BaB Presents: Where'd Wii go Wrong

[BreakABone]

I guess, I should start stimulating activity in my own forum with a simple series looking at the 3 main platforms. The first being the Wii just because its the easiest I think.

While the system has been shown to be a monster in terms of sales and reputation and in my own eyes have created some truly innovative pieces of software, Nintendo really lowballed the console.

-The graphics. I am by no stretch of the imagination a graphics whore, and in my opinion it is pretty passable, but owning a 360 I can see where folks would have issue with the Wii games. On the same hand, I've mostly played the major Wii games where they try a lot harder.

-Friend codes. I don't mind ONE. A system friend code seemed to be a saving grace. One code sort of like a cell number or something and you are good to go, but no that is only good for certain things. I mean in order to do everyting online in Smash you need two friend codes. One to play and one to trade pics/ movies/ stages. It really is a pain in the ass.

-Online. I think it is passable at times, but there needs to be some uniformed system. There are leaderboards and ranks in Mario Strikers Charged but not in Smash Bros. There is the ability for a Mario Kart channel that isn't in any other Nintendo game. Don't substract. Keep adding. Make it a standard.

-Not the Wii's fault exactly, but 3rd party support can still be a little lackluster at times. It either gets ignored entirely, gets a watered down no effort port or well it gets a shoe-horned version.

Anyhow, those are the ones I know off the top of my head. Anymore? Some don't agree with?

[Aladuf]

I agree with all of it, especially the 3rd party business. They've stepped down as a... serious gaming company this gen it seems. Now, that's kind of a bad way to put it but mostly what you see in Wii advertising is quirky games centered for kids and their parents/grandparents. You never see many solid Wii games outside of 1st party really. Nintendo delivers with Zelda, Mario, Brawl, and Metroid Prime 3 and they really are hurting with 3rd party. Outside of No More Heroes, Zak and Wiki, and Super Mario Strikers what other solid options do the normal "hardcore" gamers have? I have no desire to play minigames, and all of the other lazy games that developers just throw together to rake in a couple of bucks.

But in the end, the Wii serves its purpose. I mainly just want to play the new versions of the old games I loved years ago and it does that for me just fine. The Wii's purchase for me was justified with Twilight Princess, which is still my favorite game for it. I have the other games I'll play on the PS3 and 360 that will crave my hunger for killing aliens and saving the world once again. :D

[Yoda9864]

-Not the Wii's fault exactly, but 3rd party support can still be a little lackluster at times. It either gets ignored entirely, gets a watered down no effort port or well it gets a shoe-horned version.
That's one problem with a popular system. A lot of developers want to make a quick buck so they make a crappy ass port or a half put together an "original" game.

My absolute biggest gripe with the Wii: friend codes. I mean seriously, come on Nintendo, wtf? They have sucked almost all of my ambition to play online.

[manasecret]

I think it's as simple as the fact that Wii Sports 2 hasn't come out yet. Yeah, yeah, Wii Fit is almost out, and that's a good direction, but I actually mean Wii Sports 2. A game where the motion control is perfected, and a couple more sports are added.

That's what's selling the system. I don't know why they haven't talked about a new one yet. (A sequel is practically a given, considering most people are buying the system for Wii Sports.)

[KillerGremlin]

The Wii is a Gamecube with a gimmicky controller. There, I said it. Same rehashed series and characters, and at the end of the Wii's run maybe we will see a total of 10 new innovative games from the few 3rd party companies that still care about Nintendo. The Wii's target audience are little kids and the same Nintendo fans who have been buying the same Nintendo crap since Nintendo innovated 3D gaming with the N64.

The Nintendo marketing team is brilliant. A new 3D Mario or Zelda game is going to be good no matter how uninspired it is; although I maintain each new Zelda game since Ocarina and Majora's has been less inspired and has held my interest for a shorter period of time. The same can and should be said for Mario, Metroid, ect. ect.

You can't argue about the Wii's price...oh wait, you can, because it's inflated due to supply and demand. Is that Nintendo's fault that there aren't enough consoles to go around? Yes, yes it is. You could also argue that the low price is due to the low graphics, but Nintendo is about style and gameplay, not pixels.

As far as online play goes, well Nintendo sucks at it, but so does Sony and Microsoft. PC gamers get a laugh at online console gamers. We really do. //arrogance//

Anyway, the Wii is what the Wii is...a typical Nintendo console. Nintendo fans don't want innovation, they want their bi-annual Zelda and Mario game. Bless their hearts.

Nintendo has become the company that doesn't take risks with games, but they make a really polished final product. Nintendo and Blizzard are my two favorite rehash companies, although both Nintendo and Blizzard used to be innovative back in the day.

[manasecret]

I agree a bit, and I disagree a lot.

But to sum it up, I am tired of buying Nintendo consoles solely for the Nintendo rehashes. Or any console for that matter, since all the games are essentially rehashes.

That's why I bought a Wii, though. If it weren't for Wii Sports and the possibility of playing other games that are radically different than the ones I've been playing for the past 15 years, I wouldn't have bought one. All I want is another Wii Sports. I think Wii Fit is a good idea, but I don't want a balance board to deal with.

In the meantime I end up buying the Nintendo rehashes. And I like 'em. That's my problem -- I'd like a 360 and a PS3 and a new PC. But I'm afraid of all the money I'd spend.

[KillerGremlin]

I agree a bit, and I disagree a lot.

But to sum it up, I am tired of buying Nintendo consoles solely for the Nintendo rehashes. Or any console for that matter, since all the games are essentially rehashes.

That's why I bought a Wii, though. If it weren't for Wii Sports and the possibility of playing other games that are radically different than the ones I've been playing for the past 15 years, I wouldn't have bought one. All I want is another Wii Sports. I think Wii Fit is a good idea, but I don't want a balance board to deal with.

In the meantime I end up buying the Nintendo rehashes. And I like 'em. That's my problem -- I'd like a 360 and a PS3 and a new PC. But I'm afraid of all the money I'd spend.



I'm a jaded, cheap gamer. I haven't picked up a PS3 because it's too much money and not many of the titles are appealing to me, and I don't want a 360 because most of the games I want to play wind up being available for the PC. I like a few of the titles on the Wii, but I want to wait till the price of the Wii drops and a few more unique titles are out. I'm a Nintendo fan so I'd happily play my way through all the rehashes, but I know I won't enjoy Mario Galaxy like I enjoyed Super Mario 64. I don't think anything at this point will bring back those amazing memories, or inspire me to beat the game over 10+ times. The same goes for all the Nintendo franchise titles, but what can you do. I just wish more Nintendo fans would be honest and admit that they're just suckers for more of the same old. I'd pay for Ocarina of Time 2. In fact, I did, I bought Wind Waker.

The Wii has the mutliplayer down for sure. If I get a Wii I'll definitely be getting it for the 4-player awesomeness that it rocks at. Nintendo may have dropped the online ball, but they know how to make mutliplayer in person fun. I still take out the Gamecube and N64 just to do 4-player in Mario Kart, Goldeneye, Mario Party, and Super Smash Bros.

[Dyne]

I seriously prefer the Gamecube so far, even though we've had fantastic, A+ games like Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, and Smash Brothers come out on the Wii. Maybe I'll just always love the Gamecube.

[Angrist]

Recently somebody mentioned that the GameCube had much better 3rd party support at this point in it's lifespans.

[Bube]

Because of the graphics issue, developers can't port games for the 360 or PS3 to Wii, so it gets games that have similar graphical features - GC or PS2 games. And they don't sell. So nobody tries anymore, because Nintendo are already developing the next big hit. If you had just tried harder in the first place, 3rd parties..

And there's the controller - it makes it impossible to play some kinds of games - instead of pushing a button, they make you shake the controller like an..ahem..crazed teenager.. Really original guys! Even though they add GC or classic controller support sometimes, I think it should be made a standard.

But the biggest problem is, most companies don't have the imagination like Nintendo. But on the other hand, gamers seem like they don't want different kinds of gameplay, they want the same games with new stories and better graphics. Honestly, what have we played since the PSX/N64 days that's different now? And I say the PSX/N64 days, because the graphics got a major overhaul then - otherwise, we've been playing the same things ever since we started playing games. And we still want more of the same.

[Dyne]

Well, aren't PS2 sales still really good? I guess Wii's trying to steal that.

[Perfect Stu]

I'm still under the impression that if the system wasn't selling so well, hardcore gamers would be very disappointed with it. I could be wrong, because there is some quality gaming on the system like Mario Galaxy, but it seems like a lot of the satisfaction people have with the system is the sales numbers.

[Fox 6]

To me the only appealing game for the Wii is Brawl. I wii is more directed to pick up and play, which im not really into.

[DeathsHand]

Recently somebody mentioned that the GameCube had much better 3rd party support at this point in it's lifespans.

That was me...
Wii has been out for about a year and a half...

There are... 8 titles with an 80% or above that are not credited to Nintendo, 2 of which are ports of games from last generation.

Resident Evil 4
Guitar Hero 3
Zack & Wiki
No More Heroes
Bully
Madden '07
Trauma Center: Second Opinion
Geometry Wars

At this point in Gamecube's life cycle, it had... 27 of them.

Tony Hawk 3
Star Wars Rogue Squadron 2
Madden '02
Super Monkey Ball
SSX Tricky
Resident Evil
Tiger Woods PGA Tour '03
Madden '03
NFL2K3
Timesplitters 2
Tony Hawk 4
Aggressive Inline
Super Monkey Ball 2
NBA Street
Resident Evil 0
All-Star Baseball '03
Sega Soccer Slam
Phantasy Star Online 1 & 2
Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance
FIFA Soccer '03
James Bond: Nightfire
Burnout 2
Splinter Cell
Ikaruga
Skies of Arcadia Legends
The Sims
Def Jam Vendetta

Even when it comes to games credited to Nintendo, Wii has 6 with a score of 80% or higher, Gamecube had 9...
Although Wii Sports, which many people like and, let's the honest, is the only reason the console is selling like it is, only scored ~75% positive reviews...

I sold my Wii to some DC yuppie who knew nothing about video games, but "Played Wii Sports at a friend's house while drunk and just had to get one."...

I mean, Wii has already surpassed GameCube's worldwide sales...
Of course, GameCube didn't get a constant stream of media attention about it's "innovative proprietary disc format" and "A controller so amazingly ergonomic that even the elderly are getting in on the fun!"...

[BreakABone]

I'm still under the impression that if the system wasn't selling so well, hardcore gamers would be very disappointed with it. I could be wrong, because there is some quality gaming on the system like Mario Galaxy, but it seems like a lot of the satisfaction people have with the system is the sales numbers.

Well, I don't know I think the system is doing fine, its like most Nintendo's systems with the games too far and few between but its a solid system in my eyes.

