BaB Presents: Where'd Wii go Wrong

[Bond]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[BreakABone]

Originally Posted by Bond

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.

Originally Posted by Bond

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.

Originally Posted by Professor S

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]

Originally Posted by BreakABone

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

[Bond]

Originally Posted by BreakABone

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]

Originally Posted by Bond

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?

[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.

[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.

Originally Posted by Bond

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?

Originally Posted by Sestren

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.

Originally Posted by Professor S

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]

Originally Posted by BreakABone

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]

Originally Posted by Bond

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.

Originally Posted by Bond

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 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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[Angrist]

Originally Posted by Bond

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?