Slashdot Mirror
Does the Wii Provide A "Watered-Down" Game Experience?
CNet is running a story inspired by comments from Ubisoft's Ben Mattes about how the Wii affects game development. When asked why there was no Wii version of Prince of Persia, Mattes said, "The reality is that from a technical standpoint, the Wii cannot do what we wanted the game to do. The AI of Elika was highly advanced and required a lot of processing power; the world size and dynamic loading, the draw distance, the number of polygons in the characters... If we had done a Wii version, it would have been toned down, probably linear; it wouldn't have been an open-world game, and so it would have been a very different experience." The article goes on to look at a number of Wii games that are stripped-down versions of their Xbox 360 or PS3 counterparts. Of course, part of the Wii's drawing power is that it's much simpler than the other systems, and has brought casual gaming to millions more people than it would have otherwise. The question remains, as Kotaku points out, whether the Wii's audience will persist after the other systems match its casual-gaming capabilities.
provide a watered down computing experience?
Wii's are fun.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
If you design a game for a machine with 360 specs, it doesn't run very well on the Wii without redesign.
In other news, Mattes tried running Wii Sports on the 360, but it provided a "Watered down" experience.
There is nothing at all wrong with working within the constraints of a system and eeking out the absolute best you can from 'inferior' hardware.
Infact, having limited headroom forces innovative and new methods of doing what was taken for granted before.
The liqbase UI I am creating for the nokia handhelds makes use of these principles as well :)
it simply does the best it can within the low headroom of the available hardware.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMXp0Dg_UaY
liqbase
The AI of Elika was highly advanced and required a lot of processing power; the world size and dynamic loading, the draw distance, the number of polygons in the characters... If we had done a Wii version, it would have been toned down, probably linear; it wouldn't have been an open-world game, and so it would have been a very different experience."
Then the platform is not your target. The Wii isn't about pushing the latest fast hardware to its very limits, just so you can push a ridiculous amount of polygons per second onto the screen. It is about making games that are fun... and you can CERTAINLY do that within the confines of just about any machine. Remember the IBM XT? NES? Gameboy? Some of the best games I ever played had nothing but text, running on a 10mhz processor.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Sure the graphics and whatnot aren't the same as the PS or XBox, but half the fun of the Wii is the moving around and simplicity of a lot of the games. Group bowling on the Wii when drunk with school friends just can't be beat .
That game wasn't exactly what I'd call non-linear.
The Wii isn't designed for these kinds of games.
That's what the X-Box 360, PS3, and PC are for. The Wii is for people who want to play games they can quickly pick up and put down.
D13 H4rD G4M3RZ are NOT the target audience.
(Score -1: Obvious)
Of course it provides a 'watered down' experience - when the games in question are ports of the PS3 or the Xbox 360. The hardware and capabilities of the machine cannot compare, so the developers have to shoehorn the equivalent game into the Wii's specs and in the process, trim it down. If you look at individual titles made for the Wii (not ports of other console's games) then no, I really don't think the experience is watered down. Games are games, and people (should) be playing them for the enjoyment and competition. Maybe we should ask the question about some other consoles games that rely so much on graphics that the point of the game is lost and the entertainment factor is lost. Is this a watered down games experience?
I think that the Wii provides a different gaming experience. It can be summarized thusly:
My mother owns a wii. My father owns a wii. My sister owns a wii. My brother owns a Wii. My cousin owns a Wii. My 3 years old nephew uses a Wii. My grandparents have played on a Wii. Nursing homes have Wiis.
None of those people have PS3s or XBox.
Call it watered down, call it casual gaming, call it whatever. It appeals to the masses in a way that the other gaming systems don't.
We emerge from our mother's womb an unformatted diskette; our culture formats us. - Douglas Coupland
"whether the Wii's audience will persist after the other systems match its casual-gaming capabilities."
i.e. in the next generation. The Wii is so far ahead in this category that it is laughable to think the others will catch up.
It goes without saying that a lazy port of a title to a system with insufficient power to run the original, with chunks cut out to make it fit, will be a piece of shit. It's as true now as when they unveiled Duke 3D for the Game.Com. That tells us absolutely F-all about the remaining 90% of Wii software that wasn't pumped out as a high-return bond by investor-fellating cash-mongers.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
I guess you could flip the flamebait around and ask do PS3 and XBOX360 provide watered-down game experiences for offering games that depend on pretty graphics and not enjoyable gameplay.
I spend more time playing with my Xbox, PC, and even my Pocket PC (lately anyway) than with my Wii. Yet, the Wii is the only system of the current generation that I've bothered to buy. I bought it basically because of Wii Fit; that is why Microsoft is now, for me, a viable competitor what with their new MoCap stuff. I find it easiest to play casual games on Pocket PC or PC; both of these are always on (or sleeping) and I don't have to fight with anyone to get access to the display device.
The thing that's yet kept me from buying an Xbox has actually been the lack of Blu-Ray support. The PS3 is not a compelling enough package to me even with one, but the Xbox 360 would be. Unfortunately, it's not really on the list of things to do over at Microsoft. I guess they'll have to knock my socks completely off with their new motion capture equipment in order to pull me in.
("Robbie Bach, president of Microsoft's Entertainment & Devices Division" is a complete moron BTW. No Blu-Ray for Xbox 360 because current players don't want it. Guess what? Those players that want Blu-Ray in their console bought a PS3. Maybe someone who isn't one of your customers now would be if you sold them what they want to buy. Nobody asked for HD-DVD, lots of people have asked for Blu-Ray.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Hahah, yah because a product that only recently managed to stay in stock at most retailers, still makes a profit for their company and is really the most "value" for the money (yes, the 360 arcade is cheaper, but when you add in the $99 wireless adapter the Wii has built in, its $300). Why would Nintendo lower its price?
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
I feel like Nintendo spent more time on making the wii revolutionary than they spent on making the wii the next big box with a ton of processors and a good graphics chip. That wasn't the purpose of the wii. The Wii was made to be something different. It was different and it is fun. I suspect that there will be another "wii" that hasthe graphics that are appreciated.
Doctors do Massage in Longview WA now, who knew?
In other news, Wii has now announced the release of 'Wii Aqua' in order to help its MANY over weight users make the most of their useless WiiFits (most likely being used as a foot rest) and drowned themselves to insure the ultimate 'Watered-Down' gaming experience
Test me and I will chronicle your pain - The Archivist (Diablo 3)
While certain games (mostly sandbox) require massive ram, processing power, etc to stay competitive (Dead Rising), is it a bad thing that there is a less capable gaming platform out there? Yes, while games like Cooking Mama, Wii Fit, and Mario Party are watering down gaming, the graphics limitations aren't necessarily the cause here.
