Nintendo fails at Naming a Console. Behold The Official name...

You see it's shitty names like this for their games and consoles that is making the GCN fail in everyhwere apart from Japan

Well that's probably not the reason but in all seriousness I would have thought that they would have kept the name Revolution because in all honesty that's a better name than Xbox 360 and I would have thought they'd care that sales in each country apart from Japan are worryingly low (in fact at one point last year the GCN almost got cancelled in the UK) but no they don't wanna be serious, they just wanna name their console some piss name and continue producing games for those who are below 11 years old or are retarded in some form. Three cheers for Nintendo!

In fact the only GCN games I have ever seriously liked were Super Smash Bros. Melee, Soul Calibur 2, Resident Evil 4, LOZ: Wind Waker, Mario Kart: Double Dash and Metroid Prime 2...that's it.

 

I look at the the 360's name as I do for the 64. The meaning behind the number is irrelevant for me. I just see it as a number and call the system by its number.

Thank you for posting that rant though. Haha it put a smile on my face : )

 

I know lots of people where angry because Microsoft's Vista was a horrible name, but I think Nintendo's Wii will be big out there soon nuff.

 

The difference between "N64" and "Wii" is simple.

When the Nintendo system first came to the U.S., it soon grew it's own reputation, all by it's name. When Sega came in, that was the first of the console wars, HOWEVER, Nintendo never would shy from the solidarity of the name "Nintendo." If you look at it, the first three major consoles to come from Nintendo that went over well with the public was the NES (Nintendo Entertainment System), SNES (Super Nintendo Entertainment System) and then the N64 (Nintendo 64). The consistancy in the name was what gave Nintendo that edge. It seemed like a certain bit of confidence.

The same can be seen within Sony and Microsoft as well. Sony has continued to keep "Playstation" in the title of their console's names as well as the Xbox. This isn't a fad, it's a marketing technique in some way, I'm sure. It's the same name, same product, but it's been upgraded, and it appeals to those who don't bother doing research. When they hear the name of their favorite console reborn with a new name, and new features, it gets kids gitty. Perfect example is the Xbox 360. Not much of a step up from the original Xbox, but with a new name and some enhanced graphics and features and people went nuts in the U.S.

Now coming back to the name Wii, it's simple. The name has no solidarity to it and kind of shys away from that which is Nintendo in some ways. Their other products stayed true to the origins. Granted "Revolution" did not in any way connect with Nintendo's previous consoles, but the fact remaining that "Wii" has no real catch to it and just seems to float on as a name. Without an impressive name, you will shy customers away for one reason or another. There's a lot of independent consoles out there, there's some that would probably never settle with the gamers today. There's handhelds like "WonderSwan" that would have blown the competition with Game Boy away had it had a better name. People are not going to brag about their WonderSwans. They're going to brag about their Game Boys.

I have to say Nintendo is trying way too hard to be different from the competition. They took a good step with the controller (though I don't care for it), but the name change isn't very impressive in my opinion. I still stand by my words that Revolution would have given Nintendo the proper strength to combat the PS3 and Xbox 360. We'll see, though. Perhaps Nintendo has one extra ace up their sleeves because from what I see, Nintendo's lagging behind despite their efforts to be the black sheep. They're already the underdog and I look at the name change as nothing more than a way for them to get some pops, which may backfire.

 

I just wanna know what other names were beaten out by the wii....granted I know there is a language barrier but somebody representing america must have said something...if you wanna go for simple they could have went for "go," "yi" or something.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/

Im not alone on this one

And people no offense but stop saying its the best thing thats happened to gaming......NOBODY has seen it at action...nor do they know how well the mechanics will play......I'm not saying it wont be cool but wait until E3 to make such statements

 

Just the idea of it is why it's the best thing to happen in gaming for a long time. It's been a while since someone did something original with console gaming.

 

I would not say that. But I think I understand what you are implying.

But again, I agree with Keaton 100%.

 

You're overanalyzing this far too much.

Playstation and XBox were only kept as names because they give name-brand recognition. A Sony console won't have the name-brand recognition as a Nintendo console, because Sony isn't known for gaming like Nintendo is. Nintendo can name a console anything they want as long as they keep the name Nintendo -- it has just as much name-brand recognition as Microsoft or Sony will ever have with the XBox and Playstation, respectively.

The new name for the XBox 360 did nothing to help it sell consoles. The name tells the consumer nothing, other than it's still an XBox. The reason why it sold like hotcakes is because it was the first of the new "next-gen" consoles. Nintendo's Wii really tells consumers nothing other than it's still Nintendo. It may or may not sell like hotcakes -- it depends on the games available at launch. People don't want what Nintendo commonly offers -- they're not as lured in by Mario as they used to be. Nintendo has to make a new franchise character for the current generation of videogame players. Videogame players are no longer younger kids, but they're kids in they're teens. Nintendo understands this, I think, they just don't know what will draw these kids in.