Metroid Prime 3
Twilight Princess
Galaxy
Brawl
Mario Strikers

No More Heroes
Zack and Wiki
Godfather: Blackhand Edition
PES 2008
Sonic and the Secret Rings (For the most part, and seems to be the one that is most influencing Sonic Unleashed)

And I'm sure there are middle of the road games, but I honestly think the Wii has a much stronger earlier line-up than either of Nintendo's last two consoles thats just me.

[Bond]

I guess, I should start stimulating activity in my own forum with a simple series looking at the 3 main platforms. The first being the Wii just because its the easiest I think.

While the system has been shown to be a monster in terms of sales and reputation and in my own eyes have created some truly innovative pieces of software, Nintendo really lowballed the console.
Can there really be innovate software on a lowballed console?

-The graphics. I am by no stretch of the imagination a graphics whore, and in my opinion it is pretty passable, but owning a 360 I can see where folks would have issue with the Wii games. On the same hand, I've mostly played the major Wii games where they try a lot harder.
When did it become acceptable to have passable graphics in the post 2D area? It's interesting how Nintendo has been able to reduce expectations. Nintendo gamers are now satisfied with "passable" graphics, while Sony and Microsoft continue to release the best possible systems all things considered.

-Not the Wii's fault exactly, but 3rd party support can still be a little lackluster at times. It either gets ignored entirely, gets a watered down no effort port or well it gets a shoe-horned version.
This point irritates me the most. It is Nintendo's responsibility to acquire third party support. If this wonderful store opens up, but the store doesn't seem to be getting any customers, is that the fault of the customers? No. That's not how business works. It is the responsibility of Nintendo to get the third parties on its system.

[Professor S]

Everyone has pretty much stated everything you could possibly say Nintendo did wrong, and its tough considering how much Nintendo is dominating the industry right now.

But I think Aladuf has hit the nail on the head for me...

Nintendo has abandoned the hardcore gamer. I'm not saying that was a bad business move, it obviously wasn't, but its one I have a hard time accepting with my personal game preferences.

I love literary games. To me gameplay and gaphics are avenues to entrench a player's psyche into a new, strange world where the fantastic is possible and the mundane is never tolerated. Books engage your mind. Movies add the eyes and ears to the experience.

But games...

Games can fully exploit all of you senses to make not merely an observer of epic storytelling, but make you a PART of it. Mass Effect is a perfect example of this and to date is my favortie game of all time, by far, and Ive played almost every major game released since PONG (benefit of being an old man).

Nintendo no longer cares for the advancement of games to art. Instead, they happily tread in the sandbox of children's toys and basic, fun platform, puzzle and kinetic games. They are experts of the superficial experience, and thats ok, it makes them a lot of money and a lot of people love casual gaming. They saw a need, and filled it. Good for them.

But me...

I need to play a game and feel enriched for having experienced it. I prefer my games to be more Pablo Picasso than Jim Lee. I felt that the industry was moving in that direction last gen, with games like KOTOR, Shadow of the Colossus, Oni and Okami. So I suppose a little of me is bitter that Nintendo seems to have bucked that beautiful trend.

Now those ypes of games seem even more few and far between, so I'll wile away my time with replaying Mass Effect, my strategy games (insert story here!) and Warhammer 40k.

Bah.

[Jason1]

I agree with what some of you have said, but I also disagree with a lot. I mean yes we all hate friend codes, online should be way better than it is. And sure it would be nice if the graphics were better...but...

For one, the Wii controller isnt Gimmicky. Just the fact that my parents actually wanted to try it is enough for me. I couldnt have gotten them to pick up a controller before the wii came along if I tried. The fact that people who have never played videogames before are suddenly interested is, in my opinion, a huge success for Nintendo and the industry alike. I mean, before the Wii seldom would videogames be played at actual parties lets say. A few weeks ago my friends parents were out of town and he had quite a few people over...and we played the Wii. If this were to even happen before (and it probably wouldnt), only a few people would actually play. With wii, everyone wants to play and I think its great. Also, I disagree entirely about Nintendo not being serious. If Nintendo wasnt serious anymore, Mario and Zelda and Metroid would all be lame. I mean its obvious to me Nintendo still cares very much about making great games, I mean Zelda and Mario were as good as they have been since OOT and Mario 64.

And Professor, you cant tell me Twilight Princess was superficial...

[BreakABone]

Can there really be innovate software on a lowballed console?

Short answer yes.
And the Wii has proven it time and time again.
Say what you will but Wii Sports will probably go down as the most important game of this generation.
I point to this game that very few people have played on the Wii, but Godfather Blackhand Edition has spoiled sandbox games for me. The interaction that game gives you can not be mimicked on any other console. And it really and truly adds to the experience. I played godfather before on the PC, so it was my second time through and the controls in the game were so damn solid. It will be tough to go back to something like GTA.
Yeah, people will talk about pretty graphics and advanced AI but adding an element of interactivity is also truly innovative.

When did it become acceptable to have passable graphics in the post 2D area? It's interesting how Nintendo has been able to reduce expectations. Nintendo gamers are now satisfied with "passable" graphics, while Sony and Microsoft continue to release the best possible systems all things considered.
You know I won't argue graphics. There has really been two games that have stunned me from a visual point of view this gen and that's Gears of War and Uncharted.
But assuming that won't satisfy you. I think the Wii does a fine job when it is trying Galaxy and Brawl are really nice looking games. Zack and Wiki and No More Heroes ultize an interesting style. So yeah the graphics aren't the greatest, but they damn sure haven't blinded me yet.


This point irritates me the most. It is Nintendo's responsibility to acquire third party support. If this wonderful store opens up, but the store doesn't seem to be getting any customers, is that the fault of the customers? No. That's not how business works. It is the responsibility of Nintendo to get the third parties on its system.
Well, your analogy is flawed in my opinion.

The better analogy would be if you opened up a store that millions of people flock to all the time. And one or two company is doing a killer in that store, but then you have other companies who are in the same business. They want their stuff to be seen but its the damaged goods. The clothes with the ripped tags or the loose threads.

In other words, Nintendo has set up an avenue for people to sell games. And don't say they don't sell. Guitar Hero 3 did well. Red Steel. Rayman. Sonic. No More Heroes beat expectations. Resident Evil 4 and Umbrella Chronicles. So it is very possible for 3rd party companies to get sales.

I really think both parties are at fault. I mean do you think it was a struggle for Sony or MS to get support at the start of this gen? What have they really done to deserve it? MS should have continued support because of great software sales, but really the PS3 continues getting games even though it had a very slow start and even worse software sales.

If that type of logic works, how the hell does Nintendo combat it? We have the best selling console! We have the lowest entry fee! A lower fee to make games! And they still can't get anything. It really isn't much more they can do besides playing developers to make games for them.

Can there really be innovate software on a lowballed console?


When did it become acceptable to have passable graphics in the post 2D area? It's interesting how Nintendo has been able to reduce expectations. Nintendo gamers are now satisfied with "passable" graphics, while Sony and Microsoft continue to release the best possible systems all things considered.


This point irritates me the most. It is Nintendo's responsibility to acquire third party support. If this wonderful store opens up, but the store doesn't seem to be getting any customers, is that the fault of the customers? No. That's not how business works. It is the responsibility of Nintendo to get the third parties on its system.


Nintendo has abandoned the hardcore gamer. I'm not saying that was a bad business move, it obviously wasn't, but its one I have a hard time accepting with my personal game preferences.
I've had this discussion with Aladuf on AIM before it did not end well. And I doubt this one will as well.
But I HATE HATE this damn line of thought.
Nintendo abandoning the hardcore?
They have released a Zelda, Metroid, Mario, Smash Bros and tons of other games in a faster time than any of their other consoles that I could think of.
They've released a handful of games like Wii Sports and Wii Play and people just assume the sky is falling down.
Nintendo is Nintendo with the same arsenal that is GROWING not shrinking. We haven't lost any of their core franchises yet and to be honest, I think with the exception of TP for some reasons, they have all been some of the best games in their franchises.

I love literary games. To me gameplay and gaphics are avenues to entrench a player's psyche into a new, strange world where the fantastic is possible and the mundane is never tolerated. Books engage your mind. Movies add the eyes and ears to the experience.

But games...

Games can fully exploit all of you senses to make not merely an observer of epic storytelling, but make you a PART of it. Mass Effect is a perfect example of this and to date is my favortie game of all time, by far, and Ive played almost every major game released since PONG (benefit of being an old man).
Sure this is a matter of taste, but story is one of the reasons I haven't played MAss Effect.
If I wanted to get involved on such a level I would read a book or watch a movie. I won't say much more on this subject as I haven't played Mass Effect, but storylines in games tend to more often than not piss me off because they disrupt the flow of the game so much.


I need to play a game and feel enriched for having experienced it. I prefer my games to be more Pablo Picasso than Jim Lee. I felt that the industry was moving in that direction last gen, with games like KOTOR, Shadow of the Colossus, Oni and Okami. So I suppose a little of me is bitter that Nintendo seems to have bucked that beautiful trend.

You know for every Citizen Kane there is Cinderalle. Why is it, that these two type of games can't co-exist without one being the downfall of the other?

Will having simpler games hurt the rise of stories in games? Will games becoming grand and epic really stop people from playing Tetris?

This is gonna come off negative, but has anyone ever realized how selfish gamers can be. I understand its a new hobby, but a LOT of people seem to hate any move in a direction that isn't what they want. But like books and movies and any other form of enterainment, you pick what you like and don't worry about the rest.

I don't care how many romantic comedies come out in a year, it doesn't hurt the action movies I watch. The fact that Nintendo is embracing a different (and growing culture) shouldn't offend you because it isn't where you want to be. To be fair, I don't think you have been on Nintendo's page since the n64 as far as I could tell. And that's ok, maybe its time you file for a divorce.

[Aladuf]

I've had this discussion with Aladuf on AIM before it did not end well. And I doubt this one will as well.

Yes, that was...tense. I never want to have a video game argument to that degree with you again. :P

[Angrist]

This point irritates me the most. It is Nintendo's responsibility to acquire third party support. If this wonderful store opens up, but the store doesn't seem to be getting any customers, is that the fault of the customers? No. That's not how business works. It is the responsibility of Nintendo to get the third parties on its system.Nintendo opens a store. They say 'everybody can sell their stuff here!'
Nintendo's own stuff is very popular. The store is always very crowded and sells lots. Other companies quickly cram in some crap there. It doesn't sell.

Nintendo's fault? I think not.