I wonder what the development cost for a top notch wii game is. I wonder if its less than one for the PC or other newest gen console. I get the feeling that the reduced graphics and memory put a limit on how many nosehairs you need to bump map for the protagonist. Hopefully, the reduced hardware capabilities mean that the devs don't have to shoot for photorealism and don't need the huge teams to create content. The reduced hardware capabilities = less people required to push a system's graphics to its limit and you don't need a stadium full of graphic artists, AI programmers, mappers, and the more technical side of development just to keep up with the competition. Hopefully this reduced cost will allow GOOD (key word here, as in not bad or cheap) developers to focus more time on building more maps, fleshing out the story more, and generally trading graphics for immersion/world/playtime. I realize that last sentiment is wishful thinking, but a nerd can hope, right?
I fired up AVP2 not too long ago and it was still a very enjoyable experience. There are also wii games that are very enjoyable. You don't need to have the world painted in photo-realistic brown rubble to have an enjoyable experience. You also don't need to be looking at characters so realistic they're this side of the uncanny valley to suspend belief into believing that something is trying to kill you and facehump your friends.
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
The Wii doesn't provide a "watered-down" game experience.
The developers who port a game to the Wii as an after-thought provide a "watered-down" game experience.
I say don't drink and drive, you might spill your drink. Before you get behind the wheel just stop and think.
No.
The Megadrive, SNES, Cell Phones, and Game Boy all have exceptional games created for them. The only difference between those devices and the WII is that the WII almost requires you to use the motion capture controller and while we've spent over thirty years designing games using joysticks, controllers, and similarly keyboards this motion capture thing is still very new.
Let's also consider, that because out of the top three platforms only one supports motion capture, you might see less of a return on your investment as opposed to just creating a traditional game with existing code and hitting the 360, PS3, and PC.
TLDR:
- Technology
- Creativity
- Existing Code / Legacy
- And most of all MONEY
Stand in the way of exceptional games on the WII.
sales of the wii has gone from 1million a month to 80,000 a month. that's worse than the dreamcast slump. they end up in a closest unused.
Oh yes, I'm sure there's huge demographic that actively don't want decent graphics!
Most people do not deliberately buy systems because they are inferior, even if they aren't technical. No, the Wii will continue to dominate because it's sold well and has a good reputation for fun, well executed, casual gaming. It's too late for the others now.
While I agree that most games on the Wii tend to be lacking in depth compared to the types of games that you get on other systems, I take issue with this:
If we had done a Wii version, it would have been toned down, probably linear; it wouldn't have been an open-world game, and so it would have been a very different experience."
If the DS and PSP can handle Grand Theft Auto III games including dynamic loading (the PSP definitely can, though I only noticed the DS version of GTA was out the other day and I don't feel the urge to dust off my DS to have a go of it), there's no reason at all that the Wii can't do dynamic loading too.
I agree that the AI would probably need optimisation/cutting back and the graphics would need simplified models and effects, but I expect they probably just don't consider it worth the time it would take to do all of that rather than it being impossible to create a game that approaches the same level of gameplay. Having said that, I haven't played any of the Prince of Persia games since the 2D original (and the HD remake). Perhaps the AI is something rather special, or there are hundreds of enemies to simulate at once? Attempting a situation like the last level of Heavenly Sword with literally thousands of enemies probably wouldn't be possible on the Wii without slowing to a crawl.
which is totally what she said
The Wii has the hardware to make very solid, deep, complex games work. That was possible on a 386. Sure, the Wii is going to have "watered-down" graphics, but graphics don't stand in the way of greatness.
So why would the Wii version have, as mentioned in TFS, a likelihood of being linear and less satisfying for certain players? The Wii has attracted huge numbers of casual gamers, hence it's gigantic install base. Most of these people, however, aren't interested in a very deep experience, because that's never been how the Wii was advertised. I'd wager that the number of potential customers looking for very involved games is much higher among PS3, 360, and of course PC owners than among Wii owners. If you're going to make something for the Wii, it's extremely hard to target this small subset when the casual gamers offer a potentially much more lucrative alternative.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
I am one of those that doesn't give two shits how many polygons does the animation have. I find shooters to be utterly boring. Finally, since Ubisoft put their mitts on Heroes of Might and Magic, they (IMHO) devastated the game, which used to be fun - now it's just a big 3D graphic masturbation (I hate when I can't rotate the view in any way, to see what is the path a creature can walk on).
If the typical Wii user is like me, Ubisoft should keep the hell out of it. Ubisoft wouldn't know a fun game if it hit them in the collective head.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Obviously another journo-troll saying something stupid to get people worked up. Fuck it, I'll bite.
The gaming arms race has been about fancier graphics, bigger worlds, and more shiny. Consoles are fucking expensive these days! Seriously expensive. Games cost a mint and don't even get me started on the dev costs. GTAIV cost $100 million to make? Insane. Good game but insane. But this is the battle Sony and Microsoft wanted to fight.
Nintendo said "Hey, is shiny shooter 2.0 any better than shiny shooter 1.0? If the gameplay is pretty much the same but the graphics look better, does that make it more fun? What if all the budget was spent on the shiny and nothing was left to pay for fun?" So their idea was to not go for the high-end. There were two consoles already competing on shiny. Nintendo decided to do something very, very different with the motion controller.
What's the end result? Games unlike what's available on the other consoles, at least when it's done right. By keeping the specs on the machine down, not going HD, Nintendo said they were emphasizing affordability. It can certainly run games that would have been considered shiny last generation but it can't keep up with the ps3 and 360, it wasn't meant to. Complaining that the Wii can't handle a AAA title originally meant for those two systems is missing the point in the most spectacular fail tradition imaginable.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
The Wii controller is what allows it to be casual. Casual gamers do not want a controller with more than 2 buttons and 1 directional controller. Look at the PSP or X-Box controller and it's simply not casual. Game controllers for casual gamers should be no more complicated than the controls for driving a car. Anything beyond that is too much to learn and casual gamers aren't about steep learning curves.
Unless X-Box and PSP come out with simplified controllers (like the Guitars in Guitar Hero) then you wont see casual gamers moving over even if the games are simplified.
The Wii itself is not the problem. It's technical specs are not the problem. The problem is the people making games for it and their overall lackluster approach to the whole process. Nintendo and their marketing are to blame for this.
When they ported Resident Evil 4 to the Wii with new controls, they managed to make it look worse than the original Gamecube version which could be run from the very same console. This is typical of the kind of shoddy workmanship that is put into most Wii games. Games like Mario Galaxy and Metroid show what the Wii is capable of if effort is put in, but most developers aren't willing to go to such lengths.
It's not just graphics. The overall quality of Wii games is consistently lower than the average for PS2, DS and Gamecube titles. Games are short, rely too much on motion control, lack additional content and generally fall far below the value for money mark. Universally, developers have decided that Wii owners are 4-10 year olds and soccer moms who will spend $60 and 60 minutes on a game before becoming bored. The way you have to flail your arms about to play some titles, I can't say I really blame them.
As an experiment, the Wii has both hugely succeeded and epically failed. Yes, it has succeeded in selling game consoles to a massively wider mainstream market. But it has also succeeded in proving that in any industry, the mainstream market does not desire quality. The mainstream wants crud. They spend huge amounts on sugary gop and if you serve them up sirloin they'll complain because they prefer the slop.
