I don't know how much blame to put on Nintendo for that. Honestly, Nintendo is one of the best game developers in the world. Despite the fact that they seem to rely a lot on established IPs (as I mentioned earlier), they still manage to crank out good games at an alarming rate. I honestly can't think of any other developer as successful as they have been.
The problem, obviously, is the same problem Nintendo has had ever since Sony went CD format with the PS1, and Nintendo stuck with its proprietary cartridge format. They are unable to attract 3rd party developers willing to make good 3rd party games. It's something that they've never been able to truly come back from.
So what's the problem? The Wii is a very successful system, outselling the Xbox and the PS3 significantly. Why are the 3rd party developers so weary? Well, I can think of two reasons.
1. The system was made and is still being marketed towards the casual crowd. The casual crowd is much less discerning than the core gamers. As such, a 3rd party developer really has little motivation to spend time and money developing something good, and instead can shovel some cheap mini-game, perhaps with some movie license attached to it, and rake in easy dollars. That kind of thing doesn't fly as well on the PS3 or Xbox 360.
2. The system is significantly underpowered when compared to the other two systems. This means that when a developer is choosing which systems to design their games for, they kind of have two options. Develop it for the Wii, or develop it simultaneously for the 360 and the ps3. Even if the Wii matched the total sales of the other two systems combined (which it doesn't), any game would still probably reach higher sales figures if it was released on two platforms instead of one. In fact, now that I think about it, the Wii is kind of competing with the PC as well. Not many games for the wii are released simultaneously on the 360, the ps3, or the PC, but I can think of several games that have come out on all three of those platforms and missed the Wii entirely.
It's been two years, and the Wii is still going strong. I think we've gone past the point where we can wonder if the Wii is just a fad. Apparently, the casual gaming market CAN sustain a system. And sustain it they have. Who'd have thought? But until casual gamers become more discerning, I don't think the Wii is really the system of choice for more prevalent gamers like myself. Or, maybe the casual gamers will grow bored of it, and then Nintendo will be forced once again to appeal to the core crowd. Who knows?
EA Guy 1: You see what Bungie, Valve, and many other game developers are doing? Linking games to gamer's internet forum accounts? Letting you see your stats, other peoples stats, game avatars, recently played games, and other cool stuff like that?
EA Guy 2: Um, yeah.
Guy 1: Well, we need to do something to top that. We need something that will really draw in our players and make them part of our community.
Guy 2: How about, participate in our forums, and earn the chance to be banned from your favorite game forever by a power-starved, 17 year-old forum mod.
Guy 1: Brilliant! Next issue, blood sample toolkits packaged with all our games.
Guy 2: ??????
Guy 1: No, it's not what you think. It's only for the initial install... and three times a month after that.
The gameplay is radically different? Which game are you referring to?
Mario Galaxy radically different than Super Mario Sunshine? Mario Kart Wii radically different than Mario Kart DS? Metroid? Zelda? Smash Bros?
I guess it's a matter of opinion, but to me, the radical changes to Nintendo IPs mostly happened during the N64 era, and to a lesser extent, the Gamecube era, when games were making the switch from 2d to 3d. All of the games I've mentioned above share quite a bit in common with their N64 and Gamecube counterparts.
Finally, I ask, what's so wrong with wanting original IP's? Why do some people get so defensive when this is asked for?
"I hope this means there will be another Mario game for Wii. It has been a disappointing feature of the latest Nintendo consoles, that only one Mario is released per generation."
You know what, I actually kind of have to disagree with that sentiment. I mean, I guess I really wouldn't have anything against a new Mario, but in truth, I really just want to see something new from Nintendo. Looking at the games they've released for the Wii, you have a lot of sequels: Metroid, Smash Bros., Mario Kart, Zelda. I don't have anything against sequels, as long as they're good (and they are), but also I'd really like to see them expand into new IPs.
I'm aware that they have some new IPs, like Wii Fit, Wii Music and Wii Sports, but these are really just novelty IPs, not quite the kind of games I'm into.
I love Mario. Always will. But sometimes, Mario should sit it out.
Eh. I don't know. I'm sure Valve appreciates the compliment, but I doubt they'll be gushing over it. Valve's a fairly successfull company itself with a very solid reputation. Besides, you gotta take some compliments at face value. What was Miyamoto going to say, that Portal sucks balls?
"I always bitch when I see grown adults dedicating weeks of their time developing skills in inane games of pretend."
1. Then what the hell are you doing in a video game forum? 2. For someone who has, so far, 6 or more posts in a video game forum, you seem far too familiar with "inane" activities to be judging.
OOPS! Forgot to change the format. Here it is again in an easier to read format.
