, kid-friendly games, but there are plenty of great experiences in that niche. Nintendo completely ignores the realistic violence and M-rated stuff that really sells units. They don't offer shooters or realistic racing games or simulation sports games (because EA and 2K pretty much own all of the franchises, it seems). I've often said that when people argue if Sony or Microsoft makes the better first-party stuff, the right answer is "Nintendo," when considering HOW MANY good games they put out (I'd rank Halo above all Nintendo does, but Microsoft's first-party catalog just isn't as deep). It's just that their third-party support is third-rate, to the point where Microsoft and Sony try to trade tit-for-tat over minor exclusives for games (early DLC, silly in-game exclusives), while Nintendo can't even get the BASE games to their platform.
If you have the money to spare, I'd never say get a Wii U. If you're like me, and you have to pick one platform, Nintendo's probably a distant third to Sony, and that's coming from someone who doesn't want a Sony console whatsoever. I'd actually say that if you can own 2 consoles, make 1 Xbox or PlayStation, but make the second the Wii U, because Sony and Microsoft have a good bit of sameness with different games (Halo-Killzone, Forza-Gran Turismo, Ryse-God of War, etc.). So if you can pick ONE console, Nintendo's last. If you can pick 2, Nintendo's pretty-much first, because it differentiates so well from the other two that it will fill more gaps than getting an Xbox and a PlayStation ever would.