The doom of the Wii has been sealed by its user base and existing game library. It doesn't matter if the next Zelda game surpasses the Ocarina of Time or if the definitive FPS of our time is a Wii exclusive. Most existing Wii owners do not want "Triple A" titles or anything close to it. They want Cooking Mama and Wii Fit and Mario Kart, because that's want Nintendo has told them they want, and that's what they got and thats all they'll ever want now.
So, no developer is really going to spend the effort making a quality Wii title. They're going to make crud. As times passed, this became a self fulfilling prophecy to the point that normal video game players stopped buying Wii's or sold them. The fate of Madworld, poor as it was, is indicative of this trend. It's now a vicious circle which the Wii, and probably Nintendo, have no hope of ever escaping.
The Wii could have been a success story. Ultimately, graphics don't count for a awful lot when it comes to quality titles, and the breadth and depth of titles on the PS2 prove what can be done with limited hardware. Alas, the Wii did not take this route. Instead of providing affordable quality, it has provided cheap, and you got what you paid for.
It didn't have to be like this. The Wii could have been the next PS2. But it isn't. Instead it's the next MySpace.
May the Maths Be with you!
We, as "hardcore" gamers, are trying so hard to wrap our heads around what Nintendo is doing with the Wii. We don't get it. All the time it's "Why don't they have better games for it", "They're toys, people don't play them after a couple months", "Would the experience be watered down" or "What happens when casual games catch up on the 360/PS3". We're trying to fit the round Wii into our traditional square "Gamers" hole and it just doesn't fit.
The truth of the matter is that Nintendo doesn't care about us anymore. Now, that's a little bit of hyperbole of course, but the truth of the matter is that Nintendo figured out that the so called "casual gamers" were ready, willing, and able to spend just as much on their hobby as the hardcore. In other words, they were ready to move past Minesweeper and freebie Popcap games, and try games that offered considerably better gameplay, yet didn't necessarily require you to memorize complex combos or secret techniques to be successful. Hence, the Wii and it's motion controls, and the type of games it specializes in.
Is the Wii underpowered compared to the 360 or PS3? Probably. Does the motion control present a challenge to companies who are so used to d-pads and analog sticks and such? It seems like it. But if you're Nintendo, who cares? They sold 50 million of them. It's already sold better than the original XBox, 360, PS3, GameCube, SNES, 2600, and anything Sega has ever put out.
Nintendo doesn't care if hardcore's don't like the Wii. It's the 9th or 10th best selling console of all time regardless. The Wii isn't coming to us; it's up to us to decide if we want to come to the Wii (pun intended). There are still plenty of fun, unique, challenging games available for the Wii (even though they might not resemble the games you're used to playing), with surely many more to come. Whether you choose to embrace this or not is of course your choice, but it's time to stop wishing/hoping/demanding that the Wii is going to fit into your hole (again with the puns).
Hardware's (relatively) cheap. The new metric for code is not how efficient it is, but how quickly it can be churned out.
"The question remains, as Kotaku points out, whether the Wii's audience will persist after the other systems match its casual-gaming capabilities."
People act like Nintendo can't make a more powerful version of the Wii. They got a good market share by providing a fun and unique gaming experience at a price that most people can afford. Releasing another version of the console that has the power of a PS3 is easy to do and if that's what it takes to compete, I'm sure they will.
Did the PS2 persist once the Xbox came and reduced the PS2 to a graphically "watered down" experience. Its not the tech, its the games - the first time Microsoft or Sony show the ingenuity and skill to produce something as intuitive and universal as Wii Sports or Wii Fit, then Nintendo might have some competition in the "casual" arena. Until we see some games and support Natal and whatever the PS3 motion controller is called is nothing but a Sega Activator/Eye Toy/Six-Axis wannabe and not a real factor.
Will this really be valid when the next Wii machine is released. I mean for now it may have lower powered hardware, but will it always be the case? I think that this was an experiment for nintendo. Now that they know it has succeed I think the next version of the Wii will match performance.
Does flag footbool provide a watered-down gaming experience? (See NFL)
Do softball or kickball provide a watered-down gaming experience? (See MLB)
Does "horse" provide a watered-down basketball experience? (See NBA)
The AI of Elika was highly advanced and required a lot of processing power; the world size and dynamic loading, the draw distance, the number of polygons in the characters... If we had done a Wii version, it would have been toned down, probably linear; it wouldn't have been an open-world game, and so it would have been a very different experience."
Then the platform is not your target. The Wii isn't about pushing the latest fast hardware to its very limits, just so you can push a ridiculous amount of polygons per second onto the screen. It is about making games that are fun... and you can CERTAINLY do that within the confines of just about any machine. Remember the IBM XT? NES? Gameboy? Some of the best games I ever played had nothing but text, running on a 10mhz processor.
More powerful machines give you the potential for different kinds of fun. Could the NES have brought us "Katamari Damashii"? Could the SNES have brought us "Little Big Planet"? No. These games are simply, fundamentally beyond the capabilities of that hardware. Does this mean those machines weren't (or aren't) fun? Of course not - because when those machines were current people wrote a lot of fun games for them within the limitations of that hardware. But each time new powerful machines appear, they bring with them games that put that power to good use.
Now, someone writing games today can write software to fit the confines of the Wii, or they can develop for the other consoles. The point of TFA is that the two approaches don't blend well - when you write a game with the capabilities of the 360 or PS3 in mind, it doesn't translate well to the Wii. This is no different from saying that an NES game design wouldn't translate well to the Atari 2600 - the kinds of gameplay features you can incorporate and the quality of the overall experience are very much tied to the capabilities of the hardware.
Bow-ties are cool.
Games are NOT meant to be complex.
Oh, that must be why there are no strategy games (since recorded history), RPGs, Adventure, or Puzzle games that have ever had large followings.
Think. Then type.
There's a ton of early games that were extremely popular yet fairly complex. For example, SimCity, MS Flight Simulator, Test Drive, Zork, and King's Quest. The capabilities of the platform are irrelevant. A poor workman blames his tools.
Marry Shelley wrote Frankenstein with a quill by candlelight. Charlie Chaplin acted in movies with no sound. I think Ubisoft can manage a game about a jumping boy with a seventh-generation, games-dedicated computer system.
I do believe that the Wii was created for casual gamers not hardcore. They wanted to get the part of the market that just wants to pick up the controller play for an hour or less then leave. Just look at the high selling titles besides Nintendo ones all are party type games. The game creators are just whining cause its not what they are use to, its too different for them to understand not everyone out there is a die hard gamer. I own a Wii, 360 and PC each one was created with a different idea and aimed at a different crowd.
This is my day for errors. I said my car has more controls on it that I would use while driving than the Wii remote does. and what I meant to say is than the Xbox controller does, or something. Massive edit fail. The point I really wanted to make (which should not have required a separate comment) was that many people can't fucking handle that many controls while they drive. A car is too complicated. The Wii remote is way less complicated than a car, and that's why it works. You point it at stuff, you have a couple of buttons. The DVD player introduced people to the D-pad, so they can handle those now :)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Q: why is starting a comment in the Subject: line annoying?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
My masochistic nature forced me to play all the way through that game despite it being insanely repetitive.
