I almost hit the wall with Gears of War. I won't spoil anything, but let's just say I had a helluva time with the last boss. The rest of the game, I didn't have too much of a problem with, but the last guy was just brutal. Fortunately, after some tips from friends and lots of retrying, I was finally able to get it done. But yeah, I was awfully close to just packing it up.
From talking with a lot of folks, either they think the last guy is too easy, or (like me), a real pain in the ass.
It's the crazy game save locations and the ridiculous time constraints for each of the missions.
The key to Dead Rising is not being afraid to save and start over with your updated stats. There was one point where I screwed myself over, saving the game and then finding out that I didn't have enough time to complete the mission. So I started over, thinking that it was going to stuck having to go through the beginning part of the game again.
Well, not really. Since my stats were much better than the first time around, I found that I was playing the game much differently, and also much better. Before, I was only able to save a handful of survivors, between missions. Now? I could save twice as many, and found myself tackling them in different orders. It also helped knowing when certain events were going to take place, so I could put myself in the right place at the right time.
So yeah, the key to Dead Rising is not being afraid to start over. That said, I really do wish Capcom did a better job of handling the save system, or at least messaging the intent of it a bit better. Normally you associate any sort of "starting over" as a sort of failure, where in this game, it's almost expected that you do this at least once.
I take your point, but I would argue that 'action' adventure is a natural evolution. As game worlds become more immersive it is logical that players be given more freedom of action. As such, whereas in an old style point-and-click adventure there might be one single way to solve a given problem (i.e. solving a 'puzzle'), in more modern games it is possible to give the player the freedom to solve the problem as though it were real. One way of solving it might involve violence, but another might involve traditional adventure game-style puzzle solving.
I agree that the "Action Adventure" hybrid is a nice evolution, and can bring a lot more realism or immersiveness to the overall adventure games genre. That said, though, there is something to be said about pure adventure games that really don't require much "twitch" or reflexes in the gameplay.
Action Adventure games such as Deux Ex and Zelda, still require much in the way of reflexes. It's not something I can easily non-gamers just getting into. However, something like Hotel Dusk (new adventure game for the DS), is something much more approachable, even by those who haven't spent years playing video games.
No, the thing is, this is the first time I've seen any Wii consoles that weren't already about to be sold. I see stacks of PS3 consoles all the time at various locations here, but every time I've seen a Wii, it's in the process of being bought out by someone within a few minutes of appearing.
That was why it was unusual. Just the concept that they actually had more than one.
I think you missed my point. I agree it's unusual. And you don't have to convince me that Wii consoles are selling a lot better than PS3 consoles.
It seemed to me that you were trying to make the point that Wii consoles are becoming more available, just through your one experience. I'm just saying that I don't see that as being the case yet. Apologies if that wasn't the point you were trying to make.
Anyway, one day I will be able to swing by Costco, and see stacks of Wii consoles (perhaps with a nice Zelda bundle) sitting on the warehouse floor. At that time, I'll take the plunge and buy one. Since it took till March for the 360 to be readily available at retail last year, I'll make the same prediction and say it'll take March as well for this to happen for the Wii.
Can someone please name ONE game that the Wii has that is worth playing? I considered getting the latest Zelda game and a Wii, but it was the only game worth getting it seemed. So, I just got the gamecube version.
This isn't really a reply to you, as it is to all the Wii fanboys that are about to flame you for being dumb, and citing their favorite Wii games as proof that the Wii is superior to all.
To be honest, I'm in the same boat you are. Looking at the line-up and my particular preference for games, I really don't see much besides Zelda for me. Yeah, I'm not exactly the "new audience" that Nintendo is looking for, since I am most certainly considered a "hardcore gamer" (although it's really RPGs that are my thing, not so much shooters). I know a lot of people are raving about Rayman, Elebits, and Wii Sports, expecting everyone to share the same opinion they are. Meh. Doesn't really excite me. (Then again, I imagine games like Gears of War, World of Warcraft, Metal Gear Solid, and Final Fantasy, don't really excite many of these Wii fanboys either) Let's remember everyone, to each his own.
That said, I still want a Wii, just to try out the experience. Since the console is cheap enough, why not?
Actually, even though the Wii is hard to find, I saw two Wii consoles on sale at a small GameStop store just one block from Northgate Mall in Seattle, as well as the usual stack of PS3 consoles. So you can buy them, at least as of Sunday afternoon. Both consoles.
To me, anecdotal stories like that are rather pointless. All it means is that you were able to find it that one time. One event doesn't mean anything. After all, you could just have been lucky. I can tell you that I haven't been (and I also live in this area).
It's the same thing regarding stories of PS3s sitting on shelves. The first few reports don't matter. However, after some time, and with report after report coming in, then you can start to think there's some truth in there.
But for the time being, I don't really hear that with the Wii. At least not yet. Maybe a couple more weeks?
