Dallas News: Nintendo Must Share Blame For Poor Wii Quality

Is Nintendo as much to blame for the poor quality of third-party content as the third-parties themselves are? Should Nintendo institute stricter quality-control policies?

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Smacktard4326d ago

I think Nintendo DOES need to make enforce stricter quality rules. It's a wonder that SPOGS Racing could make it to Wii ware.

And in a wonderful world, they wouldn't let Ubisoft develop games for their console.

IanCube4326d ago

I agree, but really wonder what sort of approach they should take?

The more rules you enforce, the more red tape, time, energy, and money it takes for developers to make a game for the system--and risk jumping ship.

Smacktard4326d ago

I completely agree. I imagine if Nintendo said "Hey, this SPOGS game kinda sucks and you either have to make it better or it's getting canned" the media would be all over it. I don't think they CAN take any approach without receiving a huge backlash.

IanCube4326d ago

Perhaps one approach would be for them to allow WiiWare to be the open platform, while having retail box games follow strict quality policies.

This way, WiiWare games could be sorted through user ratings, with the best rising to the top (much like how N4G works), and the finite retail shelves would be stocked with games Nintendo has assured are of sufficient quality.

Cenobia4326d ago

They should just bring back the quality seal, and put it on the good games. That way the bad devs can still make crap, and Nintendo can moderate without alienating.

You can't drop all the crap on WiiWare. The Wii already has a storage problem, it would make finding the good games impossible (so everyone would ignore it entirely),and I don't think that's really solving the problem.

ChickeyCantor4326d ago

Quality seal = " it works perfectly on our system "
That's it.

TruthbeTold4325d ago

When it comes to Wii ware games then they should do what they've been doing, only take the crappy games and release them in bunches rather than honor them as worthy of their own private release date. That would cause developers to put in more effort.

Enigma_20994324d ago

... and scare off 3rd party support completely...

No, STOP pointing the finger at Nintendo, POINT them at the 3rd party devs, and stop buying their bad games and letting them get away with it.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 4324d ago
indiemike4326d ago

Perhaps further enforcement would make third-parties shy away from even bothering to develop on the platform. This kind of chilling effect could make games like The Conduit not even exist.

YoungKingDoran4326d ago

uh... sorry. i think if there was stricter quality control on the wii the conduit would be the ONLY game in development!

ChickeyCantor4326d ago (Edited 4326d ago )

Meh, as a company you should insure quality of your games.
It's absurd for a Company who makes games not to care about how their product comes out.

If they can't provide quality you shouldn't be standing at all.
Of course the audience plays a roll in this...but even then...
Quality should be insured...

It's partially Nintendo's fault that they allow rubbish on their console...but i rather point at the third party developers who just think they are funny with their shovelware madness.
Produce like professionals!

But then again, define: Quality...

IanCube4326d ago

It seems the issue is that companies are appeasing to the low quality of games that the casual market deems acceptable.

The hardcore, since they're enthusiasts, have higher standards.

Seems to me that all parties, Nintendo, publishers, and developers, might be to blame since they all make money off the success of a sub-par quality game if it at least sells well.

Jotenks4326d ago

Perhaps it is time for the 'Nintendo seal of approval' (The real one) to come back? I've noticed quite a few sub par games coming out (many appearing to be the same game as another just simply rehashed and re textured.) I suppose finding that perfect balance between something that appeals to both would in a sense be difficult for some 3rd party developers. Nintendo managed to achieve it (somewhat at least in my opinion) for Mario Kart Wii and Brawl, (Though I still think MKWii could have done without the Bikes but, that's another discussion all together).

I guess what they (the news source) should be stating is what is taking over the aspect of quality? What aspect of the Wii is it that seems to draw in developers to make them over-look that aspect of making the game visually appealing as well as fun (though both terms are subjective let us for now just say that it is something along the lines of Super Mario Galaxy?) Many of the games coming out should have been on WiiWare in the first place leaving those that are developing rather good titles on the discs. (Ex. A few games that I believe should have been WiiWare, We Ski, Hasbro Family Game Night, etc, etc.) Though if these games were to be on WiiWare Nintendo would need to do a bit of revamping to their primary screen.

First I think they should have some sort of ticker (that flashes on the screen in the middle of it that states what new WiiWare and such games came out.) That way it would at least alert those who have a Wii to check out what WiiWare is and get games from their. For one thing it would reduce the amount of titles on discs that are floating about in various stores as well as bringing more games to WiiWare and some family games making it more convenient for families to purchase some from the shop as well. It would also give Nintendo a chance to look over the games before they are placed into WiiWare since a few of the games coming out doesn't seem to be getting looked upon by Nintendo currently.

ChickeyCantor4326d ago (Edited 4326d ago )

" Perhaps it is time for the 'Nintendo seal of approval' (The real one) to come back?"

Don't you mean Nintento seal of Quality?
That pretty much meant that the game worked correctly with the system...that's pretty much it.

Nintendo has always been D-bags towards Third party developers, keeping developers out would only result in negative matters.
There past wasn't that great, with developers that is.
Although it's not something great of them to allow Spogs, but at least they are more open to developers.

" First I think they should have some sort of ticker (that flashes on the screen in the middle of it that states what new WiiWare and such games came out.) "
That's what Nintendo Channel is for.
And by entering the shop, people know what the shop is for.