I have no idea what this guy is talking about when he says Elika has an advanced AI. She follows you around when you walk. Sometimes, she'll get out of your way if you backtrack. When you are doing acrobatics, she follows you step-for-step. Then, when you fall, there's a cutscene where she catches you. Also, when you reach certain points in the level, she has dialogue. That's it. I would be rather surprised if a Super NES lacked the computational power to move her around.
A friend of mine once bought "Chicken Shoot" and showed me the box. From the silly artwork on the box and simple concept(shooting livestock), it looked like it was from a timewarp from 2 decades ago. No, not every game has to be as complex as Final Fantasy, but I just can't imagine spending $60 on a fowl carnage game, ie an updated Duck Hunt. With the popularity of the Wii, it seems to be nothing but kiddie shovelware titles, when I would rather play Fallout 3.
check out the bestselling Will products on Amazon. It's EA Sports Active at #1 followed by the Wii Fit. I bet a large percentage of the user base buys it to work out and gaming for their kids a distant second.
new version of Fit is coming out in a few months followed by an update to EA Sports Active around the holiday season. Take a guess of what the best selling products for the Wii will be for the next year.
and other than a workout machine it's to relive your childhood via Rockband and Guitar Hero
You're missing the point. Read the title of the article. The consensus seems to be that the imagination and ability of developers is watered-down, not the Wii itself.
I don't think that was the point of their comment. They wanted to invest in creating only a single Prince of Persia game for wide release. Given the presence of both the PS3 and XBox360, they opted to make one with pretty lights and a wide open world. They chose not to limit the design to the lowest specs on the market, and chose not to invest in making a completely different game for that system. I don't have any problem with them doing that. People are misrepresenting their statement. They had an idea for a game. Wii wasn't equipped for that concept while other large distribution channels were. Cut and dry, no digs at anyone.
Multiplayer on PC with a bunch of friends over involves everyone bringing a computer and having their own copies of games being played, each staring at their own screen. Console multiplayer involves sitting on the couch and making sure everyone has a controller. I can agree there is little appeal to playing the console version of a single-player game, but PC still lags behind in social multiplayer experience.
Relevent to the story, the Wii epitomizes this experience.
My webcomic
There are certain limitations to the Wii hardware, and the choices that Nintendo has made with regards to the hardware options available.
Could you spend a ton of time doing clever programming to make really nice looking games on the Wii? Sure. Squeezing every little bit out of hardware happens at the end of every console hardware cycle.
But why do that when there's two very powerful consoles available that can do it without breaking a sweat?
Games are NOT meant to be complex.
That's just one perspective, isn't it?
Personally I find that when there's a game I can invest myself in a bit, the payoff, the enjoyment I derive from doing well in the game, is worth it. For instance, I really enjoyed the old simulator-style games that were on the PC, before the first Playstation really took off. The games weren't as "smooth" and as generally accessible as console games tended to be - the player was expected to immerse themselves, to a certain extent, in the intricacies of the game. And that was part of the fun, part of the fantasy.
Saying that games are not meant to be complex - it ignores the long tradition of very popular complex games. RPGs, CCG, really old stuff like Chess or Go - games that either have a lot of complex rules, or a simple set of rules from when complex strategies emerge.
Bow-ties are cool.
I bought the Wii for my kids. They love it and I love playing with them. I wanted to get a "real" game for myself and friends so I picked up Call of Duty for the Wii. In short, it was awful to play co-op. I controlled where we walked and we both had zappers(guns). It was one screen instead of split screen! I had similar experiences with other games. It was the last straw for me and I saved up and bought a PS3 and now have a machine for me. Bottom line in general terms: Wii: Family and Kids - PS3/Xbox: Hard core gamers. One bonus...the Wii *is* very easily hacked.
yet they enjoy the Wii. They have no interest in high frame rates or high resolution gaming, but they do like Wii Fit, Wii sports, and a couple of kids games.
Would either of these two have the slightest interest in PS3 or Xbox360? I don't know about the PS3, but we had a 360 and returned it since no one (in our household) had any interest in it.
Wii opened up consoles to non-gamers, and that is a huge accomplishment. It may even drive future sales of more advanced consoles as the 3-10 year old Wii customers grow into teenagers.
Making consoles accessible to moms and kids isn't a bad strategy. Mom remembers the fun she had with the Wii, and when the future teenager asks for PS5 or Xbox720, mom might just be more open to buying it.
-ted
If Rockstar managed to release San Andreas on the Playstation 2, a piece of hardware which was inferior to the gamecube, let alone the Wii, then I somehow doubt it's impossible to release an open world style game on the Wii. This basically just sounds like they don't really know what they're doing, and are wasting processor cycles on things they really don't need.
Well there is this wand business sony just came out with. I'm sure you've heard of it.
Dunno how successful it will be but it's important to remember.
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso
Why would they have to be more realistic? I'd settle for being able to drive an HD screen and some anti-aliasing. I don't find the fact that it's all pixellated to be a plus point.
I also don't think striving for realism is necessarily the best way to go, but that doesn't mean you have to keep the graphics quite so simple.
(I agree, Wii tennis was a great game, it just looks a bit clunky on a 37 inch 1080p panel)
The PS3 and 360 can handle casual games.
But they'd never attempt to make that their main market. The PS3 and 360 have been made dependent on catering to hardcore gamers, because casual gamers simply will not tolerate the combination of mechanical noise they emit, the 50% hardware failure rate of the 360, or the 200-300W they consume.
No, but there's a huge demographic that doesn't see a huge difference between the Wii and the 360/PS3. Since everything's grey, brown, and muzzle flash, the lovingly rendered cracks on Grizzled Space Marine #624578's helmet don't really shine through, you know?
Seriously, play House of the Dead: Overkill. Looks good. Plays well. An experience that wouldn't really gain anything by shiner graphics.
It's about getting the developers off their fucking high horse to realize that no, you might not be able to do a direct port of your $14 million AAA title, but you can still make a good, solid, FUN game on the Wii. Most developers just looked at it like the Atari's retarded cousin, though.
Anyone who seriously thinks the Wii provides a "watered-down" gaming experience is elitist to the point of inbred doofusery. It removes a level of abstraction between players and what occurs on-screen, at the cost of a few pieces of bling. How is that a watered down experience? If anything, it's a more pure experience.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
The Conduit. Look it up.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
The first Prince of Persia I played was on my Apple //e. Games should be about playability, not whiz-bang graphics. My friend showed me the hot game for is PS2 when it was still the hot game console, and I was dumbfounded by how weak the game was for playability and how long on boring movie-like transition scenes.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
"Does Ben Mattes Provide a 'Watered-Down' Game Experience?"
I just have never understood the appeal of console gaming.
*snip* The PC is not only a much better gaming platform, it is multi-functional.
*snip*
Sigh. You have the answer right there in front of you, but you can't see it.
The multi-functional nature of the PC gets in the way of gaming, particularly if other people are involved. Move out of your mother's basement, start a family and you'll begin to understand.