"The controllers and their abilities and effects on game play are what separates the Wii from the others, and PCs too. The XBox 360 and PS3 are basically PCs, and pretty much now just average PCs, if they're even that good. (Which is why they suck, btw"
How, exactly? I mean, I'm fully aware that the wiimote has a lot of potential and is, for lack of a better description, pretty cool in concept, but where is it really being utilized on the Wii that clearly demonstrates its influence on gaming and gaming design. For most of the games I see, it's merely a 1-to-1 mapping between the wiimote and the controller. Want evidence? Well, consider that Zelda: TP was released simultaneously on both the gamecube and the Wii. If the wiimote really was set apart from its controller counterpart, such a thing would seem unlikely. Also consider that many of the most popular games (Smash Bros, Mario Kart) are best played with a standard controller that allows tighter control. And perhaps the most damning evidence of all, most of the other popular games (Mario Galaxy, Metroid, Guitar Hero) are sequels that owe a LOT of their design elements to their predecessors. How much they take advantage of the wiimote is questionable when it seems, at least to me, that the games could be played just fine on a controller. Substituting a wiggle of the wiimote for a push of a button doesn't equal innovation to me.
When the wiimote first came out, we were promised a lot. Remember how excited the Star Wars fans were about the potential of a true lightsaber game? Remember all the promises of how well FPS games were going to work? Or swinging Links sword around? Or shooting hoops? We were all excited about it (myself included), but it didn't take long to realize that the full motion swing of the tennis racket was simply an exaggeration of an action that could be performed with the flick of a wrist. It didn't take long to realize the 1-to-1 motion required for a true light saber game simply wasn't possible with the wiimote. And a year later, in a market flooded by Nintendo sequels and casual games, I've slowly come to the realization that the awesome potential of the wiimote appears to have been greatly exaggerated.
"The controllers and their abilities and effects on game play are what separates the Wii from the others, and PCs too. The XBox 360 and PS3 are basically PCs, and pretty much now just average PCs, if they're even that good. (Which is why they suck, btw"
How, exactly? I mean, I'm fully aware that the wiimote has a lot of potential and is, for lack of a better description, pretty cool in concept, but where is it really being utilized on the Wii that clearly demonstrates its influence on gaming and gaming design. For most of the games I see, it's merely a 1-to-1 mapping between the wiimote and the controller. Want evidence? Well, consider that Zelda: TP was released simultaneously on both the gamecube and the Wii. If the wiimote really was set apart from its controller counterpart, such a thing would seem unlikely. Also consider that many of the most popular games (Smash Bros, Mario Kart) are best played with a standard controller that allows tighter control. And perhaps the most damning evidence of all, most of the other popular games (Mario Galaxy, Metroid, Guitar Hero) are sequels that owe a LOT of their design elements to their predecessors. How much they take advantage of the wiimote is questionable when it seems, at least to me, that the games could be played just fine on a controller. Substituting a wiggle of the wiimote for a push of a button doesn't equal innovation to me.
When the wiimote first came out, we were promised a lot. Remember how excited the Star Wars fans were about the potential of a true lightsaber game? Remember all the promises of how well FPS games were going to work? Or swinging Links sword around? Or shooting hoops? We were all excited about it (myself included), but it didn't take long to realize that the full motion swing of the tennis racket was simply an exaggeration of an action that could be performed with the flick of a wrist. It didn't take long to realize the 1-to-1 motion required for a true light saber game simply wasn't possible with the wiimote. And a year later, in a market flooded by Nintendo sequels and casual games, I've slowly come to the realization that the awesome potential of the wiimote appears to have been greatly exaggerated.
"The Wii has changed the definition of what makes a good game."
Okay, but I think that's exactly why many core gamers are scared of it. You say it so passively with little regard, but when kid friendly games with cutesy characters, or mini-game driven games become the face of the industry, it makes core gamers like myself very defensive.
And it's not even that we mind those games. Heck, I played the crap out Geometry Wars. I enjoy casual games sometimes and I don't even mind if a game is kiddie in nature. Psychonauts was one of my favorite games on the Xbox. But the problem isn't that these games exist, it's that, to the outside world, these games have become the face of the gaming community.
I liken it to the film industry. We all have our guilty pleasure movies. Heck, I still watch "My Cousin Vinny" about twice a year, even though I know it's cheesy. There's nothing wrong with that. But when people think of the films industry, they don't think of "My Cousin Vinny", "Saw V" or anything like that. Even though movies like that routinely bring it large amounts of money, the films that are remembered for decades are the "Schindler's Lists" or the "Saving Private Ryans". These are the films that become the face of the industry. Guilty pleasure movies are just that; guilty pleasures.