Jotenks4325d ago

Yes but how many people know of the Nintendo or even check the Nintendo channel? Granted it is a nice little feature but also cluttered at the same time. When I say ticker I mean darkening the lights behind it with the thin strip running across the screen with an O and an X button underneath to signify either Okay or X out and get back to the normal screen.

As for the seal of quality or whichever what I mean to say is Nintendo having to hold the code close to them and only handing it out to a few developers who they will trust to make games for their console. (At least I believe the NES had something like this?)

Mini Mario4325d ago

"3.1 - Well...
It seems the issue is that companies are appeasing to the low quality of games that the casual market deems acceptable.

The hardcore, since they're enthusiasts, have higher standards."

Every console has its share of crap. look at the ps1 and ps2. Unless u call hanah montana, shrek party, horsez and dogz high quality for u enthusiasts.....because they all exsist on the ps2.

The snes had extremely high quailty games (and at the time was aimed mainly at kids/teens....not adults)...and it had its poor games. But how can nintendo really control what OTHER companys do.

And PLZ do not say "bring back the seal of quality" as all this did was notifying the buyer that the game has not been pirated and works 100%, basically its had nothing to do with the quality of the game.

Jotenks4325d ago

Perhaps I have stated it wrong, what I mean to say is that perhaps Nintendo should bring back that coding once more you know the one they had on the Nintendo Entertainment System. I also say they should bring back the seal of quality and re-think that because of the way the Game cube was (Yes it was bad for most people, but personally I liked the cube but since many didn't and sales were "meh" compared to most; Nintendo should probably reevaluate their strategy of going after a market of people while trying to stay and ensure that another realm gets sated just as well.) Which is why I say bring back both the seal of quality (Re'vamped) as well as the coding that they had for the Nintendo Entertainment System

@To Mini Mario
The coding alone could very well in a sense "control" companies as Nintendo would have to review and look at their design concept and decide whether or not they want it to be saturated on their console with other games. It keeps from having multiple versions of a game on their console. Perhaps the best way to say this in analogies way is to compare this to a neat and tidy closet compared to one that is not so. Think of the neat and tidy as the Wii with the coding in it while the not so tidy is the one without it. Of course games (Shovelware) are subject to find a home every new console generation, but to curve that Nintendo could do the code and curve some of the shovelware. Granted they will still get it, but it shall not be as bad as we see (or perhaps in my opinion as I see?) As people are wanting to sell their Wiis at this point and the NES would have had the same problem if not for the coding, as didn't the atari die off this way?

Hopefully this shall clear up why I stated those two should be brought back and with one changed to reflect true seal of quality.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 4325d ago
TheColbertinator4326d ago

I think the lower performing games on Wiiware like SPOGS shouls be removed at least.Or Nintendo should talk to Ubisoft and get some better games on the system like a true Rayman on the Wii not Raving Rabbids

Mahr4326d ago

Question: How exactly is a company supposed to objectively measure this 'quality' thing?

ChickeyCantor4326d ago

Feedback, it's that simple.
I mean there should be game testers there too right?
Each company should allow criticism from outside the company.

Mahr4326d ago

Fair enough. So, how many of them, then? If companies are looking at a potential audience in the millions, and you have a thousand game testers, does that mean that each game tester's opinion is comparable to a thousand people?

ChickeyCantor4326d ago

How many, I honestly don't know that, never will xD.
But is it hard for people to actually say things that could help improve their games?
...Although They always keep things behind closed doors, and people won't play it until it's out... but they should atleast let some random guys outside the company play the game and criticize it.
( and im not talking about "testers" who look if there are any bugs)

I think that the amount of people is not important, it's rather that they could provide feedback that actually helps the development.

Mahr4325d ago (Edited 4325d ago )

"But is it hard for people to actually say things that could help improve their games?"

It's not hard at all, which is probably the issue. It's all to easy to get feedback from anyone and everyone. The problem is that not all feedback is necessarily good feedback. Different kinds of people have different kinds of suggestions. Are you familiar with the phrase "Too many cooks in the kitchen"?

And when companies try to *mandate* these sorts of things in projects, they often get less than desirable results.

To illustrate what I'm talking about, let me use an example from the U.S. Military. Back in the 70s, the army commissioned a bunch of people to build a tank, which if I'm not mistaken would eventually come to be the Bradley tank. The team in charge was given a set of goals from several different sources.

One source wanted them to make the Bradley a really, really fast vehicle for quick strikes. Doesn't seem like such a bad idea, does it? A faster vehicle is an improvement over a slower vehicle.

Another source wanted them to make the Bradley really, really durable and strong, with tons of heavy armor such that it could weather attacks well. Not an unreasonable thing to ask of a tank. A stronger vehicle is an improvement over a weaker one.

The problem, of course, was that the team was obligated to follow *both* directives, the folly of which was revealed when the team realized that more armor = slower vehicle and that it was literally impossible to physically create a product that fulfilled both of those requirements. The resulting prototype was almost completely worthless, since it didn't really fulfill *either* of the requirements very well.

Now, I realize that the military and the videogame industry have differences, but I seem to recall a couple of interviews with High Voltage where they were talking about the benefits of working without a publisher. And one of them mentioned that publishers often have bizarre feedback like asking developers to incorporate racing game aspects into a shooter or some other such nonsense.

That's *their* idea of how to improve quality.

"I think that the amount of people is not important, it's rather that they could provide feedback that actually helps the development."

But how do you differentiate between the feedback that's useful and the feedback that is not? Does it not still ultimately come down to the discretion of the people who are making the game?

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 4325d ago
Show all comments (39)
The story is too old to be commented.