How can you/people keep whining that Nintendo is doing something bad to the gaming industry? They found a niche. Fun, easy to play games that mimic/require real life motions. Good for them.
Again, is it their fault that lots of companies try to copy them without knowing how to make a fun game? Like that Epic guy said: "I am never going to make a kiddy game just because of the Wii."
As long as people will buy them, there will be serious games. It's just how the market works. Even Nintendo knows that and that's why they made Zelda, Metroid, Mario, Fire Emblem, BWii, etc. Casual games don't stop you from buying hardcore games, do they?

[Bond]

I point to this game that very few people have played on the Wii, but Godfather Blackhand Edition has spoiled sandbox games for me. The interaction that game gives you can not be mimicked on any other console. And it really and truly adds to the experience. I played godfather before on the PC, so it was my second time through and the controls in the game were so damn solid. It will be tough to go back to something like GTA.
Yeah, people will talk about pretty graphics and advanced AI but adding an element of interactivity is also truly innovative.
Uh... GTA is on a pedestal that is about five miles higher than any other sandbox game. I've played The Godfather on the Xbox 360, and I don't see how adding greater interactivity would make the game even comparable to GTA.

You know I won't argue graphics. There has really been two games that have stunned me from a visual point of view this gen and that's Gears of War and Uncharted.
But assuming that won't satisfy you. I think the Wii does a fine job when it is trying Galaxy and Brawl are really nice looking games. Zack and Wiki and No More Heroes ultize an interesting style. So yeah the graphics aren't the greatest, but they damn sure haven't blinded me yet.
Well, right, this is my point. It's amazing how Nintendo has influenced gamers to settle. It's now acceptable to have "fine" graphics, or "at least they're trying."

The better analogy would be if you opened up a store that millions of people flock to all the time. And one or two company is doing a killer in that store, but then you have other companies who are in the same business. They want their stuff to be seen but its the damaged goods. The clothes with the ripped tags or the loose threads.

In other words, Nintendo has set up an avenue for people to sell games. And don't say they don't sell. Guitar Hero 3 did well. Red Steel. Rayman. Sonic. No More Heroes beat expectations. Resident Evil 4 and Umbrella Chronicles. So it is very possible for 3rd party companies to get sales.
If Nintendo is crowding out their competitors by producing superior games, then how are they at the same time setting up an avenue for people to sell games?

I really think both parties are at fault. I mean do you think it was a struggle for Sony or MS to get support at the start of this gen? What have they really done to deserve it? MS should have continued support because of great software sales, but really the PS3 continues getting games even though it had a very slow start and even worse software sales.
I would argue because Sony and Microsoft are better run companies, and certainly more Western run countries. The disconnect between modern business practices and Nintendo's business philosophy is huge. And I don't think you'd disagree...

If that type of logic works, how the hell does Nintendo combat it? We have the best selling console! We have the lowest entry fee! A lower fee to make games! And they still can't get anything. It really isn't much more they can do besides playing developers to make games for them.
I don't know... by being at the cutting edge? By directly competing with Sony and Microsoft? By investing in other developers?

[BreakABone]

Uh... GTA is on a pedestal that is about five miles higher than any other sandbox game. I've played The Godfather on the Xbox 360, and I don't see how adding greater interactivity would make the game even comparable to GTA.
I answered this on AIM but for the sake of the people who aren't you and I.
I was specifically referring to the controls of the game and not the overall experience.
Godfather Wii does some truly amazing stuff with IR and motion controls. And going back to one button= punch/kick and crap just doesn't work the same.
Yes this will sound sadistic but sue me, but the feeling of actual motins to snap someone's neck really cant be represented on a normal controller. And I won't even talk about the fun of roughing someone up.

Well, right, this is my point. It's amazing how Nintendo has influenced gamers to settle. It's now acceptable to have "fine" graphics, or "at least they're trying."
Nintendo hasn't influenced gamers to do anything. I think we are finally seeing the fine line divide between fun and pretty. A game doesn't have to be pretty to be fun, but no one wants a pretty game that isn't fun. Not saying you can't have the best of both worlds, but Nintendo is showing that if you have the core elements people will play it no matter what it looks like.


If Nintendo is crowding out their competitors by producing superior games, then how are they at the same time setting up an avenue for people to sell games?
Wait... what is the arguement here.
Nintendo should lower the quality of their games so everyone has an equal playing field?

I would argue because Sony and Microsoft are better run companies, and certainly more Western run countries. The disconnect between modern business practices and Nintendo's business philosophy is huge. And I don't think you'd disagree...
I would argue Nintendo is a better ran company. As much as it pains people, at the end of the day it is about profits for all 3. And right now only one of them is making money fist over hands.

Is this necessarily good for the gamer? Maybe not, but on the same hand Nintendo is selling consoles. Selling to a wider audience than they have in the last 10 years. And bringing people back int the fold. I don't see where this disconnect comes from. Sure the core gamers or hardcore gamers or whoever they want to be called feel a little jilted.

But to be honest, I really think people seperated from the Nintendo mentality at the start of the Cube era. They just need a continued excuse as to why that is.

First Nintendo was kiddie. Oddly they still make the same games but no one really complains about that anymore.

Then Nintendo didn't have much support. They still don't, but they do get some good games from time to time.

Now it's Nintendo doesn't care about the hardcores. Because god knows games like Tetris and The Sims wasn't popular before the DS and the Wii.

I don't know... by being at the cutting edge? By directly competing with Sony and Microsoft? By investing in other developers?
There's two ways you can be cutting edge.
By being at the edge of technology.
Or by pushing your idea as the new future.

Video games have generally gone on this slope of increased graphics= better experience. Nintendo went a different route, it is paying off for them and I really can't complain about it.

As for investing in developers, that could be an option, but I also don't think they want to end up paying the bills for dead weight.

Ask Microsoft how Rare has been doing. What 2 games at the launch of the 360 and that's it so far?

[Jason1]

Well, at least Nintendo systems dont have to be sent back because they dont work.

I think its pretty lame that Microsoft cant make a reliable console.

[Angrist]

I would argue because Sony and Microsoft are better run companies, and certainly more Western run countries. The disconnect between modern business practices and Nintendo's business philosophy is huge. And I don't think you'd disagree... Haha you HAVE to be frigging KIDDING me! For years now Nintendo has been the only console producer who has made a profit. They're the second most expensive company in Japan. Even in the last generation, they made millions on the GameCube, where Microsoft lost millions on the XBox. And where are they now? Just when they made a profit, they had to invest to extend the 360 warranty.
So don't give me that crap by saying that Sony and Microsoft are better run companies than Nintendo. Not without explaining what you mean.

Well, right, this is my point. It's amazing how Nintendo has influenced gamers to settle. It's now acceptable to have "fine" graphics, or "at least they're trying."So? Apparently this is what is happening. Most people just don't care about photo-realistic graphics. Blame Nintendo?

Edit: bah, I shouldn't be playing addicting webgames (http://dan-ball.jp/en/javagame/dust/) while typing a post. BaB keeps beating me to it, so I feel ignored.

[Perfect Stu]

Couple things...

First, to BaB: Nintendo has forgotten about the hardcore gamer. And it wasn't a bad move for them...look how many new or relatively new gamers have shelled over hundreds of dollars for DS and Wii. Can you honestly say that Nintendo has marketed their systems towards hardcore gamers since midway through the Gamecube's lifespan? Yeah there is a percentage of hardcore gamers that enjoy Mario Galaxy and Super Smash Bros, but those games are still primarily focused on the casual gamer who buys one videogame a year. Is there any surprise that games like Grant Theft Auto and Metal Gear Solid weren't made for the Wii?

And Angrist: Do you realize how much money Sony made on PS2 and continues to make from that system? I wouldnt say 'for years now' when only the PS3 caused Sony to take a hit, which lasted about a year, and was for the first time in ages.

[BreakABone]

Couple things...

First, to BaB: Nintendo has forgotten about the hardcore gamer. And it wasn't a bad move for them...look how many new or relatively new gamers have shelled over hundreds of dollars for DS and Wii. Can you honestly say that Nintendo has marketed their systems towards hardcore gamers since midway through the Gamecube's lifespan? Yeah there is a percentage of hardcore gamers that enjoy Mario Galaxy and Super Smash Bros, but those games are still primarily focused on the casual gamer who buys one videogame a year. Is there any surprise that games like Grant Theft Auto and Metal Gear Solid weren't made for the Wii?


First, don't get how your first point relates to your last point.
I think those games aren't on the Wii more for graphical reasons than anything else.

And I still don't see how Nintendo has abandoned the hardcore. Ignoring last e3 which in my opinion was one long wankfest for Nintendo. They still continue to focus more energy (atleast to me) on promoting their games like Smash and Galaxy over stuff like hell I don't know... Endless Ocean.

And not to knock it, but really you are using GTA to defend hardcore games? It is the prime example of a cross over title. One of those games where a person will buy a system for it and nothing else or until GTA IV Vice City 2 comes out. GTA is a very casual title IMO because most people can play it without ever doing anything of note and come away satisified.

But maybe I am just missing it. So someone explain to me exactly what Nintendo has done to cater less to the hardcore and more to the casuals.

[thatmariolover]

Bottom line, Nintendo is afraid.


Nintendo is afraid to tell 3rd party developers that they have to do better because they can't afford to lose the support they have, limited as it is. They need to bring back the Official Nintendo Seal of Approval and make it mean something. They need to let all the CrapWare filter out, and tell those interested in dev kits that those just trying to make a quick buck need not apply.

They need to quit sitting on all of that money they're making and invest it into acquiring talented dev teams to be molded into dedicated second parties that they can closely monitor. This is the number one way to get some new original games developed instead of rehashing the old favorites (good as they are) and depending on third parties who don't give a damn.

In the end, no Nintendo did not forget hardcore gamers. They make great first party titles and they make them frequently. The issue is that they're not enforcing any sort of quality control on 3rd party titles and until somebody with balls takes over they won't.

[Dyne]

Interesting, thatmariolover. I remember listening to the IGN podcast with the interview with Julian Eggrebrecht and he said the reason they went to Sony is because Nintendo was really keeping the ACTUAL power of the console secret from them - however, they did receive motion-controls for Gamecubes even when they were working on Rogue Squadron 2.

[Professor S]

Wow, this is a great gaming discussion. We have sorely missed this for quite some time. A few responses to random points.

My issue isn't that Nintendo's mew console can't create games for the hardcore gamer, its that they don't care to. No, Twilight Princess was not superficial from what I saw, but thats one game.

Nintendo has always been about making a profit as the number one rule. ALWAYS. Even while in last place last gen, they were able to pull a hefty profit, and many Nintendo fans used that fact to defend their favorite console maker. Now that same argument and reality has come to bite harcore Nintendo fans in the butt because they are stuck with a handful of quality games sailing above a vast ocean of stinky, profitable garbage.