The video game industry has spent decades with the "kiddie" face. Even when amazing games like Half Life or FFVII were coming out, the perception amongst the non-gamers was that games were for kids, and could never hope to reach the level of sophistication that other genres had achieved. It felt like things were starting to change with the PS2. It found its way into most homes the same way the Wii did, by appealing to the casual gamers. But it also brought with it a plentiful amount of games likely to change the perception many people had of the gaming community. And I really felt that it was working.
But the Wii seems content to let things slip back into the way they used to be. Core gamers don't want kiddie games or casual games to be the face of the industry anymore, but with the overwhelming success of the Wii, it seems inevitable that that will happen. That it why a lot of core gamers have a fair amount of animosity towards the wii. Maybe their just being paranoid. Maybe I'M just being paranoid. But if you enjoyed gaming as much as I did, you'd probably be paranoid too.
Well Scot, glad you didn't speak for all of us. Exactly what games are you playing on the Wii that are so amazingly original? Aside from the control scheme, I can't think of many games on the wii that haven't been done in one form or another. Certainly the most popular games (Super Mario Galaxy, Mario Kart, Smash Bros., Guitar Hero, Metroid) seem to owe a great deal to their previous counterparts. I'm not sure it's fair to say that the 360 and the PS3 are clone factories when in fact many original titles and ideas have come out or are coming out for them. Besides, progress is very rarely a huge step forward. It usually takes baby steps. And the games that you consider to be generic sequels may have actually taken steps in new directions that most people wouldn't recognize if all they gave was a cursory glance at them.
Look, I don't mind the Wii's success. What I do mind is that people have this misconception that the Wii is making huge strides forward for the gaming industry, while the PS3 and the XBOX 360 are content to churn out the same products they've been releasing for years. I find that to be a little insulting. Aside from the Wii mote, I can't name a single thing the Wii has done that the other consoles haven't. And in several areas, the Wii is severely lacking in areas where the other two systems have made huge strides, like online capability and processing potential.
Yes, the Wii is successful, but give it only the credit it's due. It's successful because it targeted an audience that was being largely ignored by the two other console companies. It targeted the casual gamers, and it was largely successful. Nintendo should be proud to have made such a move. But pretending that the Wii is actually succeeding because it is somehow more special or original than the other two consoles is just plain false. The Wii is an exercise in successful marketing, not a beacon of gaming's true potential.
"Hardcore gamers are a minority" a kind of a misleading statement. While there are more casual gamers in number, hardcore gamers (or "core" gamers) spend significantly more on games and gaming equipment then their casual counterparts, so they hold a bit more weight. In truth, the number of consoles sold is only half the battle. The consoles have to sell software as well. So far, the Wii has been doing very well in that regard. But if they alienate the "core" gamers, something that's already been partially happening, the attach rate will drop significantly. Ignoring core gamers is a bad mistake, one that I'm sure Nintendo will rectify sooner rather than later.
And what is that reason? Better games? Not really. More powerful? Not really. Better online support? Definetly not. Interesting control scheme? Sure, I'll give it that.
I really don't mind the success of the Wii. I think it's a good thing that the industry grows to reach more potential gamers. But I hate when people make cryptic remarks about the Wii being somehow better than it's competition. It not. The PS3 and the Xbox 360 are very good systems that are a step forward for the industry. The wii's success, much like the Jonas Brothers, has very little to do with it's quality and far more to do with its target audience. The Wii targeted the casual gamers, and it worked. That doesn't mean it has something special that the other consoles are lacking. It simply went after the right people at the right time.
I'm gonna post this anonymously, cause its off topic, but I wanted to share my story.
When I first go Grand Theft Auto, Vice City, I played that thing like crazy for about a week. On Saturday, I had played it for about six hours straight and I decided to go to the store. I came up on a light and there was someone in the right lane who was going straight instead of turning right (I hate it when people do that). Without even thinking I swerved around him in a hurry and made a right turn from the middle lane, barely stopping to check for cross traffic.
Needless to say, once I had made the turn, I realized that I had been playing a little too much. I promise, I was extra careful to obey the traffic laws for the rest of that trip.
As for you wanting to be tense and afraid to loose something you worked for, all I can say is this; A lot of people are like that, but it makes absolutely no since what-so-ever. Life is stressful, life is tense, life is challenging, so why in the hell would I want to "Play" a game that has those same factors?
Because in real life, if the axe murderer in the corner jumps out of the shadows and takes a swipe at you, no amount of health packets is gonna save you.
Incidentally, the whole "why would you want to do this escapist activity when it also exists in some fashion in real life" is a very played out argument that completely misses the point of escapism and why people enjoy it. Just thought you'd like to know.
1st install - don't know, don't care
2nd install - don't know, don't care
3rd install - don't know, don't care
4th install - "Hey Ma! What's the number to Geek Squad. This here game be broken."
