• Battlefield 4 skipping Wii U to avoid spreading too thin
    62 replies, posted
The wii's success was dependent on it's marketing towards the casual crowd and it's retarded motion control gimmick. The reason why the Wii-U is unsuccessful is because it had shit marketing, and even the casual crowd are starting to see through this gimmicky bullshit, I think the new focus in this up-coming generation is sleek and high end, with social media BS added in to perhaps rake in some casual intrigue. The Wii-U was not really marketed as sleek and "modern", and the power of the hardware was terribly planned. If Nintendo just made a high end honest gaming system and changed the feel of nintendo consoles from "fun and happy for everyone" to "This is the new nintendo, look at our crazy cool shit designed for gamers". I think it would be highly successful and an actual competitor to these new consoles coming up. And yeah you will say "well also the wii-u has no games thats a major issue." Yeah it is, but that is a product of being unappealing to developers and unnoticed and not cared about by most consumers. And having beloved exclusives come out for it later on will not be enough to put it into competition with new consoles coming out, if you think so then you are wrong. All these fucking retarded decisions by Nintendo are starting to worry me, they are among many other video game industry entities that I used to respect slowly going down the shitter. And the fact that if they can't make consoles then they will no longer make games is also scary, because I will always love Nintendo. It's just their strategies baffle me, and while it worked disgustingly well for the Wii I don't think the second time is a charm. Maybe they deserve it for their bad decisions I guess.
[QUOTE=cccritical;40110059]how the fuck can anyone say this, let alone the slew of people defending BF4 lately have you even seen bad company 1? it looks nothing remotely like bc2 and it plays radically different as well[/QUOTE] I've played BC1 and BC2 quite extensively and I disagree with your assertion that they play "radically different". Some systems (spotting, classes, damage namely) were changed but the movement and shooting is exactly the same because they are on the same basic engine, BC2 being a refined version of it. That's why it looks different; they dramatically increased the quality of the graphics and switched visual themes away from BC1's hazy foggy look to a more washed out, dusty one. Even if we were to agree that the games were radically different "play" wise, you can't deny how many art assets were copied. 90% of the guns in BC2 were wholesale lifted out of BC1 with the same textures and animations. I think some may sound different, not sure on that. Vehicles and buildings were also simply lifted from one game to another and grafted on to new maps. In terms of sequels, BC2 is easily the closest to it's previous Battlefield game. 2142 plays like a BF2 mod but atleast most of the assets were original.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.