Nintendo tried to compete in the modern generation last go around, and they failed to dominate or even really compete, and they got smart and realized that they would instead create a product that meets casual and lifestyle needs. Nintendo said: "You can have the future and the relevancy. We will take the money NOW." And they have through a fun controller and further exploitation of decades old properties. More power to them as it makes them a ton of cash.

Its smart, but its not me and its not going to help push gaming to the next level and gain it mainstream and artistic legitimacy, and the fact that Nintendo's strategy has proven so successful saddens me.

[Bond]

Nintendo hasn't influenced gamers to do anything. I think we are finally seeing the fine line divide between fun and pretty. A game doesn't have to be pretty to be fun, but no one wants a pretty game that isn't fun. Not saying you can't have the best of both worlds, but Nintendo is showing that if you have the core elements people will play it no matter what it looks like.
Yes, but the point is that Nintendo investing in a better graphics card (pretty games) is not a hinderance to Nintendo making fun games.

I would argue Nintendo is a better ran company. As much as it pains people, at the end of the day it is about profits for all 3. And right now only one of them is making money fist over hands.
[This is also in response to Angrist's post] This is simply not a fair comparison. Sony and Microsoft are huge, multi-facetted companies. Nintendo is not. Nintendo's main goal as a company is to sell videogames. Sony and Microsoft, being multi-facetted companies, have multi-facetted goals. Therefore, the conclusion that Nintendo is a 'better run' company because it is turning a bigger profit in the videogame sector is inaccurate.

Is this necessarily good for the gamer? Maybe not, but on the same hand Nintendo is selling consoles. Selling to a wider audience than they have in the last 10 years. And bringing people back int the fold. I don't see where this disconnect comes from. Sure the core gamers or hardcore gamers or whoever they want to be called feel a little jilted.
It is interesting here how you have managed to shift the debate, that is, from the previous generation to this one. When Sony and Microsoft entered the videogame business they were painted as the "big, bad, profit hungry companies" and Nintendo was the "little company fighting for gamer's rights." Has this now changed? Is Nintendo now the profit hungry company and Sony and Microsoft now the two companies who truly care about gamer's rights? This is an interesting point.

[Sestren]

The Wii has been a fickle beast to me this generation. When I first played Wii Sports and Wii Play along with my friends, I couldn't get enough. But that's the key with the Wii...playing with friends. If people aren't around for me to play the console with, I literally have no interest in it. That's not to say there's no quality games to play by oneself, but if that's the case I'd rather be playing something on my 360.

To say Nintendo did the "wrong" thing by making an underpowered system is quite subjective. If anything it was the most groundbreaking idea as far as consoles were concerned as the Wii offers affordability and playability to those who found next-generation gaming too daunting. Nintendo is making a killing profit-wise on their hardware and will most likely continue to do so as long as the Wii exists.

Would I have liked a system more in line with the 360 and PS3? Absolutely. Nintendo still has the best first party offerings around. And on a really powerful console they could make games which were mind-blowing. Then again, they make really awesome games on a lesser-powered console that can be argued to be just as great as any other. At the same time, third parties still seem neglected, and so you (or at least I) don't see the same innovation from external game developers on the Wii. Which leads me back to playing their games on the 360 (or PS3).

I won't say the Wii is where my favorite gaming is this generation, nor will it probably ever be there. I enjoy the interactivity (solid online experience, player experience) of the other two consoles much more. I won't get games like Virtua Fighter 5, Lost Odyssey, or Mass Effect on Wii. But when it comes to playing together, in person, the Wii has me sold more than any other system.

[Angrist]

This is simply not a fair comparison. Sony and Microsoft are huge, multi-facetted companies. Nintendo is not. Nintendo's main goal as a company is to sell videogames. Sony and Microsoft, being multi-facetted companies, have multi-facetted goals. Therefore, the conclusion that Nintendo is a 'better run' company because it is turning a bigger profit in the videogame sector is inaccurate.Now that is an explanation. :) I still don't really see how multifaceted-y makes a company better run though. In ways, it is much harder to become big when you're betting on one horse (gaming). But I see your point.
Its smart, but its not me and its not going to help push gaming to the next level and gain it mainstream and artistic legitimacy, and the fact that Nintendo's strategy has proven so successful saddens me.Ok, this is quite biased. Who are you to say what the next level in gaming is? You basically want games to become interactive movies. It looks like a real movie, but you're playing it.
I'd say that games are games and not movies.
Your preference versus mine, but it's pretty arrogant to say that Nintendo is pushing in the wrong direction (especially with the millions of people that follow them in that direction).
And Angrist: Do you realize how much money Sony made on PS2 and continues to make from that system? I wouldnt say 'for years now' when only the PS3 caused Sony to take a hit, which lasted about a year, and was for the first time in ages.Yeah you're right. But I'd like to point out that (apparently) a few years back, their gaming division was the only one that was making a profit. Movies, music, hardware... it all made losses. Things are said to have turned around though.
I'm flattered that that was your only point in response to my post. :)

To say Nintendo did the "wrong" thing by making an underpowered system is quite subjective. The way I see it: Nintendo made a gamble. They had to focus on motion controls, because their last strategy (GameCube) hadn't worked. They decided not to concentrate on horse power. They won the gamble. Hard.
The next step is the Yuu or whatever it will be called. Look at the history of Nintendo consoles:
1: NES - 2: SNES
3: N64 - 4: GameCube
The even consoles are always an evolution of, an improvement over the previous consoles. Nintendo takes a direction, is successful and then improves it. The Yuu will have great graphics, improved motion control, etc. But it couldn't have existed without the Wii. ;)

[Professor S]

Ok, this is quite biased. Who are you to say what the next level in gaming is?

I thought I was being quite fair in my analysis. I am a consumer who was asked my opinion and my thoughts on the next level of gaming are based more on media reaction than my own preferences.

Mass Effect stretched the boundaries of what society thought about games. What else explains the knee jerk reaction of so many to such a insignificant sex scene in a game? It made gaming too adult for some and many who view games as "kids toys" aren't comfortable with the idea that a game could be held to the same level as film or literature.

Mario Galaxy pushes none of those boundaries and challenges ZERO societal norms. That alone should illustrate my point to you when it comes to gaming as art.

You basically want games to become interactive movies. It looks like a real movie, but you're playing it.
I'd say that games are games and not movies.

No, I did not say that. I said that games have the ability to be so much MORE than games or literature.

Your preference versus mine, but it's pretty arrogant to say that Nintendo is pushing in the wrong direction (especially with the millions of people that follow them in that direction).

And its arrogant for you to assume they are pushing in the right direction. Your vehement response to my reasonable thoughts shows us as much.

There is arrogance in all of us in this discussion. We were asked our opinion of what a HUGE PROFITABLE COMPANY DID WRONG. Its such a silly response to try and point me out as being arrogant for daring to answer the questions as it was posed to me...

[BreakABone]

Argh who could have imagined there would be a day when there is too much to respond to at GT. Anyhow, I am going to do my best. It is funny that I have now ended up defended the system I was criticizing at the beginning.

Yes, but the point is that Nintendo investing in a better graphics card (pretty games) is not a hinderance to Nintendo making fun games.
Without investing in a fancy graphics card, they have still been able to create fun games and keep the price down for consumners. Win-win?

[This is also in response to Angrist's post] This is simply not a fair comparison. Sony and Microsoft are huge, multi-facetted companies. Nintendo is not. Nintendo's main goal as a company is to sell videogames. Sony and Microsoft, being multi-facetted companies, have multi-facetted goals. Therefore, the conclusion that Nintendo is a 'better run' company because it is turning a bigger profit in the videogame sector is inaccurate.
Well let's see
1)They make the most profit in the field in which all 3 operate.
2)They have had the most expansion this gen thus far. You can claim they are re-claiming some of their old fanbase, but in a little less than a year and a half have surpassed the Cube (not a huge goal mind you), they are on track to outsell the n64 soon and it still remains the fastest selling console in history. I don't see how any of that could be criticized as not running their business well.

It is interesting here how you have managed to shift the debate, that is, from the previous generation to this one. When Sony and Microsoft entered the videogame business they were painted as the "big, bad, profit hungry companies" and Nintendo was the "little company fighting for gamer's rights." Has this now changed? Is Nintendo now the profit hungry company and Sony and Microsoft now the two companies who truly care about gamer's rights? This is an interesting point.

I can't speak for Sony when I really started following games like I do now it was at the tail end of the PSX generation so Sony was already an establised brand.
As for Microsoft yeah many held that belief, I'm sure many still do.
But I don't think for a moment anyone has ever doubted Nintendo was a money hungry company it has bite them in the ass on several occassion look at the n64 so nothing has really changed in that regard.
What has changed is Nintendo is looking to expand the gaming market but people are against it for whatever reason. I'm not saying we need games like Wii Play and I don't expect anyone here to own it. But it is the top of game that brings in people who have never gamed or haven't gamed much.
And making this a wider accepted passtime is important no? Or would you prefer games stick to the stigma of being for nerds and people living in their mother's basement?


Would I have liked a system more in line with the 360 and PS3? Absolutely. Nintendo still has the best first party offerings around. And on a really powerful console they could make games which were mind-blowing. Then again, they make really awesome games on a lesser-powered console that can be argued to be just as great as any other. At the same time, third parties still seem neglected, and so you (or at least I) don't see the same innovation from external game developers on the Wii. Which leads me back to playing their games on the 360 (or PS3).

I won't say the Wii is where my favorite gaming is this generation, nor will it probably ever be there. I enjoy the interactivity (solid online experience, player experience) of the other two consoles much more. I won't get games like Virtua Fighter 5, Lost Odyssey, or Mass Effect on Wii. But when it comes to playing together, in person, the Wii has me sold more than any other system.

Hmm after re-reading your post with some sleep. I really don't think I disagree with you on any point.

I thought I was being quite fair in my analysis. I am a consumer who was asked my opinion and my thoughts on the next level of gaming are based more on media reaction than my own preferences.
See the problem with this is the gaming world doesn't expand or shrink based on your own personal preference.
The same way the movie world or TV world doesn't.
So while it is in YOUR best interest to hope for games you want, it is kind of hard to say where games should be going as the wider audience will always make the decision with their pockets.

Mass Effect stretched the boundaries of what society thought about games. What else explains the knee jerk reaction of so many to such a insignificant sex scene in a game? It made gaming too adult for some and many who view games as "kids toys" aren't comfortable with the idea that a game could be held to the same level as film or literature.

Mario Galaxy pushes none of those boundaries and challenges ZERO societal norms. That alone should illustrate my point to you when it comes to gaming as art.

Or it could be that the media still doesn't know how to cover video games? I haven't played Mass Effect so again I won't comment on it too much but too me it doesn't seem to push the genre forward anymore than your standard sci-fi movie.