Yeah, my whole second paragraph was a bad one. I didn't like it as soon as I posted it. I'm fully aware of limitations on free speech. Fire in a theater, publishing government secrets, slander and all that jazz. The point I was actually trying to get at but just couldn't articulate it (I was under time pressure) was that "speech has consequences" isn't justification enough for punishing speech. Yes, shouting fire is harmful, but to a far lesser degree, so is criticising the president. If "speech has consequences" was enough, it would seem justifiable to punish ANY speech with negative consequences. That, of course, wouldn't work.
My entire point was to discredit the "speech has consequences" argument, especially in this case. Wish I had spent a little more time on that second paragraph. Oh well.
Yes, there are consequences to speech. If I say my boss is a moron in a bar after work, I might have every right to say it, but I can't cry "free speech" if I'm fired. Free speech doesn't apply to private organizations, and being fired is the consequence of my speech.
However, if the consequences come from the government instead of a private organization or individual, that's a whole different ballgame. The government can't punish someone for excercising free speech and then say, "oh well, those are the consequences." We have a fundamental right to freedom of speech that extends far. How can speech be free if the government levies fines or jail time as a result of it. Government issued rights cannot have government issued consequences, else they aren't rights at all.
Now, as for the whole libel thing, it's true that if this was handled as a civil court, the principal might have a case. But this isn't a libel case, this is a juristictional case. How far does the principal, who is himself and agent of the government, have juristiction over his students? That's what the question is.
The whole "there are consequences to your speech, free or not" argument completely misses the point of this case.
Well, no, but free speech doesn't apply to employee-employer relationships. It applies to citizen-government relationships. Your argument makes as much sense as those kids who cry "free speech violation" when they get kicked out of an online forum for making fun of the moderator's mom.
Yes, 'tolerate'. Hours and hours of 'tolerating'. Why, I've spent many weekends with my friends tolerating the game. Sometimes, we trick ourselves into thinking we're having fun with the game, and I have to speak up and remind my friends that we're actually just tolerating it. Everyone knows, a FPS can't be enjoyed on a console, but for some strange reason, we keep wanting to tolerate it some more.
Oh man, you've got to be kidding me. GoldenEye was a HUGE step forward for consoles in terms of FPS. Yes, it wasn't as polished as it's PC counterparts, but for a console game it was incredibly well done, and helped to prove that FPS could, in fact, be done on a console.
I don't know why you hate it so much. I like Halo a lot, but I still look back on the days of GoldenEye and Perfect Dark with fondness. You shouldn't be so cynical.
Yes, stories about aliens flying planes across space to dump other aliens into our volcanoes... that's insane.
A story about an ark carrying two of every animal in existence with enough food and supplies to last them forty days and forty nights... Well, guess that's pretty insane, too.
Most religions have their crazy stories. I find it odd that, as an atheist, I'm less critical of scientologists' beliefs than people of other faiths that have crazy beliefs of their own.
That's partly true. It is somewhat faulty to compare PC game sales to all console game sales and claim it as an accurate portrayal of the PC gaming market strength, but not entirely so. Like it or not, comparing the Xbox 360 to the PS3 is much different than comparing either of those consoles to the PC.
Consoles and PCs represent two unique market groups. While its not unheard of for a PC gamer to have a console or the other way around, the console pool and the PC pool are more distinct than the pools that separate each console system. A console player is far more likely to cross console platforms than he is to take up PC gaming. And PC gamers seem less likely to use a console unless they are forced to. If, for the sake of argument, Microsoft was suddenly to announce that they would no longer be selling or supporting the xbox 360, the 360 owners would probably move to another console. In a sense, the console pool and the PC pool exist independent of each other and that may legitimize comparisons between the two, though I admit the comparisons would always be tricky.
To further my point, consider game types. The types of games released on a 360 compared to the PS3 or even the Wii are more similar than the types of games released for the PC, both because the control schemes are different and because the tastes of the gamers are different. If the console market continues to grow larger than the PC market, it would make financial sense to design games that appeal to the console crowd. Also, because of the similarities between consoles, cross-platform games may work better across consoles rather that tapping into the PC market. And let's not forget, the PC has a LOT of issues that consoles don't have to deal with. Moving from one console to another is much less jarring than moving from a console to a PC.
So I guess my point is that, yes, to a certain degree, saying all consoles have sold X many games and all PCs have sold Y doesn't say much, but it also doesn't say nothing**. PC games and console games will always be somewhat polarized, and should the strength of all console platforms combined ever far outweigh the strength of the PC, it would be detriment to PC gamers regardless of each console's individual performance.
** (see, some double negatives work. Take that 9th grade English teachers everywhere.)
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know how much blame to put on Nintendo for that. Honestly, Nintendo is one of the best game developers in the world. Despite the fact that they seem to rely a lot on established IPs (as I mentioned earlier), they still manage to crank out good games at an alarming rate. I honestly can't think of any other developer as successful as they have been.
