BaB Presents: Where'd Wii go Wrong

[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]

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...

[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]

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

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]

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.

[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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.