As for Mario Galaxy, I don't think it challenged societal norms, but it damn sure covered the fundamentals better than any game I have played in a LONG time. And I don't care about story or dialogue or even graphics. When you are as good as your core as Mario Galaxy, I really don't think anything else matters. Would it have been icing on the cake? Sure, but it doesn't hurt the game at all.

And hate to bring this up but Mario was a better success both critically and financially. (Yeah sure someone will insert its a Mario game defense in here. And that may very well be true but if nothing else the series has ended a reputation for solid core games)

No, I did not say that. I said that games have the ability to be so much MORE than games or literature.
Games have the ability to be so much more than either genre, but everyone seems to want to move it in the direction of those two media for whatever reason. Games offer an avenue to tell a story far behind triggered cutscenes and certain events. Games as a whole can transcend to a sort of living world where every action has a reaction. A minute late for something changes the entire way the game is played. Something that is beyond a movie and beyond a book.
But those advancements aren't really happening now.
Some folks will surely point to games like MAss Effect and KoToR or Fable now and well those games start along the line for the most part it is just branching points of the same thing.

And its arrogant for you to assume they are pushing in the right direction. Your vehement response to my reasonable thoughts shows us as much.

There is arrogance in all of us in this discussion. We were asked our opinion of what a HUGE PROFITABLE COMPANY DID WRONG. Its such a silly response to try and point me out as being arrogant for daring to answer the questions as it was posed to me...

I think it is arrogant for anyone of us to declare which way the world should revolve.
And though you are correct, my original point was what was wrong with the Wii itself and not so much how Nintendo is run or doing wrong.

But I like where this has headed.

See if we get some passion and thunder for the Ps3/360 version.

[Professor S]

So while it is in YOUR best interest to hope for games you want, it is kind of hard to say where games should be going as the wider audience will always make the decision with their pockets.

I've never held mass appeal to be the determining factor of where I think art should go. In fact, I think the exact opposite. Not saying that you think it does, but then this doesn't really apply to the point I was making.

be that the media still doesn't know how to cover video games? I haven't played Mass Effect so again I won't comment on it too much but too me it doesn't seem to push the genre forward anymore than your standard sci-fi movie.

The fact that it got people talking about art in games and got such a reaction from mainstream media shows you what impact it had. I agree, the media doesn;t know how to cover video games, but to think they'll wake up one day and realize "Hey, this is an artform that we need to cover differently!" is naive. The media's reaction to Mas Effect is part of the growth of the industry and its place in the art world, not completely unlike the Church's reaction to Michelangelo's nudes in the Sistine Chapel (I'm not comparing Mass Effect to the Sistione Chapel, just the reaction). This is indicative of how art grows.

As for Mario Galaxy, I don't think it challenged societal norms, but it damn sure covered the fundamentals better than any game I have played in a LONG time.

So did Bob Ross when he painted happy little trees, but I wouldn't call it art.

And I don't care about story or dialogue or even graphics. When you are as good as your core as Mario Galaxy, I really don't think anything else matters. Would it have been icing on the cake? Sure, but it doesn't hurt the game at all.

And there lies my issue. They and you don't CARE about advancing games as an artform, unlike some amazing developers from the previous generation. I never said mario galaxy wasn't FUN. Its sure as hell is, but mere fun doesn't meet my requirements of where I want gaming to go in the future.

And hate to bring this up but Mario was a better success both critically and financially. (Yeah sure someone will insert its a Mario game defense in here. And that may very well be true but if nothing else the series has ended a reputation for solid core games)

Critics hated Stanley Kubric and Led Zeppelin when it first came out and There Will be Blood and No Country for Old Men made next to nothing compared to rehashed movie plots and ideas like Transformers. I fail to see your point when it comes to my argument.

Games have the ability to be so much more than either genre, but everyone seems to want to move it in the direction of those two media for whatever reason. Games offer an avenue to tell a story far behind triggered cutscenes and certain events. Games as a whole can transcend to a sort of living world where every action has a reaction. A minute late for something changes the entire way the game is played. Something that is beyond a movie and beyond a book.

Isn't that what I said? I don't think we disaggree other than you thinking that want games to be LIKE books and film. I want games to be held at the same LEVEL as books and film, because then they will truly become a part of world culture and not simply viewed as a kid's toy. If merely having a story means that you want to be just like books or film, I simply can't understand where you are coming from. The story in Mas Effect had little in the way of traditional cutscenes, but instead made the story a malleable and chess-like puzzle to play. Meanwhile Mario's main storyline, once again, was save the Princess by jumping on mushroom heads. After 25 years or getting her ass captured by giant turtles, I'd think Mario would tell the Princess to go fuck herself.

But those advancements aren't really happening now.

Because Nintendo has moved the industry back to casual kids gaming, where their highest profit margin has always been. Why can people not accept this?

Some folks will surely point to games like MAss Effect and KoToR or Fable now and well those games start along the line for the most part it is just branching points of the same thing.

Mass Effect is the evolution of what was started with KOTOR, and it never pretended not to be. Fable was forgettable has almost nothing in common with Mass Effect or KOTOR beyond being a third person action RPG (and Fable was barely an RPG).

I think it is arrogant for anyone of us to declare which way the world should revolve.

Then don't ask anyone their opinion on anything, because if sharing your ideas an feelings on a subject when asked is arrogant, then any answer to your question is arrogant.

And though you are correct, my original point was what was wrong with the Wii itself and not so much how Nintendo is run or doing wrong.

What kind of question is that? Nintendo made Wii and the Wii is Nintendo's belief on where gaming is and should be, yet we can only say we don'tke the avatars? My problems with the Wii is its concentration on casual gaming. How does that not involve Nintendo as a company?

[Angrist]

The Strangler, why do you keep involving art? Is it just so when it's needed, you can say "Nuh-uh, your argument doesn't count, because I'm talking about games as an artform!", or are you honestly more interested in games as an artform than games in general?

Bob Ross his work might not be very good art, but they are paintings.
You can't dismiss an apple because it's not a banana. What's the use in this discussion to criticize games because they don't have a high art-value?

But ok, to take that route: Bob Ross took a different approach to art and it was very popular. I'm sure he introduced thousands of people to the world of art. Because of him, some people might even have become good artists.
Did Bob Ross damage the art industry? Or did he enrich it?

I think the casual and hardcore games will form a new genre that combines the best elements of both. I'd even daresay that Nintendo Wii is already an important step towards virtual reality.

[Professor S]

The Strangler, why do you keep involving art? Is it just so when it's needed, you can say "Nuh-uh, your argument doesn't count, because I'm talking about games as an artform!", or are you honestly more interested in games as an artform than games in general?

My taste in games tends to be those of a more detailed nature, in both visuals and storytelling (I think visuals are inherent to storytelling in games, and sound being the most important of all). A lot of this is simply my opinion, but I was asked for my opinion and I will defend it when challenged. Its not personal, just answering the question.

What do I think? Thats always a dangerous question to ask me. :D

Bob Ross his work might not be very good art, but they are paintings.

Well there lies a whole other conversation...

You can't dismiss an apple because it's not a banana. What's the use in this discussion to criticize games because they don't have a high art-value?

Yes I can. Its my opinion of where I think Nintendo and the Wii went wrong, and I think they abandoned the future of gaming as a artform. My problem with the Wii isn't that its not a Banana, but that it is taking all the attention and funding away from the Bananas. Wow, what a weird analogy, and yet it works.

But ok, to take that route: Bob Ross took a different approach to art and it was very popular. I'm sure he introduced thousands of people to the world of art. Because of him, some people might even have become good artists.

Back to the age old question of what is art. Bob painted virtually by numbers, and while he inspired many painters, I doubt he created many artists.

Did Bob Ross damage the art industry? Or did he enrich it?

Bob Ross helped the industry, but in the end I think Bob Ross is irrelevant in the art world, so outside the theater of advancement and ideas that he is a novelty... a whimsical sidenote. Popularity defying the norm of either pop culture or elitist art.

I think the casual and hardcore games will form a new genre that combines the best elements of both. I'd even daresay that Nintendo Wii is already an important step towards virtual reality.

Perhaps it is, but that remains to be seen. I can see how its success would lead the insustry towards more kinetic gameplay, which isn;t necessarily a bad thing. I just don't like the direction that the Wii has taken gaming in THIS generation.

[thatmariolover]

Interesting, thatmariolover. I remember listening to the IGN podcast with the interview with Julian Eggrebrecht and he said the reason they went to Sony is because Nintendo was really keeping the ACTUAL power of the console secret from them - however, they did receive motion-controls for Gamecubes even when they were working on Rogue Squadron 2.

And yet they don't seem to think that's the problem with the Wii.

My complaints were actually about the games which try to go the traditional, more photorealistic route, because there you really have to push it, and they're really not pushing it," Factor 5 president, Julian Eggebrecht said. "The console's architecture is easy to understand, reasons Eggebrecht, who goes on to speculate that developers and/or publishers are "discarding the graphical capabilities simply because it is a Wii title, and they're basically telling the developers 'look, we won't pay for any advanced graphics'."

Source:
http://www.revogamers.net/articulos-184-Entrevista:-Eggebrecht-y-el-desarrollo-de-la-potencia-de-Wii-5.html (page six), dated 09/10/2007.

As a matter of fact, that's a great read in general about developers not investing time and producers not spending money on making Wii games great.

[BreakABone]

Ok just wanted to respond to this for now about to run some errands so get to the other stuff soon.

Then don't ask anyone their opinion on anything, because if sharing your ideas an feelings on a subject when asked is arrogant, then any answer to your question is arrogant.

What kind of question is that? Nintendo made Wii and the Wii is Nintendo's belief on where gaming is and should be, yet we can only say we don'tke the avatars? My problems with the Wii is its concentration on casual gaming. How does that not involve Nintendo as a company?

I just wanted to point out that I was not attacking you for being arrogrant in the original post. I was agreeing with you. I could be mistaken but it seems you taken it the wrong way.

And as for the second point, I know this is a fine line but Nintendo making the Wii and Nintendo running Nintendo is two different things IMO. Nintendo being Nintendo involves more than the Wii as it also captures the DS but it is also about how they market their games and the type of games they make.

Nintendo making the Wii is the fundamental flaws of the console itself. I know its a bit iffy but basically. To continue from the store analogy.

The difference between blaming the owners of the store for the general store and blaming them for the inventory they stock.

[Aladuf]

After reading all of this again (great thread btw) I think the Wii (for me) will have to be looked from now on as a completely different experience in all from the PS3/360. When I'm sitting here at night or whenever and thinking of what to play, the Wii never comes to mind. I think to myself "hmm which do I want to play, 360 or PS3". I say that the Wii is separate from the PS3/360 because it's on its own... it's doing its own thing in terms of what it offers. Like I said in my first post, I like the Wii for the first party titles, I was all over Twilight Princess day 1, same with Galaxy, and same with Brawl but that's as far as it goes for me, aside from Wii Sports and Links Crossbow Training those are the only 3 games I own for it.