First, the multi-functional nature of the PC means there will be conflicts regarding it's use. "Daddy - I want to play my game now!!!!" "Sorry, dear, Daddy has to meet his deadline. Go read a book or something." "Waaah! You suck, Daddy!" The more functions a PC can carry out, the more conflicts will be encountered. Which leads to the next point.
Multi-purpose PCs are expensive compared to dedicated gaming consoles. Sure, the conflicts mentioned above can be alleviated by buying more PCs, but they cost more. And they tend to be bigger, require more space etc. Yeah, you could save on a monitor by hooking it up to the tv, but then you are conflicting with TV watching. See above. Consoles aren't cheap, but they are priced comfortably enough to be affordable.
Multi-purpose PCs are more complicated. Even if you just use the installed OS and do nothing but gaming, you still have to install the game, manage drivers, find the game icon etc. And you won't just be using the PC for gaming, so there will be other stuff to think about. Contrast that with a console: Turn on. Insert disk. Play.
Multi-purpose PCs are more useful, so more crucial. I use my PCs for work, personal business (home finances, medical stuff via the web etc), research, entertainment etc. I'm not willing to allow DRM on to my system just to play a game. There is too much at stake if the game or the DRM messes the system up or opens up the system to spyware and such. That's not going to happen. A dedicated gaming console is separate, thus isolated from all the important stuff that happens in life when not wasting time playing games. If something goes wrong, nothing of value is lost. Press reset and keep playing.
PC's tend to provide single user experiences. Game consoles connect to the home entertainment system, so can be enjoyed by the entire family. Yeah, you can hook your PC up to the tv, but then you run into the conflicting uses problem mentioned above, or the costs-too-much problem if you're just going to play games.
I was and am still a PC gamer. I resisted consoles for a long time, but eventually realized their value and where they fit into the grand scheme of things. With the rise of stronger and more pervasive DRM in recent years, my PC game purchases have dwindled to nothing, so consoles are even more appealing. A $49 original Xbox and a handful of games from the closeout bin are just as much fun to play as the latest whizzbang title for the PC. Who knew?
Why do developers do things backwards? Why do they target games for 2 consoles that are so far behind the leading console in sales? Wouldn't you make more $$$ if you created the game and targeted it for the Wii? and then port it to the other consoles? My guess is that developers are having the same problem they have always had. They struggle to make the game play fun. Few games have had great fun game play on the 360 or PS3. They sell games by having pretty pictures, and meaning less features, (like the more amazing AI you've ever seen, yet no AI in any game ever produced has been worth a crap). It is a much more difficult task to create a fun game. So developer default to the "easiest to impress" platform. The Wii is out selling the 360 and PS3 by a large margin, it has the largest user base of any of the current gen consoles. Yet it is an after thought for most developers. I bet the game developers are just happy that the publishers are ignorant of marketing and business, so they don't have to make the games fun, they can just keep trying to out geek each other. Would I like the Wii to have HD graphics, crazy poly counts, life like AI, ect....YES!!!!, but not at the expense of Fun, or the game play....Give me fun every time.
Howard? got a new nick? Seriously though, where did you get these numbers, other than sheer Wii hate, what proof do you have.
You've hit the nail on the head. If someone wants to publish a Wii title, they should design for it.
For example: "Crysis was highly advanced and required a lot of processing power; the world size and dynamic loading, the draw distance, the number of polygons in the characters... If we had done an Xbox 360 version, it would have been toned down, probably linear; it wouldn't have been an open-world game, and so it would have been a very different experience."
Luke, help me take this mask off
Games that are going to be marketed as having great graphics and advanced features are not going to be made on the Wii because there is no way to have it look good in a side by side comparison with a PS3 / Xbox360 game. it is hard to brag about how good your game looks if it looks very much like something that was made about 5 years ago.
There are also other issues.
- Large worlds take a great deal of memory for textures, and level geometry. You can do this better on the 360 / PS3
- Wii has a flash drive, so while you can save games, you cannot use it for virtual memory or caching from the disk.
- Motion controls simply do not adapt very well and are not necessary to GTA3 type games, and the Wii-mote + Nunchuk does not have optimally placed buttons for most 'hard core' type games.
- While not dominant, the 360 and PS3 still have a substantial chunk of the market, having retained most of the core users from the previous generation.
- Nintendo's online policies suck for online multi-player.
So basically, you could try to put a core game out on the game out on the Wii, and end up with a stripped down version that is simply not as good as it would be on the PS3 or Xbox 360. Your sales wont be quite so strong as the typical Wii Fit customer is not going to give a damn about your action heavy game. And it wont be as technically advanced as you would like because the platform cannot support the bleeding edge. On top of that, attempts to replace an action that is best handled with a single button press with a motion control usually end up feeling very inelegant, so its possible that your game will suck because the control interface is not ideal.
Right now it is just more effective to put out certain types of games on the Xbox360 and PS3. But if Nintendo can hold its current lead into the next hardware generation, things will get better on Nintendo's platforms.
END COMMUNICATION
If this were try the PSP would be out selling the DS at this point, or do you think Sony needs more time in the market place?
Dwarf Fortress doesn't have real-time physics or lighting and I would argue it is not a child's game.
The fact that you equate the graphics of a game with the complexity of the game says a lot.
...Systems will be looking at their next iteration. That being said, Nintendo will have the processing power like the rest of them... and the point will void.
I don't expect to see same experiance for PS3 or Xbox till X-mas of 2010.
My year old PC can out-perform a PS3 and XBox360, so does that mean that they're providing a 'watered-down' experience?
Play Grand Theft Auto IV on even this most high-end PC and you'll see that is not the case. Porting is the problem.
Sports analogy: Take a pro baseball player then stick them on a hockey rink and tell them to play right wing. You'd expect crappy results of course. The rules are different, the style of play is different and even the people out in the stands are different. You can teach the left fielder to ice skate and even some basic puck handling, but no small amount of training will let him be as good as his teammates. Why would we not expect the same crappy results from a ported game? The key is obviously to either stick with one sport/system or, like Bo Jackson, from the very beginning work with both.
You can rant all day long about how simple can be fun, please then go and play a printer based game. Oh okay, hercules graphics then.
Even the so called simple games have moved on. How many would still play an LCD game today?
Take even simple Chess games. Used to be that a chess game only had a "calculator" on the side, that forced you to enter the moves you made on a keypad. More modern ones registered the moves and the chess board and showed you on the board the computers moves. Even more advancement and the computer becomes a robot capable of making its own moves. Does this change the game? No, but it makes it more fun.
Simple platform games are better if the number of colors is enough to not hurt your eyes, if the amount of memory is large enough the game doesn't need to spend 10 minutes reading tape to load the next screen, if the interface can register more then one button being pressed at the time. All of these things were once true. When people talk about the NES and retro gaming, they are just showing hor terribly young they are.