I don't think the name "Revolution" would have helped it sell better than "Wii" in any aspect.

 

You just basically said what I said, just shorter and less in detail.

Sony's not known for gaming? What do you call the Tekken franchise? Assumingly, that's what put Sony on the map as Halo has put Xbox on the map, as well as Mario) has for Nintendo. A name does not justify a console, no doubt, or else Sega would still be in the game. The fact of the matter is people are going to judge the console by it's name and the fact of the matter is that Wii is not as solid as Revolution. In terms of marketing, it sounds as if Nintendo is trying to be different rather than showcase competition. It works in their favor to the Nintendo fanboys, but it's only appealing to those willing to settle, and not advance. I had to move on from being a Nintendo fanboy for that reason alone. I couldn't see myself spending hundreds of my hard earned dollars for a new Mario game or something.

To be honest, I'm not looking foreword to the next gen consoles now because there's nothing to look foreword to. This is what I mean by the evolution of the console war. Since the Xbox hit the scene, it sent the gaming console into the media console rather than playing to the gaming community. Perfect example is the PSP.

I don't think I overanalyzed this situation at all. I've been a gamer since the NES days where the hardest thing to do in a game was jump a few pixels. I know for a fact that things have evolved into a competition based on appearance than actual gameplay. It depends on the reputation, it depends on how a console expects to "impress" the target audience. The reason I believe "Revolution" would have appealed to a broader audience is because of it's "massive" appeal. The word itself has so much behind it, and can come off as an epic step if marketed right. Like I said, their controller with the new integrations make it "revolutionary" to the average market, but not to us who have seen the evolution of gaming itself. "Revolution" would be much easier to market to the "mature" or general audience than "Wii."

Nintendo has used name-brand extensions as well, so don't count that out. However, Nintendo seems to want to take a new approach, the same Sega did with perhaps the Dreamcast. Technically it was "Sega Dreamcast," nonetheless, coming from Genesis, Saturn, etc., it plays off as parting ways with an initial recognition and assuming the fanbase will continue to fuel Nintendo's battle as the underdog. The fact may be that it's only appealing to the younger audience, and that's my argument. For those of us who grew up in love with Mario and the Nintendo franchise in general, it's sad to see we grow up and there's basically nothing that's convincing me to stay with them.

The best thing to happen to the Nintendo franchise in terms of appealing to an audience larger than the children was Resident Evil 4... until it cross-platformed. So, it seems that Nintendo could potentially appeal to people with Wii, but as of right now, it's not looking so hot.

Bottom line is when it was shown back at E3 (I think?), it had this sleek design, a nice black one. It looks a bit more mature than say, a purple cube and seemed to fit in with the designs of the PS3 and Xbox 360. The name seemed to further strengthen Nintendo's future, with a name like "Revolution." The controller was revealed and yet another big step, something the PS3 and Xbox 360 didn't put into theirs. It made Nintendo look promising. However, with the name change, I just see their appeal to a different audience (than those they already have) may go down.

Don't mark my words, though. I am no expert. I'm just laying my opinions down based on what I've seen through the years I've been interested in gaming and the industry. Maybe I look into a bit too much, but that's because I'm overzealous about such a subject. Plus I like to think out loud.

 

I believe the Zelda and Metroid series are what keeps most of the older Nintendo fans coming back, at least me anyway. Most of their other great games are ported to or from other systems. The only Mario games I will buy no matter what are the ones that are next in the series (Mario 128?) and not the spin-off games. The spin-offs are entertaining but it's the same game I played years back on the 64 and I expect them to be regurgitated on the Wii with the expected new characters/features. Haha now that I think of it, maybe those games could be huge hits with Wii's controller. Mario Golf/Tennis/whatever could be very fun if the gameplay works out that way. I don't know where I'm going with this but, Nintendo does need a new franchise. Bad.

 

No, what I said is not what you said at all. Yes, it is shorter, and yes, it doesn't have as much depth -- but not at all close to what you said.

You stated Nintendo's naming will fail because Wii does not capitalize on its previous consoles, and it isn't a strong name. I said it won't fail because Nintendo is already a brand name known for gaming.

As for Tekken -- do you honestly think that when people think of Sony, they think of Tekken? You do, because you're a gamer. I do, because I'm a gamer. Will the average consumer think that? No, they have no clue who makes that. Everyone, however, knows that Nintendo makes consoles, and that Nintendo makes Mario. Some people don't even know the Playstation is made by Sony, they just know it as the Playstation. I promise you if the Playstation 3 were being called something different that doesn't capitalize on that brand name, it wouldn't get as much sales. Would it be a large profit loss? Probably not, but it'd still be a loss.

