BaB Presents: Where'd Wii go Wrong

[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?

[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.

[Angrist]

Nintendo will have made such a crapload of money by then, that they're going to compete graphically again. And of course they have a hugely improved motion controller. The best of two worlds.

Of course Sony and Microsoft will offer us the same thing, so it will be a very interesting generation.

[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.

[BreakABone]

Since this thread seems to be dying down

I am curious to see what those who think the Wii was a bad move, think about Sony and Microsoft (rumored) move to motion controllers as well.

Is it just a ploy to take away marketshare/mindshare from Nintendo or do these companies see motions as a legit future?

[Aladuf]

Ugh, Sony and Microsoft don't need to touch motion controllers. Sony implemented it alright I guess but it's only good on a smaller scale like in games like Army of Two where you flick the controller to reload, or in Ratchet where you guide yourself in the air. But they have proven that it doesn't work in a larger role, like in Lair.

Microsoft just needs to not worry about it period. They are too late to the Motion sensor party IMO. They're coming into year 3 of the 360's life and they just need to stick with what they started with.

Edit: I totally read what you said wrong BaB... oops!

[Perfect Stu]

There's definitely a place for motion controls in gaming, I just don't think it will ever be the only option. I would never want to have to play a game like Madden with motion controls...if I want to move my arm in a throwing motion, I would much prefer to be throwing an actual football.

[KillerGremlin]

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.

The Wiimote is just a superior adaptation of what has been available in arcades for a long long time. I don't think motion control will ever become the standard for gaming until we can completely emerge ourselves in a virtual world.

As it stands, the Wiimote has the edge over a standard controller for a couple of games. It breaks even on a couple more. And for the rest, I think the majority of the world would rather have a good old fashioned controller.

[BreakABone]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

The Wiimote is just a superior adaptation of what has been available in arcades for a long long time. I don't think motion control will ever become the standard for gaming until we can completely emerge ourselves in a virtual world.

As it stands, the Wiimote has the edge over a standard controller for a couple of games. It breaks even on a couple more. And for the rest, I think the majority of the world would rather have a good old fashioned controller.

I always thought the appeal of the Wiimote was that it bought that arcade type of experience home. And in essence, arcadey (read somewhat easy to pick up and play games) have truly shined on the Wii.

As for the Wiimote and its benefits/disadvantages over normal controllers. Yeah, I can see it, but as it has been for a while it is also about preferences as well. I mean even "traditional" controls can be a bit iffy. I like the 360 controller but never really liked the Dual Shock design.

Originally Posted by Perfect Stu

There's definitely a place for motion controls in gaming, I just don't think it will ever be the only option. I would never want to have to play a game like Madden with motion controls...if I want to move my arm in a throwing motion, I would much prefer to be throwing an actual football.

I don't think it will ever be the only option. Hell, it isn't the only option for the Wii.
As for the football example, I guess it really depends on how the motions work. I thought Madden Wii was fine but still not a football game fan.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by BreakABone

I always thought the appeal of the Wiimote was that it bought that arcade type of experience home. And in essence, arcadey (read somewhat easy to pick up and play games) have truly shined on the Wii.

I guess for me, the arcade became less enjoyable with each new generation of consoles. There was very little reason to go pay for games that I could play at home, unless those games were mutliplayer rail shooters or the classic fighting games like Street Fighter 3 or Marvel Vs. Capcom.

What the arcade lacked in depth, it made up for in multiplayer and gimmicks, like rail shooters which are fun for about 30 minutes until you realize how boring they are, and racing games where you get to use a steering wheel and a pretend clutch, which is surprisingly just as satisfying as a controller if not slightly less satisfying because it does not respond in a manner realistic to how driving actually is.

The shift to motion control adds a layer of interaction that will indeed be revolutionary for a select few games. But, to what degree can you truly interact and at what point does this interaction compromise game design or depth?

Sure, you can swing your Wiimote to simulate hitting a baseball bat, or you can make the gesture of rolling a bowling ball, or you can flick your wrist. But, if you break down the motions you can do with the Wiimote, there's only a few. Flick your wrist, twist it, throw it, shake it....And making the motion of rolling a bowling ball or hitting a baseball bat with your Wiimote is never going to fill the void of not holding a real baseball bat or rolling a bowling ball.

For sports games or party games like Wario Ware, the Wiimote has potential ad infinitum. I even think that for games like Grand Theft Auto the Wiimote could be put to good use. But the Wii is just too underpowered to pick up titles like Grand Theft Auto. And with three platforms (PC, Xbox360, PS3), why would Rockstar go out of their way to develop a modified version of Grand Theft Auto to work on the Wii?

But still, for me, and this is strictly person preference, I would prefer a standard controller over motion control for platformers (Mario Galaxy), first person shooters (Metroid), fighting games (Super Smash Bros.), Adventure games (Zelda), and for Football, Soccer and Basketball sports titles. RPGs have very low appeal to me so I can't comment, and Strategy games belong on the PC where you can use hotkeys and bindings.