The problem, obviously, is the same problem Nintendo has had ever since Sony went CD format with the PS1, and Nintendo stuck with its proprietary cartridge format. They are unable to attract 3rd party developers willing to make good 3rd party games. It's something that they've never been able to truly come back from.
So what's the problem? The Wii is a very successful system, outselling the Xbox and the PS3 significantly. Why are the 3rd party developers so weary? Well, I can think of two reasons.
1. The system was made and is still being marketed towards the casual crowd. The casual crowd is much less discerning than the core gamers. As such, a 3rd party developer really has little motivation to spend time and money developing something good, and instead can shovel some cheap mini-game, perhaps with some movie license attached to it, and rake in easy dollars. That kind of thing doesn't fly as well on the PS3 or Xbox 360.
2. The system is significantly underpowered when compared to the other two systems. This means that when a developer is choosing which systems to design their games for, they kind of have two options. Develop it for the Wii, or develop it simultaneously for the 360 and the ps3. Even if the Wii matched the total sales of the other two systems combined (which it doesn't), any game would still probably reach higher sales figures if it was released on two platforms instead of one. In fact, now that I think about it, the Wii is kind of competing with the PC as well. Not many games for the wii are released simultaneously on the 360, the ps3, or the PC, but I can think of several games that have come out on all three of those platforms and missed the Wii entirely.
It's been two years, and the Wii is still going strong. I think we've gone past the point where we can wonder if the Wii is just a fad. Apparently, the casual gaming market CAN sustain a system. And sustain it they have. Who'd have thought? But until casual gamers become more discerning, I don't think the Wii is really the system of choice for more prevalent gamers like myself. Or, maybe the casual gamers will grow bored of it, and then Nintendo will be forced once again to appeal to the core crowd. Who knows?
That is freakin hilarious. That's the most I've laughed while reading Slashdot in a long, long time. Good find.
EA Guy 1: You see what Bungie, Valve, and many other game developers are doing? Linking games to gamer's internet forum accounts? Letting you see your stats, other peoples stats, game avatars, recently played games, and other cool stuff like that?
EA Guy 2: Um, yeah.
Guy 1: Well, we need to do something to top that. We need something that will really draw in our players and make them part of our community.
Guy 2: How about, participate in our forums, and earn the chance to be banned from your favorite game forever by a power-starved, 17 year-old forum mod.
Guy 1: Brilliant! Next issue, blood sample toolkits packaged with all our games.
Guy 2: ??????
Guy 1: No, it's not what you think. It's only for the initial install... and three times a month after that.
The gameplay is radically different? Which game are you referring to?
Mario Galaxy radically different than Super Mario Sunshine?
Mario Kart Wii radically different than Mario Kart DS?
Metroid?
Zelda?
Smash Bros?
I guess it's a matter of opinion, but to me, the radical changes to Nintendo IPs mostly happened during the N64 era, and to a lesser extent, the Gamecube era, when games were making the switch from 2d to 3d. All of the games I've mentioned above share quite a bit in common with their N64 and Gamecube counterparts.
Finally, I ask, what's so wrong with wanting original IP's? Why do some people get so defensive when this is asked for?
"I hope this means there will be another Mario game for Wii. It has been a disappointing feature of the latest Nintendo consoles, that only one Mario is released per generation."
You know what, I actually kind of have to disagree with that sentiment. I mean, I guess I really wouldn't have anything against a new Mario, but in truth, I really just want to see something new from Nintendo. Looking at the games they've released for the Wii, you have a lot of sequels: Metroid, Smash Bros., Mario Kart, Zelda. I don't have anything against sequels, as long as they're good (and they are), but also I'd really like to see them expand into new IPs.
I'm aware that they have some new IPs, like Wii Fit, Wii Music and Wii Sports, but these are really just novelty IPs, not quite the kind of games I'm into.
I love Mario. Always will. But sometimes, Mario should sit it out.
Eh. I don't know. I'm sure Valve appreciates the compliment, but I doubt they'll be gushing over it. Valve's a fairly successfull company itself with a very solid reputation. Besides, you gotta take some compliments at face value. What was Miyamoto going to say, that Portal sucks balls?
"I always bitch when I see grown adults dedicating weeks of their time developing skills in inane games of pretend."
1. Then what the hell are you doing in a video game forum?
2. For someone who has, so far, 6 or more posts in a video game forum, you seem far too familiar with "inane" activities to be judging.
OOPS! Forgot to change the format. Here it is again in an easier to read format.
