BaB Presents: Where'd Wii go Wrong

[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?

[BreakABone]

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

Originally Posted by Professor S

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.

[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.

[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.

[thatmariolover]

Originally Posted by 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.

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-...-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.