BaB Presents: Where'd Wii go Wrong

[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.

[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).

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Bube

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

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

[thatmariolover]

Originally Posted by Bond

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

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

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

[Perfect Stu]

Originally Posted by thatmariolover

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

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

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

[BreakABone]

Originally Posted by Perfect Stu

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

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

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

And Bond has played one like once or twice.

But do you own or played the Wii?

[Perfect Stu]

Originally Posted by BreakABone

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

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

And Bond has played one like once or twice.

But do you own or played the Wii?

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

[Bond]

Originally Posted by thatmariolover

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

I see your point, but I have to agree with Stu here, in that I don't see videogames going the way of motion control. Which is why I believe Nintendo's move to motion control with the Wii is a horizontal move for the videogame industry. Now, maybe if Nintendo continues to evolve motion control with its next console (which I don't see happening), then perhaps we could start talking about vertical movement again for Nintendo. But what I think is more likely is for Nintendo to come out with a new "gimmick" for its next console.