The Wii stood in place. Nintendo lost the previous generation but has managed to find an odd space where their console is "good" enough. The PS2 after all still gets games released as well, so how bad can it be? But the low costs comes as a high price. Games that thrive on advances in tech can't run on it. You just can't do GTA4 on the Wii. You can do GTA2 on the Wii, but GTA is a game that is essentially the same just made better, more enjoybale by ever advancing hardware that cane make the world you play in richer and more involving. A sidescrolling platform game does not require to much horsepower, but a racer where the roads have only two angles (flat and 45 degrees) (A simcity inspired racer did this) is just not going to be as fun as a game where the roads are smooth curves. The sims is more fun with more realistic looking humans, with angled walls, with better AI. Doesn't mean the original game wasn't fun, but time moves on. Once the T-Ford was a good car, by today's standards, it isn't. Nostaligia is good but there is a reason for progress.
I don't think the Wii is holding back gaming however. The Wii has its own market of casual gamers who only buy the occasional game. The so called hardcore market just doesn't sell on the Wii and has no buyers that own a Wii. The next Rockstar game will be for the big consoles only because if you want an endless desert and realistic horses, then the Wii just doesn't deliver.
The Wii holds gaming back in the same way that the Smart holds back super-cars. Different market.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Water down isn't the right word. It provides a different game experience.
The Wii is not optimized for the latest and greatest games. It doesn't have much more power than the previous Gamecube. So if you look at processor power, polygon counts, and other performance/hardware metrics then the Wii does produce a lesser "experience."
What the Wii does have is a new and unique control scheme. For some games it works, for some it doesn't. Part of this is the publishers fault for not really considering the control schemes, part of it is the limitations of the Wii, such as button placements/numbers and control accuracy.
For the games that do work with the Wii, the control scheme is superior to the competitors and also less "scary" to the non-gamer/casual gamer population.
Nintendo could have easily made the Wii far more powerful, CPU, RAM, and graphics-wise. But then it would have cost far more, and would have lost one of the main reasons it sits in so many homes now. A lot of families bought the Wii for their kids for three main reasons: Price, N's kid-friendly reputation, and ease-of-use. Only the first factor would have changed with better hardware, but it would have made the decision a lot harder if it had debuted at $350+.
To be honest, most Wii games are crap. The Wii has fewer highly rated games than either of the other systems because while good developers are still figuring out how to make good games, the shelves are filling up with junk pushed out by opportunistic hacks with every kid-friendly IP license they can get their hands on.
But I bet if the Wii had the power of the X360, the main result would have been way more ports of standard games like PoP, and instead of complaining about RAM limitations, devs would be complaining about having to develop a new control scheme. At least this way they are forced to come up with new ideas instead of just rehashing all the same ones that are on the other two systems.
Wii is not and never has been a platform designed for high end graphics. Similarly it's competiots are not capable of duplicating the Wii's intense interacttion (at least not yet - they are working on a camera based system).
Stop demanding that your car have the ability to fly like a plane unless you are also willing to demand that the plane fit in your driveway. Or better yet, accept the fact that cars are cars and planes are planes.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Alot of the limitations I've had with loading times and playability have been overcome with a softmod -- easily acheived through various means. I've added a 640Gig USB2.0 HDD to my WII which allows me to keep a backup of my regular stock of games - since doing this my loading times have decreased significantly. So wouldn't the WII benefit greatly from supporting additional hardware or upgrading the ability of their current stock?
"i lost my dignity on a slippery wiener"
The doom of the Wii has been sealed by its user base and existing game library. It doesn't matter if the next Zelda game surpasses the Ocarina of Time or if the definitive FPS of our time is a Wii exclusive. Most existing Wii owners do not want "Triple A" titles or anything close to it. They want Cooking Mama and Wii Fit and Mario Kart, because that's want Nintendo has told them they want, and that's what they got and thats all they'll ever want now.
If the mass market is willing to shell out money for the Wii, and buy a few casual games, how does this cause the Wii's doom? In the same paragraph you say the Wii is doomed and then explain why it's such a success? Just because hardcore gamers don't like it doesn't mean that the Wii won't continue to expand in the future.
The Wii's success is because it's doing exactly what the hardcore gamer does not want it to do... cater to casual gamers. That continues to be it's success and it will be a growth industry for the future as more people discover it. The Wii is NOT where you want to play the latest God of War release, but frankly, what's to say that Cooking Mama isn't an interesting, fun and challenging game for 8 year olds? For a family of 4 who have a weekly game night? "Sorry" is a simple board game that is not for hard core chess players, but it is incredibly fun to play with the family. This is exactly why the Wii is doing well and will continue to do well, because it's catering to a new market, and there's as of yet no "doom" forecasted. Nintendo left the hardcore gamer market behind, and they like it that way just fine.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
http://www.us.playstation.com/PS3/Games/High_Velocity_Bowling
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Like playing on the C64 was a far more "pure" experience than now?
I loved my C64, and some of the games were great, but I wouldn't swap any of the current gen for it.
I don't give much of a crap about another crack on the space marine's face. What I don't like is all the pixellation you get from the Wii on any decent screen. Lack of HD support was an oversight.
And yes I know about the EDTV mode, and that the other consoles are struggling to push their games in 1080 or even 720, but they do try and they do look a lot nicer...
The three consoles: Wii, Xbox, PS all use IBM chips. The Wii's version isn't as powerful as the CellBE used in the PS for example...and the video of the Wii isn't quite as high end.
But then again, it's a different device. Why does it need to be the same as the others? If you think it's watered down, then go use something else. Pretty simple.
Is there a casual competitive swimming game for the Wii?
"Look, Smithers! I'm Davy Crockett!"
It's been mentioned above, in replies mostly, but one of the most overlooked things about the Wii is that it supports GameCube games, controls, and even memory cards!
There's no reason why they can't make Wii games that require a GameCube control, still being manufactured by 3rd parties and I have a feeling Nintendo still has the technology to make Wavebirds, maybe even versions that are Bluetooth or at minimum plug into the Wiimote. There's no reason they can't put a little Gamecube control pictogram on the front of a game package like they did with Zapper pictograms way back in the NES days.
I'm not rushing to pick up a Wii, I don't have any "modern" consoles unless you count portables and the PS2. Part of the reason I'm not rushing to a Wii is I really don't want to swing the fool control around. I've played it, I've liked some of the games, but even on my DS I tend to chose titles that don't overly require use of the touch screen. I like traditional input methods. While I was playing Mario Kart for the Wii I was actually longing for my Gamecube Control. I'm not saying the Wiimote/nunchuck don't have their place, I would love to play a lightsabre/sword game with that setup (if they ever actually make a really good one) but overall the Wii will remain the casual gamer system in my mind until they embrace tradition on a few titles. I don't think they'll lose their casual gamers if they make a few hardcore games to, especially if they're plainly marked as such. It may actually improve their market share a bit. As it stands I would rather have a PS3 than a Wii, and I'm a long time Nintendo fan.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
There should be, however, a +1 Stop Being Such an Asshole.
Seriously, man. Dial back on the defensive hostility. Put those claws away.