I'm a fairly "typical gamer" these days, I love to play a game where I have a gun in my hand and I like to shoot anything that stands in my path and that is exactly the offering that the PS3/360 gives me in terms of solid experiences. I can play those 2 consoles all the time because they have the games I crave now but when Nintendo puts out another first party game that I have interest in then I'll drop the PS3/360 like a bad habit for a little while (ask BaB when SSBB came out... he got tired of ME asking to play).

These days people are just so used to comparing all 3 consoles because they used to be on the same level in terms of graphics, games, and hardware in general. So basically, I think the Wii vs. PS3/360 comparisons aren't even necessary these days because the Wii has nothing in common with the other 2 consoles in any concerns whether it be key demographic, hardware, software or anything. The consoles/companies are taking completely separate paths and it's just time to accept that I guess, because I don't see Nintendo turning away from the success they've had and are still having when it comes to the next generation of consoles so the gaming world just needs to get used to a new more "divided" way of gaming.

Edit: broke it up because BaB says people don't read paragraphs! haha

[Bube]

Perhaps it is, but that remains to be seen. I can see how its success would lead the insustry towards more kinetic gameplay, which isn;t necessarily a bad thing. I just don't like the direction that the Wii has taken gaming in THIS generation.

So your main problem with the Wii is the graphics (help with grammar here :))? If the Wii was as powerful as a 360, it would've been more immersing for you, and you'd be closer to the art form you wanted?

Or is the problem the games? Nintendo have always been about Mario, Zelda, Metroid - you'd never get a Mass Effect from them. And that brings us back to the original question - why doesn't the Wii get games like Mass Effect? The controller? The graphics? The target audience?

On another note, you say that Nintendo moved the industry back. I don't think they moved it back, because the industry, for reasons we can discuss, haven't really agreed with Nintendo, and they don't have much support. Nintendo have created a different platform, where currently only themselves and a few others are playing on. You still have the other 2 consoles for your taste.

Which is why I wanted a 360. I love playing the kiddy/fun games, but I too, sometimes want some epic storytelling and action (I looooved BioShock).

Nintendo didn't do anything wrong industry-wise to affect your dreams. The industry is still going the way of interactive-movie. It's just that Nintendo isn't (or at least didn't, this generation).

[Perfect Stu]

BABsy, the way Nintendo has turned their backs on the hardcore gamer to ME is by marketing their systems to the new, casual gamer. 3rd parties will then release stuff like carnival games on the system, but not their flagship shooter. And who can blame them? That's the target audience.

[Professor S]

BABsy, the way Nintendo has turned their backs on the hardcore gamer to ME is by marketing their systems to the new, casual gamer. 3rd parties will then release stuff like carnival games on the system, but not their flagship shooter. And who can blame them? That's the target audience.

I wish you would have posted this earlier and saved me a half a day of writing :)

It gets right to my point.

[BreakABone]

This is a fun thread, and I will leave it alone to see where it goes, but since this was specifically titled for me.

BABsy, the way Nintendo has turned their backs on the hardcore gamer to ME is by marketing their systems to the new, casual gamer. 3rd parties will then release stuff like carnival games on the system, but not their flagship shooter. And who can blame them? That's the target audience.
I am going to agree and disagree with you.
Nintendo has hardly got any flagship titles or atleast exclusively. I mean a port of RE 4, Manhunt 2 (it was higher profile before), Monster Hunter 3, and stuff like that.
But I don't believe that is Nintendo's fault per say. I know developers are gonna try and cater to an audience that buys the console, but they should also look to fill the HUGE void left by Nintendo games.

Graphically, the Wii can not compete but you mention shooters.
Red Steel was an exclusive shooter for the Wii that sold really well, but it really did nothing else.
Medal of Honor Heroes 2 was a PSP port, and frankly, it is one of those games that challenges the way FPSes are played in my opinion. I will get this out of the way. The game is not great. As a package, it can hardly compete with the second tier FPSes.
But the ideas behind the controls are rock solid, and if they took the mechanics and applied it to a ground up Wii FPS. I think you would be looking at a game that changes the very dynamic of the genre.
I realize it is a hyperbole and what have you. But MoH H 2 does stuff so well with the controller that it immerses you in new and interesting ways. Take these 3 weapons for example, the sniper rifle, the bazooka and the shotgun.
In some FPses, they are differientated by the way you hold them or how much room they take up on the screen, but in Medal of Honor they are given I guess different weights.
The sniper rifle is controlled by twisting the Wii-mote clockwise or counterclockwise like spinning a dial to zoom in/zoom out. It's a small touch but makes you feel like you are in a bit more control.
The bazooka has you lifting the controller over your shoulder (you can get away with just pointing the wii mote away from the screen but eh) and then using the analog stick to aim. When you fire, you can hear the bazooka travel from your hand (wii mote speakers) to the TV screen. Again an element that no other FPS can really offer.
And then the shotgun or a specific shotgun anyhow. This is like one of those movie shotguns you always see people with that they pump after every shot. It is the same deal here. You fire with the B trigger and aiming with wii-mote and you reload after every shot with the nunchuk by doing a pumping action.
These are standard weapons in most FPSes and they are made to feel unique by the way you are able to control them. This is the type of change the Wii offers IMO. And it can be a blessing for the hardcore if developers tried.

[Bond]

On another note, you say that Nintendo moved the industry back. I don't think they moved it back, because the industry, for reasons we can discuss, haven't really agreed with Nintendo, and they don't have much support. Nintendo have created a different platform, where currently only themselves and a few others are playing on. You still have the other 2 consoles for your taste.
I'd argue that Nintendo, with the release of the Wii, has moved the industry horizontally as opposed to its previous vertical climb. And I think because now Nintendo is moving on this horizontal path it has the potential to begin climbing up once again or to climb down. Climbing down, of course, being very dangerous in my view.

[thatmariolover]

I'd argue that Nintendo, with the release of the Wii, has moved the industry horizontally as opposed to its previous vertical climb. And I think because now Nintendo is moving on this horizontal path it has the potential to begin climbing up once again or to climb down. Climbing down, of course, being very dangerous in my view.

I'd argue that the Wiimote by itself was a bigger step for gaming than an evolution of graphical prowess ever will be. How you play a game is equally important to what you're playing. The issue is how they're marketing what to do with that technology. Most of the time it's used as more of a gimmick instead of using it intelligently like Metroid Prime 3, Super Mario Galaxy, and The Godfather. Even Zelda could have used it better in a few instances.

In the end, current developers (and many consumers such as yourself) view them as separate issues. I think that the bottom line should be how to make games more immersive and entertaining. I think the payoff is just more obvious with glitzy graphics.

[Perfect Stu]

I'd argue that the Wiimote by itself was a bigger step for gaming than an evolution of graphical prowess ever will be. How you play a game is equally important to what you're playing. The issue is how they're marketing what to do with that technology. Most of the time it's used as more of a gimmick instead of using it intelligently like Metroid Prime 3, Super Mario Galaxy, and The Godfather. Even Zelda could have used it better in a few instances.

In the end, current developers (and many consumers such as yourself) view them as separate issues. I think that the bottom line should be how to make games more immersive and entertaining. I think the payoff is just more obvious with glitzy graphics.

It was a big step for gaming...because it introduced a bunch of new gamers to adopt a different way to play. I dont think motion controllers should nor will become the standard in gaming...but the demand was obviously there and Nintendo was able to find a way to meet it. And for that, they're seeing the rewards ($$$).

[BreakABone]

It was a big step for gaming...because it introduced a bunch of new gamers to adopt a different way to play. I dont think motion controllers should nor will become the standard in gaming...but the demand was obviously there and Nintendo was able to find a way to meet it. And for that, they're seeing the rewards ($$$).

If that is the case. Why did Sony release the Sixaxis? And rumors of Microsoft coming out with their own motion controller for the 360?

I'm just curious, I know Strangler owns one.

And Bond has played one like once or twice.

But do you own or played the Wii?

[Bond]

I'd argue that the Wiimote by itself was a bigger step for gaming than an evolution of graphical prowess ever will be. How you play a game is equally important to what you're playing. The issue is how they're marketing what to do with that technology. Most of the time it's used as more of a gimmick instead of using it intelligently like Metroid Prime 3, Super Mario Galaxy, and The Godfather. Even Zelda could have used it better in a few instances.
I see your point, but I have to agree with Stu here, in that I don't see videogames going the way of motion control. Which is why I believe Nintendo's move to motion control with the Wii is a horizontal move for the videogame industry. Now, maybe if Nintendo continues to evolve motion control with its next console (which I don't see happening), then perhaps we could start talking about vertical movement again for Nintendo. But what I think is more likely is for Nintendo to come out with a new "gimmick" for its next console.

[Angrist]

Nintendo will have made such a crapload of money by then, that they're going to compete graphically again. And of course they have a hugely improved motion controller. The best of two worlds.

Of course Sony and Microsoft will offer us the same thing, so it will be a very interesting generation.

[Perfect Stu]

If that is the case. Why did Sony release the Sixaxis? And rumors of Microsoft coming out with their own motion controller for the 360?

I'm just curious, I know Strangler owns one.

And Bond has played one like once or twice.

But do you own or played the Wii?

Don't own one. I've played it about a half dozen times.

[BreakABone]

Since this thread seems to be dying down :(

I am curious to see what those who think the Wii was a bad move, think about Sony and Microsoft (rumored) move to motion controllers as well.

Is it just a ploy to take away marketshare/mindshare from Nintendo or do these companies see motions as a legit future?

[Aladuf]

Ugh, Sony and Microsoft don't need to touch motion controllers. Sony implemented it alright I guess but it's only good on a smaller scale like in games like Army of Two where you flick the controller to reload, or in Ratchet where you guide yourself in the air. But they have proven that it doesn't work in a larger role, like in Lair.

Microsoft just needs to not worry about it period. They are too late to the Motion sensor party IMO. They're coming into year 3 of the 360's life and they just need to stick with what they started with.

Edit: I totally read what you said wrong BaB... oops! :D

[Perfect Stu]

There's definitely a place for motion controls in gaming, I just don't think it will ever be the only option. I would never want to have to play a game like Madden with motion controls...if I want to move my arm in a throwing motion, I would much prefer to be throwing an actual football.

[KillerGremlin]

I'd argue that the Wiimote by itself was a bigger step for gaming than an evolution of graphical prowess ever will be. How you play a game is equally important to what you're playing. The issue is how they're marketing what to do with that technology. Most of the time it's used as more of a gimmick instead of using it intelligently like Metroid Prime 3, Super Mario Galaxy, and The Godfather. Even Zelda could have used it better in a few instances.