"The controllers and their abilities and effects on game play are what separates the Wii from the others, and PCs too. The XBox 360 and PS3 are basically PCs, and pretty much now just average PCs, if they're even that good. (Which is why they suck, btw"
How, exactly? I mean, I'm fully aware that the wiimote has a lot of potential and is, for lack of a better description, pretty cool in concept, but where is it really being utilized on the Wii that clearly demonstrates its influence on gaming and gaming design. For most of the games I see, it's merely a 1-to-1 mapping between the wiimote and the controller. Want evidence? Well, consider that Zelda: TP was released simultaneously on both the gamecube and the Wii. If the wiimote really was set apart from its controller counterpart, such a thing would seem unlikely. Also consider that many of the most popular games (Smash Bros, Mario Kart) are best played with a standard controller that allows tighter control. And perhaps the most damning evidence of all, most of the other popular games (Mario Galaxy, Metroid, Guitar Hero) are sequels that owe a LOT of their design elements to their predecessors. How much they take advantage of the wiimote is questionable when it seems, at least to me, that the games could be played just fine on a controller. Substituting a wiggle of the wiimote for a push of a button doesn't equal innovation to me.
When the wiimote first came out, we were promised a lot. Remember how excited the Star Wars fans were about the potential of a true lightsaber game? Remember all the promises of how well FPS games were going to work? Or swinging Links sword around? Or shooting hoops? We were all excited about it (myself included), but it didn't take long to realize that the full motion swing of the tennis racket was simply an exaggeration of an action that could be performed with the flick of a wrist. It didn't take long to realize the 1-to-1 motion required for a true light saber game simply wasn't possible with the wiimote. And a year later, in a market flooded by Nintendo sequels and casual games, I've slowly come to the realization that the awesome potential of the wiimote appears to have been greatly exaggerated.
"The controllers and their abilities and effects on game play are what separates the Wii from the others, and PCs too. The XBox 360 and PS3 are basically PCs, and pretty much now just average PCs, if they're even that good. (Which is why they suck, btw" How, exactly? I mean, I'm fully aware that the wiimote has a lot of potential and is, for lack of a better description, pretty cool in concept, but where is it really being utilized on the Wii that clearly demonstrates its influence on gaming and gaming design. For most of the games I see, it's merely a 1-to-1 mapping between the wiimote and the controller. Want evidence? Well, consider that Zelda: TP was released simultaneously on both the gamecube and the Wii. If the wiimote really was set apart from its controller counterpart, such a thing would seem unlikely. Also consider that many of the most popular games (Smash Bros, Mario Kart) are best played with a standard controller that allows tighter control. And perhaps the most damning evidence of all, most of the other popular games (Mario Galaxy, Metroid, Guitar Hero) are sequels that owe a LOT of their design elements to their predecessors. How much they take advantage of the wiimote is questionable when it seems, at least to me, that the games could be played just fine on a controller. Substituting a wiggle of the wiimote for a push of a button doesn't equal innovation to me. When the wiimote first came out, we were promised a lot. Remember how excited the Star Wars fans were about the potential of a true lightsaber game? Remember all the promises of how well FPS games were going to work? Or swinging Links sword around? Or shooting hoops? We were all excited about it (myself included), but it didn't take long to realize that the full motion swing of the tennis racket was simply an exaggeration of an action that could be performed with the flick of a wrist. It didn't take long to realize the 1-to-1 motion required for a true light saber game simply wasn't possible with the wiimote. And a year later, in a market flooded by Nintendo sequels and casual games, I've slowly come to the realization that the awesome potential of the wiimote appears to have been greatly exaggerated.
"The Wii has changed the definition of what makes a good game."
Okay, but I think that's exactly why many core gamers are scared of it. You say it so passively with little regard, but when kid friendly games with cutesy characters, or mini-game driven games become the face of the industry, it makes core gamers like myself very defensive.
And it's not even that we mind those games. Heck, I played the crap out Geometry Wars. I enjoy casual games sometimes and I don't even mind if a game is kiddie in nature. Psychonauts was one of my favorite games on the Xbox. But the problem isn't that these games exist, it's that, to the outside world, these games have become the face of the gaming community.
I liken it to the film industry. We all have our guilty pleasure movies. Heck, I still watch "My Cousin Vinny" about twice a year, even though I know it's cheesy. There's nothing wrong with that. But when people think of the films industry, they don't think of "My Cousin Vinny", "Saw V" or anything like that. Even though movies like that routinely bring it large amounts of money, the films that are remembered for decades are the "Schindler's Lists" or the "Saving Private Ryans". These are the films that become the face of the industry. Guilty pleasure movies are just that; guilty pleasures.
The video game industry has spent decades with the "kiddie" face. Even when amazing games like Half Life or FFVII were coming out, the perception amongst the non-gamers was that games were for kids, and could never hope to reach the level of sophistication that other genres had achieved. It felt like things were starting to change with the PS2. It found its way into most homes the same way the Wii did, by appealing to the casual gamers. But it also brought with it a plentiful amount of games likely to change the perception many people had of the gaming community. And I really felt that it was working.