The "political cartoons" of the game industry
on
PAX Embiggened For 2007
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Am I the only one who finds Penny Arcade's seeming influence inexplicable? The problem with Penny Arcade strips is that most of them aren't even comprehensible -- much less funny -- without a dozen paragraphs of supplementary commentary.
While certainly some of their comics could be funny to anyone who doesn't follow the games industry (such as today's comic), I agree that there are others that you wouldn't "get" unless you were into gaming (such as one earlier this week regarding WoW). But you know what? I don't think that's a bad thing at all.
If you don't get the jokes, then they probably weren't meant for you in the first place. In the meantime, all of us video game junkies still get a kick of out them (hence their massive popularity).
If that attitude seems a bit elitist, then yeah, I guess we're guilty of that.:)
Look I upgrade my PC about every 2 years. Since nintendo is making money on every console sold, whats preventing them from releasing much more powerful version in a year or 2. It could be as powerful as PS3 or X-Box but quite inexpensive because all of the components become cheaper by then. They could call it next generation:) I would buy it - Wii costs as much as my graphic card on PC. (And I replace it every 18 months)
There is definately precedent with Nintendo doing this. All you need to do is look at their portable systems. I admit to being one of the suckers who bought the original Game Boy Advance, then upgrade to the GBA SP, then the original DS, and finally to the DS Lite (taking advantage of trade-ins along the way).
I do think, though, that this is a harder thing to pull with consoles. That said, I would not be surprised if we see console revisions from multiple companies (notably Nintendo and MS), addressing things like adding in DVD/HD-DVD functionality, hard-drives (or larger ones), more HD video options (like HDMI), etc. As an "early adopter", I think it sucks, but then again, I also have a lot of friends who WON'T adopt until those revisions make it in.:P
Perhaps the real question is whether or not there will be a loser in this round. Whereas the previous generation had a real loser in the Dreamcast, will this generation see one of the "Big Three" falling down substantially?
Some people conveniently forget the Dreamcast and call the Gamecube the loser of the previous generation, but as you mentioned, this is a business we're talking about, and the Gamecube didn't lose Nintendo any money.
I think asking "Is there a loser?" is an interesting question. You could say that no matter what, it'll be hard for Nintendo and MS to truly lose. Nintendo, regardless of the market share of the Wii, is going to make a profit, and can always depend on extremely strong sales of the DS. For MS, they obviously have their huge Windows/Office divisions to fall back on. I'm not sure with Sony, though, since I remember seeing reports that their games division is responsible for a significant portion of the total company's profits. So arguably, I agree with you that they have the most to lose in the end.
On what criteria do we evaluate a winner? Consoles sold, games sold, profits? It makes a difference, does it not?
I think generally the "winner" is essentially the market share leader (which obviously is tied to consoles sold).
Now granted, you could argue that it should probably be tied to profits, since this is a business we are talking about. However, that's a bit difficult seeing how there's much more to MS and Sony than just their game units (MGS is notorious for losing the company money), so they can afford to be a loss leader. Alternatively, Nintendo is pretty much solely focused on games, so while their consoles may not be the market leader, they still make a profit on each one (GameCube is the best example).
Also, with the market share, comes the spoils: more developers likely to focus on your platform, more exclusives, more games... which generates an even larger market share, etc.
LOL, pretty funny how all three of your fanbois misspelled "definitely" in the same way!:-)
Argh, "definately" is my Achilles' heel of spelling. I didn't mean to spell it incorrectly, although in that context, I guess it does make sense.;)
Joking aside, I think you're absolutely right -- the only people who are making bold predictions now are either (a) fans of one of the platforms, or (b) paid by the creators of the platforms, or (c) clueless idiots. Personally, I think Sony will win in the long term, precisely because Sony is thinking in the long term. I bet the Sony execs don't give a damn how much they're losing on each PS3 unit, while the PS2 is continuing to outsell the 360. When was the last time anyone bought a brand-new last-gen Xbox? Or a last-gen Gamecube?
I'm actually (B), since I work at MS, although really, you have to have an open mind if you really want to succeed in the industry. (Besides, in 5 years I might be working for Nintendo, Sony, or some other game company)
Xbox and GC sales are essentially dead, because their respective owners have put all their eggs in the new systems. I can't blame them. The 360 and Wii offer so much more over their predecessors in terms of new features and services (Xbox Live, Virtual Console, Wii-mote, etc.), and the original machines weren't exactly selling like hot cakes to begin with.
I agree that the PS2 selling so well is beneficial to Sony, at least when it comes to their bottom line. However, it does have an impact on PS3 sales, so it'll be interesting to see just how much longer the PS2 will last...
Disclaimer, I work for MS, so I'm technically a 360 guy... although what I may next may surprise some of you...
PS/2 is an amazing platform; it's 4 years old now, and there's still new titles being released for it.