The Wii will never ever ever EVER further the First Person Shooter genre. Already, that is one genre that the Wii has made zero impact on. The Wii will probably leave very little impact on the racing genre, especially for serious racing game fans. The Will will not leave any impact on the fighting genre, Super Smash Bros. remains a Nintendo exclusive. I doubt the Wii will impact platfomers very much or adventure games.

The Wii will innovate sport and party titles. And that innovation is done. You can't really further it. Motion on a home console has been done, so where do we go from here?

How innovative can you get? Twist your Wiimote? Flick it? Repeat and make a sequel? Does there need to be a Wii Sports sequel? The one where you do the same stuff from the first one only slightly different?

I mean can't you see how the Wii is kind of gimmicky? It's going to leave very little impact on all the genres that people tend to gush over.

Meanwhile, everyone else is going to remember their Halo 3, or Grand Theft Auto 4, or whatever immersive, graphically orgasmic, in-depth game that rocked their single player world for 40+ hours.

I don't think there's very much innovation behind the Wii at all. For most games, it's just another way to do things, only with less graphical horsepower, and more physical work. And forget third party titles. But, obviously the Wii's appeal has worked because people are pooring in the money. But I can't call the Wii revolutionary, not yet. Because, personally, I could see Sony and Microsoft doing something similar to the Sixaxis for future consoles, but I can't see them abandoning the controller.

The Wii is an awesome horizontal step.

[BreakABone]

Wow that was well written, detailed and I almost feel bad replying. I don't really disagree with you on most points.
But on the same hand, think would be a disservice not to reply. And this thread is on its last leg as well.

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

I guess for me, the arcade became less enjoyable with each new generation of consoles. There was very little reason to go pay for games that I could play at home, unless those games were mutliplayer rail shooters or the classic fighting games like Street Fighter 3 or Marvel Vs. Capcom.

What the arcade lacked in depth, it made up for in multiplayer and gimmicks, like rail shooters which are fun for about 30 minutes until you realize how boring they are, and racing games where you get to use a steering wheel and a pretend clutch, which is surprisingly just as satisfying as a controller if not slightly less satisfying because it does not respond in a manner realistic to how driving actually is.

I will start by saying I have never been a huge arcade person. To me arcades have always been simple games such as Bust a Move or Buck Hunter and fighting games. Hell I've never really seen co-op machines like Gauntlet or Ninja Turtles. But I do think the arcade experience has some merit in the home console area and I think that is what really killed off arcades is when home consoles began to do the same thing sometimes better.

The Wiimote offers that sort of visceral feeling that you get from the arcade, and it is a fun experience. It is weird to think about but it is nice to stand up and play sometimes.

The shift to motion control adds a layer of interaction that will indeed be revolutionary for a select few games. But, to what degree can you truly interact and at what point does this interaction compromise game design or depth?

I think as long as it changes even a few genres, it has done its job. And I really don't feel that it would hurt game design. Unless, I'm missing something why would motions limit your imagination? If anything else, it should open up ideas. I mean do you want to introduce a new concept in the final half of the game that uses all these funky button combinations or can you introduce it with a familar motion people know?

Sure, you can swing your Wiimote to simulate hitting a baseball bat, or you can make the gesture of rolling a bowling ball, or you can flick your wrist. But, if you break down the motions you can do with the Wiimote, there's only a few. Flick your wrist, twist it, throw it, shake it....And making the motion of rolling a bowling ball or hitting a baseball bat with your Wiimote is never going to fill the void of not holding a real baseball bat or rolling a bowling ball.

Ok a few motions can go a long way.
The same way 2 buttons or whatever takes you far.
Look at something like Wario Ware that takes a core 12 motions (think being a bit generous but w/e) and gives raise to about 200 different types of games. The same thing could be done with any type of game.
The motion for throwing a bowling ball? Use it in an FPS as a way to throw a smoke grenade along the floor.
Swinging a baseball bat? A variety of melee weapons in a sandbox game?

I don't think anyone sees the Wii as filling a void from its real life counterparts. But why is the Wii the only console held to this standard? Should Guitar Hero fill a void of playing an actual guitar? Should Madden make me feel like the next NFL superstar?
We play games (or making an assumption here) to escape into a different realm from our own. It is why sci-fi games are so popular or why so few FPSes are even set in the current day.

For sports games or party games like Wario Ware, the Wiimote has potential ad infinitum. I even think that for games like Grand Theft Auto the Wiimote could be put to good use. But the Wii is just too underpowered to pick up titles like Grand Theft Auto. And with three platforms (PC, Xbox360, PS3), why would Rockstar go out of their way to develop a modified version of Grand Theft Auto to work on the Wii?

The Wii is too underpowered to get anything but a watered down GTA IV. That is true, but the Wii has a big enough userbase and different enough concept that Rockstar could look into something along the lines of the GTA Stories on PSP for the Wii.
I mean honestly, it would make more sense to waste efforts on a Wii version than a PSP version.
And it doesn't have to be just GTA. Scarface. Godfather and Bully have all shown the Wii works well for sandbox games. Now someone just needs to step up to the plate and create an exclusive one for the Wii.