But the Wii seems content to let things slip back into the way they used to be. Core gamers don't want kiddie games or casual games to be the face of the industry anymore, but with the overwhelming success of the Wii, it seems inevitable that that will happen. That it why a lot of core gamers have a fair amount of animosity towards the wii. Maybe their just being paranoid. Maybe I'M just being paranoid. But if you enjoyed gaming as much as I did, you'd probably be paranoid too.
Well Scot, glad you didn't speak for all of us. Exactly what games are you playing on the Wii that are so amazingly original? Aside from the control scheme, I can't think of many games on the wii that haven't been done in one form or another. Certainly the most popular games (Super Mario Galaxy, Mario Kart, Smash Bros., Guitar Hero, Metroid) seem to owe a great deal to their previous counterparts. I'm not sure it's fair to say that the 360 and the PS3 are clone factories when in fact many original titles and ideas have come out or are coming out for them. Besides, progress is very rarely a huge step forward. It usually takes baby steps. And the games that you consider to be generic sequels may have actually taken steps in new directions that most people wouldn't recognize if all they gave was a cursory glance at them.
Look, I don't mind the Wii's success. What I do mind is that people have this misconception that the Wii is making huge strides forward for the gaming industry, while the PS3 and the XBOX 360 are content to churn out the same products they've been releasing for years. I find that to be a little insulting. Aside from the Wii mote, I can't name a single thing the Wii has done that the other consoles haven't. And in several areas, the Wii is severely lacking in areas where the other two systems have made huge strides, like online capability and processing potential.
Yes, the Wii is successful, but give it only the credit it's due. It's successful because it targeted an audience that was being largely ignored by the two other console companies. It targeted the casual gamers, and it was largely successful. Nintendo should be proud to have made such a move. But pretending that the Wii is actually succeeding because it is somehow more special or original than the other two consoles is just plain false. The Wii is an exercise in successful marketing, not a beacon of gaming's true potential.
"Hardcore gamers are a minority" a kind of a misleading statement. While there are more casual gamers in number, hardcore gamers (or "core" gamers) spend significantly more on games and gaming equipment then their casual counterparts, so they hold a bit more weight. In truth, the number of consoles sold is only half the battle. The consoles have to sell software as well. So far, the Wii has been doing very well in that regard. But if they alienate the "core" gamers, something that's already been partially happening, the attach rate will drop significantly. Ignoring core gamers is a bad mistake, one that I'm sure Nintendo will rectify sooner rather than later.
And what is that reason? Better games? Not really. More powerful? Not really. Better online support? Definetly not. Interesting control scheme? Sure, I'll give it that.
I really don't mind the success of the Wii. I think it's a good thing that the industry grows to reach more potential gamers. But I hate when people make cryptic remarks about the Wii being somehow better than it's competition. It not. The PS3 and the Xbox 360 are very good systems that are a step forward for the industry. The wii's success, much like the Jonas Brothers, has very little to do with it's quality and far more to do with its target audience. The Wii targeted the casual gamers, and it worked. That doesn't mean it has something special that the other consoles are lacking. It simply went after the right people at the right time.
The Chinese and the russians killed in the name of communism and justified it with the claim of treason. They did NOT kill in the name of atheism.
I'm gonna post this anonymously, cause its off topic, but I wanted to share my story. When I first go Grand Theft Auto, Vice City, I played that thing like crazy for about a week. On Saturday, I had played it for about six hours straight and I decided to go to the store. I came up on a light and there was someone in the right lane who was going straight instead of turning right (I hate it when people do that). Without even thinking I swerved around him in a hurry and made a right turn from the middle lane, barely stopping to check for cross traffic. Needless to say, once I had made the turn, I realized that I had been playing a little too much. I promise, I was extra careful to obey the traffic laws for the rest of that trip.
As for you wanting to be tense and afraid to loose something you worked for, all I can say is this; A lot of people are like that, but it makes absolutely no since what-so-ever. Life is stressful, life is tense, life is challenging, so why in the hell would I want to "Play" a game that has those same factors?
Because in real life, if the axe murderer in the corner jumps out of the shadows and takes a swipe at you, no amount of health packets is gonna save you.
Incidentally, the whole "why would you want to do this escapist activity when it also exists in some fashion in real life" is a very played out argument that completely misses the point of escapism and why people enjoy it. Just thought you'd like to know.
1st install - don't know, don't care 2nd install - don't know, don't care 3rd install - don't know, don't care 4th install - "Hey Ma! What's the number to Geek Squad. This here game be broken."