Gonna have to call nonsense on this one. How are we defining "earliest games?" Have you ever played Nethack? Like it or not, it's probably logged more man-hours being played than any other computer game in history, and if you don't think it's complex, you're crazy. The only things games are "meant" to be is fun. If complexities are fun, then they should be complex. If simplicity is fun, then simple. Simple as that!
If only I could figure out how to play it...
Dwarf Fortress reads like super amazing fun. I just have no idea where to start or how to interpret what I'm looking at. Which is weird, because I played Nethack until the cows came home.
... game experience?
Just a thought. Make simple games that are fun to play? Use a system for what it's capable of, and not for what it isn't.
Hell, I'd suppose Wing Commander 1 or 2 could be ported to the Wii (with some control changes, maybe a communication/navigation system à la i-War to get around the lack of a keyboard, and that'd not even be a low-profile game.
Fight hunger. Filet a politician and send him to a 3rd world country of your choice.
Wii: $250 PS3: $400 XBox 360: $400
Yes, there will always be a large slice of parents willing to pop for $250 for their kids, but not willing to spend $400. Especially knowing that the games themselves are cheaper for the Wii.
Does the Wii have limitations? Yes. Compared to PS3 and XBox, the graphics suck. The lack of disk storage means nobody provides much downloadable content, even though from a hardware standpoint adding an external USB drive would be trivial. Rock Band and Guitar Hero for the Wii really are watered-down version (again, no downloadable content). Cooperative play usually isn't very good on the Wii (split screen used for multiplayer Mario Kart lacks large enough field of view to anticipate obstacles, for exampe.)
Guess which console I own? That's right, the Wii. Because, for my budget and intended audience (my eight year old) it is the best choice! I love stupid games like Mario Kart and Excite Truck, and titles like Galaxy, Stryker, Brawl, Force Unleashed, Lego Starwars, etc. are quite enjoyable for kids. There will always be a market for Wii. It is not targeted at hardcore gamers, but then most hardcore gamers will buy not only a game PC but also a PS3, XBox360, and Wii, and play on each system the games that work best on that system.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Except that the 360 and PS3 provide more than enough power, while the Wii simply doesn't. So 360/PS3 developers can afford to waste some cycles when developing for those platforms, while the Wii gets left out in the cold.
Other people noted that Wii-exclusive games tend to be better than ports of 360/PS3 games. Unfortunately, companies want to sell to the largest userbase possible with the least effort. Targeting the Wii plus any other console means, as you point out, that you must write very efficient code. Targeting the PS3 and 360 means you get some slack. You don't have to hire people who know the system inside and out because inefficiency isn't a problem.
>Move out of your mother's basement, start a family and you'll begin to understand.
Thank you for playing. I'm married with two kids, and own my own home.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Well glad that is over!
The reason to buy a Wii is to be able to play Nintendo games. You can't play Nintendo games on an Xbox or Playstation no matter what kind of controller they offer.
-----
Sorry, I'm only a 1336 h4x0r.
Rock Band 2 for the Wii:
- Shittier graphics (like, way shitty)
- Less songs
- Occasional framerate issues
Call me an inbred if you want, but if you don't recognize that as watered down then you're only deluding yourself.
So in other words, the problem is not the Wii, it's the capability of the developers? Why is it the Wii's fault that third party developers water down games because they can't develop properly for the Wii? Do third party developers not have all the tools, knowledge, etc they need to develop for the Wii? Is Nintendo holding back on third party developers to ensure Nintendo always publishes the "best" titles (I hope not!) Based on this paragraph, I am led to believe that Nintendo is perfectly capable of writing awesome games for the Wii while everyone else is incapable of doing the same.
The Prince of Persia games haven't exactly been that great. They're just 3D games cashing in on an old popular game.
To call the likes of Super Mario Galaxy watered down in comparison to Prince of Persia would just be idiotic.
Sure a lot of 3rd party games are cheap rubbish but, that's what companies like Ubisoft specialise in, and shouldn't be used to gauge what fun can be had with the system.
Someone earlier identified the developer's "poor AI" argument as a red herring, and they were absolutely spot on, but I would take their line of argumentation in a different direction.
If anything, the developer needed to call out the lack of power on the Wii in order to hide the fact that if the game had been ported to the Wii, it would have had nothing going for it at all. At least on the PC/PS3/360, it was graphically gorgeous, but the gameplay was lacking, the story was subpar, and the experience was altogether repetitive and boring. Sure, it was fun for awhile, but all of the people I've talked to agree that the game did not live up to the hype and that it was not as fun as past titles in the series (standard disclaimers apply that this is merely anecdotal evidence and not indicative of the experience for everyone).
Given that the Wii has subpar hardware by modern standards, and this is true for nearly any title on the Wii, the focus falls on solid gameplay and the "fun factor". Solid graphics on other systems can enhance enjoyment, but they rarely create enjoyment. If you stripped away the graphics of the game, such that the worlds had shorter draw distances, the characters could not be as animated, and the polygon count had to be lowered, I'm of the opinion that there just wouldn't be much else to catch and hold the attention of the gamer. For a game that relies so heavily on the graphics as a selling point, not only would the developer need to "water down" the game to make it simply run on the Wii, they would also need to significantly rework the game in order to make it enjoyable, period.
In a case like that, it's easier to blame the console's lack of power than your development teams' lack of innovation.
I could be wrong, but I think that one of the issues with the GameCube was storage-space. Sure those little discs were cute, and (if they had put them in like-sized cases) easier to store. But in terms of how much information you could cram onto a disk, the PS2 and XBox came out ahead with DVD's.
yes it will persist because a lot of it is due to price... $400 for a console is absurd.
You can have a ton of fun with a wii just like a 360 or ps3. They each have their strong and weak points but in the end it comes down to fun and graphics isn't necessarily the top of the fun list.
Shadus
The Nintendo 64 had same issues, third party developers couldn't port games to the N64 because of space limitations, now it may be graphical limitations and also space limitations that force those developers only on PS3 and XBOX360. The current Wii is obviously doing great with first party titles, but I really worry about the new Wii, it must be able to compete with at least the PS3 in hardware specs.
how about creating original content that plays to the Wii's strengths?
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
Prefer my DS to other gaming consoles just because it's fits my occasional gaming needs.
I don't need the kind of power that even the Wii provides.
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
What strikes me as a gamer is the lack of interest for the Wii because of its lower specifications. Alright, so it has a lower clocked CPU, a less capable GPU, and less RAM overall; should this be the reason why game developers shy away from the platform, thinking gamers won't accept graphically watered-down games in comparison with Sony's and Microsoft's consoles?(*) I can't help but think that the "HD" letters must have hit the gamers' minds pretty hard, because I remember seeing screenshots from Deus Ex and Quake III on the PS2, and those didn't look glorious in any way. Not to mention Black & White on the PS1. So, let me repeat this one more time: the "high-definition" buzzword, to me, is very likely to be the cause of such a lack of interest towards the Wii.
(*)Don't you love those super duper long questions?
"The body may heal, but the mind is not always so resilient." -- Deus Ex: Human Revolution
I read a bunch of posts in this thread where people want to draw a line between casual folks and "gamers". The intent is to belittle the more casual player. The problem is that "gamer" is a meaningless title.