But still, for me, and this is strictly person preference, I would prefer a standard controller over motion control for platformers (Mario Galaxy), first person shooters (Metroid), fighting games (Super Smash Bros.), Adventure games (Zelda), and for Football, Soccer and Basketball sports titles. RPGs have very low appeal to me so I can't comment, and Strategy games belong on the PC where you can use hotkeys and bindings.

And apparently Nintendo doesn't disagree with you much on this. Mario and SMash for the most part feature relatively little motion controls. Actually Smash has none. Metroid I don't believe is hurt by motions and I really think it is kind of lazy with some but a fun game. Zelda was a launch title ported from the Cube. I would want to see a ground up Wii effort before I spoke.

But that isn't to say there isn't room in those genres for motions. Just be smart about it. I am not saying EVERYTHING needs to be motion controlled, but the stuff that makes sense.

The Wii will never ever ever EVER further the First Person Shooter genre. Already, that is one genre that the Wii has made zero impact on.

I've already pointed out that I feel the Wii has already had an impact on the FPS genre. If it goes further than the Wii isn't up to me. But in terms of controls/interactivity the bar has been raised.

The Wii will probably leave very little impact on the racing genre, especially for serious racing game fans.

I doubt it will work for serious racers, but for arcadey racers. The wiimote is a fun thing. Try excitetruck may not be the prettiest girl at the dance, but she will show you a good time.

The Will will not leave any impact on the fighting genre, Super Smash Bros. remains a Nintendo exclusive. I doubt the Wii will impact platfomers very much or adventure games.

Agree with fighting. But to be fair, that genre either needs to change or it will only appeal to a smaller and smaller audience IMO. That is however a subject for another day.

I do hope that Galaxy has an influence on other platformers. Hell I am begging for the flood of half assed Galaxy games. I mean if they are half the game Galaxy was would till be pretty damn good.

How innovative can you get? Twist your Wiimote? Flick it? Repeat and make a sequel? Does there need to be a Wii Sports sequel? The one where you do the same stuff from the first one only slightly different?

I don't want to call you on this, but it has been a trend for this entire post. Motions aren't the only thing the Wiimote does different. Pointer functionality while in limited use has also been very important. Just look how well received Pro Evolution Soccer is for the Wii or why FPSes are said to control better with the Wiimote or aiming in general. Then there is the speaker, which I admit is a nice little gimmick, but it can add to the game experience as well.
I've used the bazooka example in Medal of Honor Heroes before and well the core idea is like surround sound it makes more sense for the sound to travel from your ear than behind you.
Also something like No More Heroes with the pre-fight trash talking phone call is cool.

I mean can't you see how the Wii is kind of gimmicky? It's going to leave very little impact on all the genres that people tend to gush over.

I can see how the Wii was a gimmick, but I think and this is my personal opinion. The gimmick has proven itself to be more than just that.
And as I mentioned before, if it will leave very little impact why are Sony and Microsoft in the market for motion?

Meanwhile, everyone else is going to remember their Halo 3, or Grand Theft Auto 4, or whatever immersive, graphically orgasmic, in-depth game that rocked their single player world for 40+ hours.

Here's the thing. Will GTA IV and Halo 3 be remember for being truly terrific games (I will argue one isn't but that is another story) or because they are Halo and GTA?
And I will state this as I have before, if there is one game that will be remembered from this generation. 10... 20 years down the road. It will be Wii Sports. It single handedly changed the face of the industry.

I don't think there's very much innovation behind the Wii at all. For most games, it's just another way to do things, only with less graphical horsepower, and more physical work.

Yes, sometimes it is another way to do something but to some people that adds something.
If it is piss poor motions like TMNT where you just shake to do combat that is just retarded.
Or they can make a bit of sense and add something like actually picking up and tossing back a grenade in CoD 3 or whichever was on the Wii. Or snapping someone's neck by twisting the controller in Godfather or by simply making a move such as Link's spink attack and Mario's spin more accessible.

But I can't call the Wii revolutionary, not yet. Because, personally, I could see Sony and Microsoft doing something similar to the Sixaxis for future consoles, but I can't see them abandoning the controller.

And in that regards Nintendo would be right.
The Wii has motion controls and a weird shape but it isn't that far off from a normal controller. The biggest issue is it really doesn't have a second analog stick. But other than that it has potential.

The Wii is an awesome horizontal step.

Then this is a bad bad can of worms.
What the hell are the Ps3 and 360?

[Jason1]

Just like in the past........Nintendo Invents the D-Pad, its copied. Nintendo invents the shoulder button, its copied. Nintendo invents the analog thumb stick, its copied. Nintendo invents the rumble pack, its copied. Nintendo invents the (working) wireless controller, its copied.

And now the Wii. I guarantee you it will be copied by sony and microsoft in the future. I believe it is the future of gaming wether some people like it or not. Nintendo is the only company with the balls to innovate, its occasionally hurt them but at least they are trying to make strides.

Saying that Nintendo is moving the industry backwards is laughable. Nintendo has done nothing but move the industry forward since the early 1980s, and thats exactly what they continue to do.