I always liked "80% of statistics are wrong, 50% of the time."
Yeah, my whole second paragraph was a bad one. I didn't like it as soon as I posted it. I'm fully aware of limitations on free speech. Fire in a theater, publishing government secrets, slander and all that jazz. The point I was actually trying to get at but just couldn't articulate it (I was under time pressure) was that "speech has consequences" isn't justification enough for punishing speech. Yes, shouting fire is harmful, but to a far lesser degree, so is criticising the president. If "speech has consequences" was enough, it would seem justifiable to punish ANY speech with negative consequences. That, of course, wouldn't work.
My entire point was to discredit the "speech has consequences" argument, especially in this case. Wish I had spent a little more time on that second paragraph. Oh well.
Can't help it, I have to reply to you.
Yes, there are consequences to speech. If I say my boss is a moron in a bar after work, I might have every right to say it, but I can't cry "free speech" if I'm fired. Free speech doesn't apply to private organizations, and being fired is the consequence of my speech.
However, if the consequences come from the government instead of a private organization or individual, that's a whole different ballgame. The government can't punish someone for excercising free speech and then say, "oh well, those are the consequences." We have a fundamental right to freedom of speech that extends far. How can speech be free if the government levies fines or jail time as a result of it. Government issued rights cannot have government issued consequences, else they aren't rights at all.
Now, as for the whole libel thing, it's true that if this was handled as a civil court, the principal might have a case. But this isn't a libel case, this is a juristictional case. How far does the principal, who is himself and agent of the government, have juristiction over his students? That's what the question is.
The whole "there are consequences to your speech, free or not" argument completely misses the point of this case.
Well, no, but free speech doesn't apply to employee-employer relationships. It applies to citizen-government relationships. Your argument makes as much sense as those kids who cry "free speech violation" when they get kicked out of an online forum for making fun of the moderator's mom.
Yes, 'tolerate'. Hours and hours of 'tolerating'. Why, I've spent many weekends with my friends tolerating the game. Sometimes, we trick ourselves into thinking we're having fun with the game, and I have to speak up and remind my friends that we're actually just tolerating it. Everyone knows, a FPS can't be enjoyed on a console, but for some strange reason, we keep wanting to tolerate it some more.
Oh man, you've got to be kidding me. GoldenEye was a HUGE step forward for consoles in terms of FPS. Yes, it wasn't as polished as it's PC counterparts, but for a console game it was incredibly well done, and helped to prove that FPS could, in fact, be done on a console.
I don't know why you hate it so much. I like Halo a lot, but I still look back on the days of GoldenEye and Perfect Dark with fondness. You shouldn't be so cynical.
Yes, stories about aliens flying planes across space to dump other aliens into our volcanoes... that's insane.
A story about an ark carrying two of every animal in existence with enough food and supplies to last them forty days and forty nights... Well, guess that's pretty insane, too.
Most religions have their crazy stories. I find it odd that, as an atheist, I'm less critical of scientologists' beliefs than people of other faiths that have crazy beliefs of their own.
That's partly true. It is somewhat faulty to compare PC game sales to all console game sales and claim it as an accurate portrayal of the PC gaming market strength, but not entirely so. Like it or not, comparing the Xbox 360 to the PS3 is much different than comparing either of those consoles to the PC.
Consoles and PCs represent two unique market groups. While its not unheard of for a PC gamer to have a console or the other way around, the console pool and the PC pool are more distinct than the pools that separate each console system. A console player is far more likely to cross console platforms than he is to take up PC gaming. And PC gamers seem less likely to use a console unless they are forced to. If, for the sake of argument, Microsoft was suddenly to announce that they would no longer be selling or supporting the xbox 360, the 360 owners would probably move to another console. In a sense, the console pool and the PC pool exist independent of each other and that may legitimize comparisons between the two, though I admit the comparisons would always be tricky.
To further my point, consider game types. The types of games released on a 360 compared to the PS3 or even the Wii are more similar than the types of games released for the PC, both because the control schemes are different and because the tastes of the gamers are different. If the console market continues to grow larger than the PC market, it would make financial sense to design games that appeal to the console crowd. Also, because of the similarities between consoles, cross-platform games may work better across consoles rather that tapping into the PC market. And let's not forget, the PC has a LOT of issues that consoles don't have to deal with. Moving from one console to another is much less jarring than moving from a console to a PC.
So I guess my point is that, yes, to a certain degree, saying all consoles have sold X many games and all PCs have sold Y doesn't say much, but it also doesn't say nothing**. PC games and console games will always be somewhat polarized, and should the strength of all console platforms combined ever far outweigh the strength of the PC, it would be detriment to PC gamers regardless of each console's individual performance.
** (see, some double negatives work. Take that 9th grade English teachers everywhere.)