BaB Presents: Where'd Wii go Wrong

[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]

Originally Posted by Bond

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.

Originally Posted by Professor S

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).

Originally Posted by Perfect Stu

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.

Originally Posted by Sestren

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]

Originally Posted by Angrist

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...