Sony and Microsoft are not known for gaming as Nintendo is. Why? Because Sony and Microsoft are known for their computer and electronic products over their gaming products.

And you're right. A name doesn't justify a console. But a name brings recognition to the table. Sega is a completely different story -- do not try to compare Sega's utter failures to Nintendo. Nintendo has a massive capital to spend at its whim, Sega did not. Sega made numerous errors in the launches of its product, Nintendo did not. Sega didn't make a profit on its consoles, Nintendo did. Sega didn't have as many first-party titles reaping in money as Nintendo does (they did have some, but not the sheer quantity). You cannot honestly compare Sega to Nintendo other than the fact that they were both at one time the two major gaming console companies.

People do not judge a console based on its name. People judge a console based on the games it carries and how fun they are. People will judge a console based on the time period in which it comes out, and if it's an intelligent release window. Sega did not have an intelligent release window. People will judge a console on the graphics it can produce and its features. People will not judge a console on its name, although a good name would slightly help with people unknown to brand names... but it's hardly a selling-point for 99% of the population.

I'm not sure how naming a console "Wii" is "settling". Is naming a console "360" settling? How about just affixing a "3" to the end of a console's name? Is that settling?

I've been a gamer for a long time, too. I'm not saying you don't know what you're talking about. I think you're digging too deep into a name, which has very little to do with the success of a console.

 

I thought/still think that Dreamcast is a great console. Sega obviously messed up majorly on it. But the Dreamcast's death was not due to it being a bad console. I play my Dreamcast more often than my Gamecube. I love it and always will. I'm just mad that it never met its full potential.

I do think a "3" is settling. I believe if you are going to name the second Playstation, "2", then the next in line has to be a 3. If Sony decides to make a 4th console, it will not be Playstation 4.
I also think 360 is a lot more settling than, the what could have been, Xbox Next. As I said before, I see 360 as a number and nothing more, like Nintendo 64.

 

Well, I'm not going to debate this any more. One, I've got way too much to do, and two, due to Ant's reputation, I know we'll be debating in circles. Therefore I say we'll just agree to disagree.

I don't necessarily think Nintendo will fail, but I'm saying it feels like a step backwards. Nintendo will not go out of business. They bypass Sega's reputation without a doubt. I didn't mean to imply Nintendo would fail, I'd never suggest such a thing purposely. I only meant to say that with the evolution of competition, it felt like a step backwards.

 

Why is it everytime someone here doesn't want to talk about it (or argue, or debate, whatever you want to call it) anymore with me, they always say something like "due to Ant's reputation"? Can you not at least say you just don't want to continue anymore without replying with a back-handed comment?

 

haha....the name's not going to make the "Wii" fail......its just a dumb name that I (and other people) wanted to make fun of
they could call i purple dildo for all I care.

I'm sure they could have come up with a better name....but all in all people care about the quality of the product....I mean "X box" is the cheesiest name for a system.....but that doesnt make it a bad system......just have a good laugh and judge the system when it COMES OUT.

 

I'm thankful that the Japanese word for good isn't Sphincter or something to that effect. Seriously though, hopefully they'll localise it for Western countries.

 

It wasn't a back-handed comment. It was the truth. I'm a fan of debating, but it's obvious we've both got our own stands on this. At the same time, I realize we're both hardheaded and would probably butt heads on this. Thus I don't want to have to have a come back for everything you point out in my words.

I'm not going to lie, and if you dislike that, then I'm sorry. But I won't sugar-coat my reasonings. I appreciate a good debate, but I just don't have the energy nor the passion to debate it, and well, you're known for going on. Sadly, I'm not as passionate as you are when it comes to debating opinions. I just wanted to put my two cents in, and you demanded two fifty instead. And I don't have two fifty to give.

If it was anyone else, I'd say the same thing. It's nothing personal, it was a vague statement, again one you took with more than a grain of salt and expected more out of.

End of disucssion on my part, let's keep this clean shall we? Keep to discussing the Nintendo Wii name here (in other words, take this as me giving you my reasoning and it is not asking for a response).

 

Never played Wii, I prefer Nintendo Switch.
Pros of using Nintendo Switch

• The only console inherently combining home and handheld options.
• At least two games widely renowned as some of the best in years are Switch exclusives: Zelda: Breath Of The Wild and Super Mario Odyssey.
• Unlike previous Nintendo consoles, the Switch has full support from third-party publishers.
• A high-quality touchscreen display.
• A disassembling controller and split-screen multiplayer option for gaming with friends.

It's considered to be one of the best gaming consoles

 

^ Holy fuck dude, I was literally still in high school the last time someone posted in this thread.

I'm 31 years old.