The Wiimote is just a superior adaptation of what has been available in arcades for a long long time. I don't think motion control will ever become the standard for gaming until we can completely emerge ourselves in a virtual world.

As it stands, the Wiimote has the edge over a standard controller for a couple of games. It breaks even on a couple more. And for the rest, I think the majority of the world would rather have a good old fashioned controller.

[BreakABone]

The Wiimote is just a superior adaptation of what has been available in arcades for a long long time. I don't think motion control will ever become the standard for gaming until we can completely emerge ourselves in a virtual world.

As it stands, the Wiimote has the edge over a standard controller for a couple of games. It breaks even on a couple more. And for the rest, I think the majority of the world would rather have a good old fashioned controller.

I always thought the appeal of the Wiimote was that it bought that arcade type of experience home. And in essence, arcadey (read somewhat easy to pick up and play games) have truly shined on the Wii.

As for the Wiimote and its benefits/disadvantages over normal controllers. Yeah, I can see it, but as it has been for a while it is also about preferences as well. I mean even "traditional" controls can be a bit iffy. I like the 360 controller but never really liked the Dual Shock design.

There's definitely a place for motion controls in gaming, I just don't think it will ever be the only option. I would never want to have to play a game like Madden with motion controls...if I want to move my arm in a throwing motion, I would much prefer to be throwing an actual football.

I don't think it will ever be the only option. Hell, it isn't the only option for the Wii.
As for the football example, I guess it really depends on how the motions work. I thought Madden Wii was fine but still not a football game fan.

[KillerGremlin]

I always thought the appeal of the Wiimote was that it bought that arcade type of experience home. And in essence, arcadey (read somewhat easy to pick up and play games) have truly shined on the Wii.

I guess for me, the arcade became less enjoyable with each new generation of consoles. There was very little reason to go pay for games that I could play at home, unless those games were mutliplayer rail shooters or the classic fighting games like Street Fighter 3 or Marvel Vs. Capcom.

What the arcade lacked in depth, it made up for in multiplayer and gimmicks, like rail shooters which are fun for about 30 minutes until you realize how boring they are, and racing games where you get to use a steering wheel and a pretend clutch, which is surprisingly just as satisfying as a controller if not slightly less satisfying because it does not respond in a manner realistic to how driving actually is.

The shift to motion control adds a layer of interaction that will indeed be revolutionary for a select few games. But, to what degree can you truly interact and at what point does this interaction compromise game design or depth?

Sure, you can swing your Wiimote to simulate hitting a baseball bat, or you can make the gesture of rolling a bowling ball, or you can flick your wrist. But, if you break down the motions you can do with the Wiimote, there's only a few. Flick your wrist, twist it, throw it, shake it....And making the motion of rolling a bowling ball or hitting a baseball bat with your Wiimote is never going to fill the void of not holding a real baseball bat or rolling a bowling ball.

For sports games or party games like Wario Ware, the Wiimote has potential ad infinitum. I even think that for games like Grand Theft Auto the Wiimote could be put to good use. But the Wii is just too underpowered to pick up titles like Grand Theft Auto. And with three platforms (PC, Xbox360, PS3), why would Rockstar go out of their way to develop a modified version of Grand Theft Auto to work on the Wii?

But still, for me, and this is strictly person preference, I would prefer a standard controller over motion control for platformers (Mario Galaxy), first person shooters (Metroid), fighting games (Super Smash Bros.), Adventure games (Zelda), and for Football, Soccer and Basketball sports titles. RPGs have very low appeal to me so I can't comment, and Strategy games belong on the PC where you can use hotkeys and bindings.

The Wii will never ever ever EVER further the First Person Shooter genre. Already, that is one genre that the Wii has made zero impact on. The Wii will probably leave very little impact on the racing genre, especially for serious racing game fans. The Will will not leave any impact on the fighting genre, Super Smash Bros. remains a Nintendo exclusive. I doubt the Wii will impact platfomers very much or adventure games.

The Wii will innovate sport and party titles. And that innovation is done. You can't really further it. Motion on a home console has been done, so where do we go from here?

How innovative can you get? Twist your Wiimote? Flick it? Repeat and make a sequel? Does there need to be a Wii Sports sequel? The one where you do the same stuff from the first one only slightly different?

I mean can't you see how the Wii is kind of gimmicky? It's going to leave very little impact on all the genres that people tend to gush over.

Meanwhile, everyone else is going to remember their Halo 3, or Grand Theft Auto 4, or whatever immersive, graphically orgasmic, in-depth game that rocked their single player world for 40+ hours.

I don't think there's very much innovation behind the Wii at all. For most games, it's just another way to do things, only with less graphical horsepower, and more physical work. And forget third party titles. But, obviously the Wii's appeal has worked because people are pooring in the money. But I can't call the Wii revolutionary, not yet. Because, personally, I could see Sony and Microsoft doing something similar to the Sixaxis for future consoles, but I can't see them abandoning the controller.

The Wii is an awesome horizontal step.

[BreakABone]

Wow that was well written, detailed and I almost feel bad replying. I don't really disagree with you on most points.
But on the same hand, think would be a disservice not to reply. And this thread is on its last leg as well. :p

I guess for me, the arcade became less enjoyable with each new generation of consoles. There was very little reason to go pay for games that I could play at home, unless those games were mutliplayer rail shooters or the classic fighting games like Street Fighter 3 or Marvel Vs. Capcom.

What the arcade lacked in depth, it made up for in multiplayer and gimmicks, like rail shooters which are fun for about 30 minutes until you realize how boring they are, and racing games where you get to use a steering wheel and a pretend clutch, which is surprisingly just as satisfying as a controller if not slightly less satisfying because it does not respond in a manner realistic to how driving actually is.
I will start by saying I have never been a huge arcade person. To me arcades have always been simple games such as Bust a Move or Buck Hunter and fighting games. Hell I've never really seen co-op machines like Gauntlet or Ninja Turtles. But I do think the arcade experience has some merit in the home console area and I think that is what really killed off arcades is when home consoles began to do the same thing sometimes better.

The Wiimote offers that sort of visceral feeling that you get from the arcade, and it is a fun experience. It is weird to think about but it is nice to stand up and play sometimes.

The shift to motion control adds a layer of interaction that will indeed be revolutionary for a select few games. But, to what degree can you truly interact and at what point does this interaction compromise game design or depth?
I think as long as it changes even a few genres, it has done its job. And I really don't feel that it would hurt game design. Unless, I'm missing something why would motions limit your imagination? If anything else, it should open up ideas. I mean do you want to introduce a new concept in the final half of the game that uses all these funky button combinations or can you introduce it with a familar motion people know?

Sure, you can swing your Wiimote to simulate hitting a baseball bat, or you can make the gesture of rolling a bowling ball, or you can flick your wrist. But, if you break down the motions you can do with the Wiimote, there's only a few. Flick your wrist, twist it, throw it, shake it....And making the motion of rolling a bowling ball or hitting a baseball bat with your Wiimote is never going to fill the void of not holding a real baseball bat or rolling a bowling ball.
Ok a few motions can go a long way.
The same way 2 buttons or whatever takes you far.
Look at something like Wario Ware that takes a core 12 motions (think being a bit generous but w/e) and gives raise to about 200 different types of games. The same thing could be done with any type of game.
The motion for throwing a bowling ball? Use it in an FPS as a way to throw a smoke grenade along the floor.
Swinging a baseball bat? A variety of melee weapons in a sandbox game?

I don't think anyone sees the Wii as filling a void from its real life counterparts. But why is the Wii the only console held to this standard? Should Guitar Hero fill a void of playing an actual guitar? Should Madden make me feel like the next NFL superstar?
We play games (or making an assumption here) to escape into a different realm from our own. It is why sci-fi games are so popular or why so few FPSes are even set in the current day.

For sports games or party games like Wario Ware, the Wiimote has potential ad infinitum. I even think that for games like Grand Theft Auto the Wiimote could be put to good use. But the Wii is just too underpowered to pick up titles like Grand Theft Auto. And with three platforms (PC, Xbox360, PS3), why would Rockstar go out of their way to develop a modified version of Grand Theft Auto to work on the Wii?
The Wii is too underpowered to get anything but a watered down GTA IV. That is true, but the Wii has a big enough userbase and different enough concept that Rockstar could look into something along the lines of the GTA Stories on PSP for the Wii.
I mean honestly, it would make more sense to waste efforts on a Wii version than a PSP version.
And it doesn't have to be just GTA. Scarface. Godfather and Bully have all shown the Wii works well for sandbox games. Now someone just needs to step up to the plate and create an exclusive one for the Wii.

But still, for me, and this is strictly person preference, I would prefer a standard controller over motion control for platformers (Mario Galaxy), first person shooters (Metroid), fighting games (Super Smash Bros.), Adventure games (Zelda), and for Football, Soccer and Basketball sports titles. RPGs have very low appeal to me so I can't comment, and Strategy games belong on the PC where you can use hotkeys and bindings.
And apparently Nintendo doesn't disagree with you much on this. Mario and SMash for the most part feature relatively little motion controls. Actually Smash has none. Metroid I don't believe is hurt by motions and I really think it is kind of lazy with some but a fun game. Zelda was a launch title ported from the Cube. I would want to see a ground up Wii effort before I spoke.

But that isn't to say there isn't room in those genres for motions. Just be smart about it. I am not saying EVERYTHING needs to be motion controlled, but the stuff that makes sense.

The Wii will never ever ever EVER further the First Person Shooter genre. Already, that is one genre that the Wii has made zero impact on.
I've already pointed out that I feel the Wii has already had an impact on the FPS genre. If it goes further than the Wii isn't up to me. But in terms of controls/interactivity the bar has been raised.

The Wii will probably leave very little impact on the racing genre, especially for serious racing game fans.
I doubt it will work for serious racers, but for arcadey racers. The wiimote is a fun thing. Try excitetruck may not be the prettiest girl at the dance, but she will show you a good time.

The Will will not leave any impact on the fighting genre, Super Smash Bros. remains a Nintendo exclusive. I doubt the Wii will impact platfomers very much or adventure games.
Agree with fighting. But to be fair, that genre either needs to change or it will only appeal to a smaller and smaller audience IMO. That is however a subject for another day.

I do hope that Galaxy has an influence on other platformers. Hell I am begging for the flood of half assed Galaxy games. I mean if they are half the game Galaxy was would till be pretty damn good.