Who's a gamer? Is the guy who plays WoW once a week a gamer? Probably not if you ask somebody who plays every night and has 100 days on his main character. Is THAT guy a gamer? Probably not if you ask an asian Starcraft master who practices 10 hours a day and competes in arena matches.
I contend that anybody who plays ANY game is a "gamer".
Does the Wii provide a "Watered-Down" game experience? Doubtful, unless you're hung up on making sure that your hardware is the latest and greatest, that every pixel is too small to see, and that each surround speaker is perfectly adjusted relative to the seat position... in which case it's possible you're enjoying your PS3/Xbox360/PC games LESS than my uncritical nephew who is perfectly happy playing Rock Band on his Wii through TV speakers.
Certainly his experience isn't watered down. He's having a grand time. He doesn't need techno-pricks coming along to explain to him why he should be dissatisfied.
Thanks for the reality check. You're right that my comment veered off topic a bit. The title of this article is misleading considering Ubisoft's specific comments and reasoning. My comment was more in line with the topic question.
What we're really seeing here is a rapid progression towards a sort of unified, multi-platform "PC-lite" phenomenon. As you've mentioned, the line of distinction between Sony and Microsoft's offerings has blurred significantly in this past generation, but it's a line that's only going to become less and less defined from here on out. Game developers are simply refusing to commit to exclusivity (and why would they? When engines like Capcom's MT framework have been built from the ground up with ease of portability in mind, there's very little monetary enticement either Sony or Microsoft could feasibly offer that would outweigh the profits of a multi-platform release) and gamers are quickly coming to expect the same lineup from both Sony and Microsoft.
Additionally, the ancillary features of these modern consoles mimic those of home theater PCs. Microsoft and Sony are continually embracing the fact that future game consoles may simply be modern gaming PCs with an accessible, simplified, sleek user interfaces to wrap booting games, watching movies, and other trivial PC activities. For those major players, the divide between console gaming and PC gaming is rapidly vanishing. I've kind of gone off on a tangential rant here, sorry.
On the other hand, whether it's with respect to control gimmick or platform, Nintendo still lives in its own slice of alien world - and it's thriving there. Does the Wii provide a watered down experience? Well, technically, yes, but practically, it's just providing a different game experience. If you're trying to compare and contrast it with a beefy gaming rig or a 360 or what have you, you just have to remember where Nintendo is coming from - part of its design ethic is to take dated hardware, twist out a new spin on it, and make it relevant (and fun) today. Truth be told? Nintendo does a damn good job of it. Let's consider the following: at E3, Nintendo and Microsoft both showcased 2D platformer offerings for the coming year; Nintendo displayed New Super Mario Bros Wii, while Microsoft displayed its Metroid-inspired Shadow Complex. Which do you think is going to sell more, by millions? Which do you think will be more technically and visually appealing? Lastly, which will be the more *fun* "game experience"? These questions provide some real insight into the question this story is asking.
I find this developer's whining particularly amusing, as the new Prince of Persia (while a decent game) felt like a watered down version of Sands of Time.
Now, I can understand that managing two sets of resources is probably not worth the effort, given the fact that the PS3 and 360 are so much more powerful. It would essentially be the same as building the same game twice. But the Wii's hardware really does not limit anything that was done in the new PoP except polygon count and texture resolution.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
And thats why D&D, and other rule-based tabletop/pen & paper games were not invented, much less popular.
Good games should be simple to learn, but really insanely complex to master, like Tetris.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
It really is one of the best overlooked games of that generation.
I think the Wii could play very well Duke Nukem Forever.
The irony of this article is that Ubi has been one of the best 3rd party devs on the system. Sure they have had some shovelware, but they have already released some great games. I would have be far less surprised if this comment came from THQ or EA- two companies that basically just port their PS2 games and add a waggle. Ubisoft of all people should understand the Wii.
The question remains, as Kotaku points out, whether the Wii's audience will persist after the other systems match its casual-gaming capabilities.
Its all about price and space. I bought a Wii because it's cheap & small; and I only use it about once a week. I don't see myself ever getting a PS3 or 360 unless they're very cheap; and even then the prospect of having another THING in my living room, hooked up to my TV, is somewhat discouraging.
I might not represent all casual gamers; but I don't want to spend lots of money to have lots of boxes hooked up to my TV that I hardly use. If you want to sell a game to me, you need to put it on hardware that's already in my living room.
No, I will not work for your startup
A version of Prince of Persia (2008) with the AI for "Tails" from Sonic driving the Elika character would have served us as well. Elika wasn't a companion; she was a prop. She magically appeared when you needed to use her to clear a long-distance jump, and similarly instantly teleported when you cratered.
Heck, The Sands of Time on PS2, a far less powerful hardware profile than the Wii, had a far more interesting in-game companion in Farah. And that's to say nothing of Team Ico's PS2 games, both of which featured companions that were both integral to gameplay and displayed sophisticated behavior.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
The real question is whether they will be able to match the Wii's casual gaming price.
For the game developers and publishers, the issue with Wii is that its audience (light gamers) are largely unpredictable. Publishers dont know what kind of Wii games would definitely make money. The hardcore gamers (x360, PS3 owners) are a lot more predictable and easier to make money off.
That's the same argument that I have about consoles in general vs. PC gaming. Suck it up. You can't have a happy medium between the best development platform vs. financially success. I know the Wii will never play games that are capable on PS3/360, just as I'd know that there are games that PC's games that will never play properly on PS3/360's. That's life.
Bye!
Have you played Netwars on Novell Network?
The first D&D?
The first "Where in the world is Carmen Sandiego"?
There is a difference between complex-hard and complex-fun.
Calculus is hard. Geometry is fun.
Both are complex.
Quantum Physics is Hard. Astrophysics is fun.
Both are Complex.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
Really not sure what your point is, considering that I explicitly stated that games should be complex only if that makes them fun (which it can, e.g. nethack).
Plus, your examples only serve to reinforce MY point. I actually happen to find both calculus and quantum physics FUN (much moreso than geometry for example, which I personally hate), although you might not. Just like I (and many others) may find complex games to be fun while you may find them to be a chore.
Which is precisely why I think it's pretty stupid to say, "Games are NOT meant to be complex," as if it's some kind of universal principle, which it clearly isn't.
The Wii isn't powerful enough? Really? That's odd. Because Scribblenauts on the DS was turning heads at E3 and the DS possesses a mere fraction of the power of the DS. The same is true for all those classic, great games. Here's a question. What do the following games have in common? Doom Star Control 2 NetHack Baldur's Gate Diablo Sam and Max Hit the Road Heroes of Might and Magic 3 Ultimate VII Die By The Sword Thief Weird Worlds: Return to Infinite Space DefCon and a whole lot more in the same vein... You guessed it! They're great games that would all run on the hardware the Wii provides. The real problem is that most game devs these days are just completely full of shit while at the same time lacking any semblance of the ability to write decent code, something the previous generation of game devs had no problems with.