How innovative can you get? Twist your Wiimote? Flick it? Repeat and make a sequel? Does there need to be a Wii Sports sequel? The one where you do the same stuff from the first one only slightly different?
I don't want to call you on this, but it has been a trend for this entire post. Motions aren't the only thing the Wiimote does different. Pointer functionality while in limited use has also been very important. Just look how well received Pro Evolution Soccer is for the Wii or why FPSes are said to control better with the Wiimote or aiming in general. Then there is the speaker, which I admit is a nice little gimmick, but it can add to the game experience as well.
I've used the bazooka example in Medal of Honor Heroes before and well the core idea is like surround sound it makes more sense for the sound to travel from your ear than behind you.
Also something like No More Heroes with the pre-fight trash talking phone call is cool.

I mean can't you see how the Wii is kind of gimmicky? It's going to leave very little impact on all the genres that people tend to gush over.
I can see how the Wii was a gimmick, but I think and this is my personal opinion. The gimmick has proven itself to be more than just that.
And as I mentioned before, if it will leave very little impact why are Sony and Microsoft in the market for motion?

Meanwhile, everyone else is going to remember their Halo 3, or Grand Theft Auto 4, or whatever immersive, graphically orgasmic, in-depth game that rocked their single player world for 40+ hours.
Here's the thing. Will GTA IV and Halo 3 be remember for being truly terrific games (I will argue one isn't but that is another story) or because they are Halo and GTA? :p
And I will state this as I have before, if there is one game that will be remembered from this generation. 10... 20 years down the road. It will be Wii Sports. It single handedly changed the face of the industry.

I don't think there's very much innovation behind the Wii at all. For most games, it's just another way to do things, only with less graphical horsepower, and more physical work.
Yes, sometimes it is another way to do something but to some people that adds something.
If it is piss poor motions like TMNT where you just shake to do combat that is just retarded.
Or they can make a bit of sense and add something like actually picking up and tossing back a grenade in CoD 3 or whichever was on the Wii. Or snapping someone's neck by twisting the controller in Godfather or by simply making a move such as Link's spink attack and Mario's spin more accessible.

But I can't call the Wii revolutionary, not yet. Because, personally, I could see Sony and Microsoft doing something similar to the Sixaxis for future consoles, but I can't see them abandoning the controller.
And in that regards Nintendo would be right.
The Wii has motion controls and a weird shape but it isn't that far off from a normal controller. The biggest issue is it really doesn't have a second analog stick. But other than that it has potential.

The Wii is an awesome horizontal step.
Then this is a bad bad can of worms.
What the hell are the Ps3 and 360?

[Jason1]

Just like in the past........Nintendo Invents the D-Pad, its copied. Nintendo invents the shoulder button, its copied. Nintendo invents the analog thumb stick, its copied. Nintendo invents the rumble pack, its copied. Nintendo invents the (working) wireless controller, its copied.

And now the Wii. I guarantee you it will be copied by sony and microsoft in the future. I believe it is the future of gaming wether some people like it or not. Nintendo is the only company with the balls to innovate, its occasionally hurt them but at least they are trying to make strides.

Saying that Nintendo is moving the industry backwards is laughable. Nintendo has done nothing but move the industry forward since the early 1980s, and thats exactly what they continue to do.

[Angrist]

People just care too much about graphics.

[Professor S]

People just care too much about graphics.

Well, like most things, it depends.

My favorite wrestling game of all time is Wrestlemania 2000 (or better yet, my import of Virtual pro Wrestling 2) for the N64. I still play that game to this day, and I love it for one reason: Gameplay. To this day I believe it is the single greatest fighting engine ever created. I picked it up after about 5 years of not playing it once, I intuitively knew how to play the game.

But keep in mind, the entire point of that game is gameplay. There is no real story, beyond fighting enough matches to earn money and unlock moves, hidden characters and skins. So poor graphics don't take anything away from that game because there is nothing for those graphics to augment.

Now try tanslating that to a game such as Devil May Cry, SOTC, Oni, Doom 3, The Condemned or Resident Evil... Those games depend on graphics to create a mood and help tell the story. If you have pathetic graphics in those types of games, it would kill what those games are trying to accomplish.

[Angrist]

Setting a mood is done by art, not by polygons. I thought you'd know.

[KillerGremlin]

I'm pretty much done with this thread, I've had enough with the roundabouts. And I like the Wii. We need the next thread so everyone can rip apart the PS3 and the Xbox 360, just a quick final thought in response to BreakABone and Angrist:

I've already pointed out that I feel the Wii has already had an impact on the FPS genre. If it goes further than the Wii isn't up to me. But in terms of controls/interactivity the bar has been raised.

I still disagree with you, but you're arguing with a PC gamer that has been shooting stuff since Doom. I don't think consoles have yet to forward the genre, and that includes the Wii, regardless of the Wiimote's increased interactivity.

What the hell are the Ps3 and 360?
It will be very interesting to see what the future holds for Sony and Microsoft and motion control.

Setting a mood is done by art, not by polygons. I thought you'd know.

That's not entirely true. Processing power/graphical power plays a pretty big role. Grand Theft Auto laid down the processor smack down. And games like Ocarina of Time have a great combination of AMAZING art style and console horsepower. I always mention Jet Set Radio, one of my favorite games, because I think it had a great combination of art style but needed some decent horsepower to run. I think we've murdered this discussion at GT already. But I agree with you for the most part, one of my still favorite games is No One Lives Forever, which came out in 2000 and runs on a modified Unreal engine (I think). It still has some of the best level design I have ever seen in an FPS.



Now...where is our thread where we get to criticize Sony and Microsoft?

[BreakABone]

Hate to bump this thread, but didn't feel like starting a new one. I think this is an interesting way to look at shovelware on the Wii.

Let’s put it this way, I’ve certainly heard the criticism that there’s too much crap on the Wii and that all these awful titles are dragging the system down but there’s another way to look at that which is to say that Nintendo basically believes in a free market. I don’t think I’m giving away any state secrets when I say that Nintendo, by having a huge selection of software on their system, puts the consumers in control. Having a lot of software on the system means yes, a higher percentage of it is going to be bad, but it also means that you’re going to get some gems and the consumer will be able to make up their own mind. So every time I hear that there’s too much crap on the Wii my reflexive response is, ‘wait a second, have you walked down a grocery isle recently?’ Consumers get to make choices - do you really want someone else to do your thinking for you?

http://next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10417&Itemid=2&limit=1&limitstart=2

[Aladuf]

Hate to bump this thread, but didn't feel like starting a new one. I think this is an interesting way to look at shovelware on the Wii.

http://next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10417&Itemid=2&limit=1&limitstart=2

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd122/RatedRKO_23/gaflol.gif What a shitty way to attempt at justifying all of the Wii's shovelware! Come on.

[Dyne]

Well, that's probably the best spin you could do. At least you can't complain the Wii doesn't HAVE any third party stuff. Whether it's good is another question.

[Angrist]

Most developers just don't have any idea what to do on the Wii.

[Perfect Stu]

It's spin. The guy is supposed to say something like that. However, it's fairly weak. At the same time, I don't blame him for saying it.

[BreakABone]

In his defense, he isn't a Nintendo guy so its not like he has to say it.

On the same hand, he has a point there is a ton of shit for the Ps2 and PSX but no one mentions that because at the end of the gen the only games that matter are the good ones.

[Renwood]

Shovelware doesn't impede good games from being developed. The amount of truly great games is consistent across the big three. A handful. You can pick apart that handful based on your own preferences, but more generally, it is accepted that there are a couple gems a year that the majority of people recognize as such.

After that, it's just gradients of shit. The more popular you are, the more shit you attract, because the more likely that, given your popularity and market presence, anything will sell in some amount. Maybe enough to justify production of bland, unexciting tripe. Licensed shit is the worst of the worst, and that infects all platforms. The Wii is easier to develop quick and dirty riff-raff for. Its got more consoles in peoples' homes. It is marketed better to kids and to parents that will be less discerning in taste.

But truly good games will get made and will sell regardless of what system you talk about. Depending on how prude you want to be with your selectiveness, you can find around five or six games a year that will be exceptional.

[TheGame]

In his defense, he isn't a Nintendo guy so its not like he has to say it.

On the same hand, he has a point there is a ton of shit for the Ps2 and PSX but no one mentions that because at the end of the gen the only games that matter are the good ones.

I think Nintendo set the tone themselves. They released the system fast with mediocre graphics and shallow games, and made millions. 3rd parties see Nintendo doing it so they're trying to do the same thing. Cheapest development cost possible to get something on the shelves so the casual gamers might be confused enough and mistake it for a good game.

And I'm pretty sure I remember people talking about all the crap on Ps2 and Psx. The difference between Ps2 and Wii relitive to their own generations is Ps2 had all the mainstream 3rd party games alongside the crap. While Wii is missing quite a bit of games that are mainstream and Ps3/360 only at the time. (And the mainstream 3rd party titles it has are pretty much considered by hardcore fans of those games to be the worst versions)

I remember on AIM you said Wii will probably get decent versions of GTA and FF. We'll see.. haven't seen the announcement yet. I still don't really compare wii directly with the other consoles.

[BreakABone]

I think Nintendo set the tone themselves. They released the system fast with mediocre graphics and shallow games, and made millions. 3rd parties see Nintendo doing it so they're trying to do the same thing. Cheapest development cost possible to get something on the shelves so the casual gamers might be confused enough and mistake it for a good game.
I wouldn't say that is true. Well yeah they are copying the earlier success but games like Red Steel did well at launch as well. And Zelda but we won't count that.

And I'm pretty sure I remember people talking about all the crap on Ps2 and Psx. The difference between Ps2 and Wii relitive to their own generations is Ps2 had all the mainstream 3rd party games alongside the crap. While Wii is missing quite a bit of games that are mainstream and Ps3/360 only at the time. (And the mainstream 3rd party titles it has are pretty much considered by hardcore fans of those games to be the worst versions)
That is pretty true.

I remember on AIM you said Wii will probably get decent versions of GTA and FF. We'll see.. haven't seen the announcement yet. I still don't really compare wii directly with the other consoles.

How the hell do you remember what I said on AIM? I don't think I've spoken to you in months.

[Renwood]

I think Nintendo set the tone themselves. They released a cheaper-to-produce and cheaper-to-purchase system at the same time as their competitors with last-gen graphics and good games, and made billions.

No, no third parties have quite mimicked their success. I'd say because most third parties don't make good Wii games. Those that do reap the benefits. Those that don't still tend to make a profit, because the Wii is successful.

Since they care about profit more than you, the consumer, who they care about not at all as long as they get their money, the tone is set, not by Nintendo, but by the people who are willing to fork over the green for less-than-stellar video games.

Stupid consumers are stupid.

[TheGame]

How the hell do you remember what I said on AIM? I don't think I've spoken to you in months.

Cause I love you. :)