I have to say that the PS2 can probably be considered one of the best video game platforms of all time. It would definately rank up there with the NES or SNES in my book. Reason? It's not so much the PS2 itself, but the amazing library of games it had. It pretty much had all of the major franchises (Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, Madden), revitalized others (Grand Theft Auto 3 hit it big here), created a few (God of War, Devil May Cry), and was also home to a bunch of smaller (but really outstanding) titles (Disgaea, Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, etc.). It's not surprising though, since a great library comes with the territory of being far-and-away the market share leader. So yeah, no argument here at all.
There's some excellent titles for PSP. I'm planning to purchase a PS/3 in the next year or so, and I expect I'll be equally happy with it. I also don't expect that I'll have to replace it within 5 years.
I would certainly hope the PS3 lasts longer than 5 years, myself... since $500/600 is a lot of money to spend on one system (not counting even extra accessories and games). That said, I think the main allure of the PS3 has to do with the domination the PS2 had against all others. If it can repeat having the same game library, then I have no doubt the system will do outstanding (despite what all the nay-sayers say). The problem, of course, is that games industry is ever changing. It wasn't that long ago that Nintendo was in the same position (NES/SNES days), with the same amazing library, and no one gave any thought to the new upstart called Sony...
If sony actually managed to get a $300 PS3 out, it would change dramatically the number of sold consoles.
Yes, but would it sell twice as many? The premium PS3 SKU is $600 USD. To break even on revenue, Sony would have to sell twice as many. I really don't see that happening. Certainly, you'd get a lot more people buying the systems, but a significant number of people still sitting on their hands, waiting for actual games to come out, or an actual winner for the HD-DVD/Blu-ray battle to be decided.
Plus, it doesn't even consider that Sony is already taking a loss on the sale of each system, so to make up selling that many more systems, the software attach rate has to increase substantially. That's really not going to happen, especially this early in a console life-cycle.
As much as gamers would love for Sony to drop the PS3 price drastically (myself included), I really can't see them doing it any time soon, without totally tanking the business side of things. After all, they are ultimately beholden to their shareholders.
I was surprised by how good the analyst opinions were. They all pretty much said the same thing: Wii is doing well, MS is on track, and Sony is lagging a bit now... but it's still too early to say who the long-term market leader will be. I think that's definately the right approach to take.
In contrast, here's a typical fanboy view of all the consoles:
Wii Pro: Wii-mote rules! It's all about the innovation and gameplay. Sony and MS have none of that, so they're doomed! Who cares about HD? Look at the holiday sales! We are DEFINATELY going to win. Con: The Wii was doomed from the start when they released the hardware specs. HD is the wave of the future. The "waggle" is just a gimmick, no one is going to want a "GameCube 1.5" months from now. Nintendo is DOOMED.
Xbox 360 Pro: First to 10 million baby! Also, see how Sony is losing exclusives left and right. Xbox Live all the way. Finally, Halo 3 babeeee! We are DEFINATELY going to win. Con: M$ should go back to making Windows. 360 is failing in Japan, and red-lights are everywhere! M$ is DOOOMED.
Playstation 3 Pro: Blu-ray all the way baby! PS3 is the real next-gen and HD. Also, the PS2 is still selling like hot-cakes. Finally, you can't deny the power of MGS4 and FFXIII. We are DEFINATELY going to win. Con: Batteries exploding, root kits, and constant PR fiascos. Also, PS3s sitting on shelves everywhere? $ony is DOOMED!
Certainly, there are lots of both truth and falseness to the statements above, which is why fanboys keep making them. However, it's still way too early to tell anything, especially when consoles generally last for years and perceptions change quickly. Remember how doomed many people thought Nintendo was when they first announced the "Wii" name? Or how silly the DS seemed, compared to the sexiness of the PSP? Or about how solid the PlayStation brand was a year and half ago?
Unless Nintendo has bred Pikimin that can assemble the components in seconds, not bleepin' likely. After all, installing a CD-ROM drive into a case takes the same amount of time as installing a Blu-ray drive.
Well, there is a shortage of the parts needed to build Blu-ray drives, so that's one difference. Also, I believe much of the hardware in the Wii is quite similar to the GameCube, so I presume it'll be easier to get better yields out of the manufacturing of those parts. No so much with the 360 or especially the PS3.
One thing that annoyed me with the first wave of DS game was the number of games that threw in the touch screen functionality as an ill-thought gimmick. Castlevania Dawn of Sorrow came to mind. Good game, but the stylus mechanic (forcing you to make some silly drawing right at the end of a harrowing boss fight) was lame. The next Castlevania game did a much better job, not forcing the player to use the stylus where it was inappropriate.
Not only is copycatting something that gamers are willing to accept, but after the initial uproar dies down, the copycat frequently wins. Very few people would care if one system was copying the other. The system with the best games wins every time.
The dualshock was Sony copycatting the N64 analog stick and rumble pak. Look how that turned out....
That's a good point, and I didn't think about that. You can also point to the hard-drive as another example. The Xbox had it, and when Sony announced they were putting one in the PS3, there was a lot of "copycat!" grumbling at first, but now it's almost just a given for it to be there. Wireless is another great example.
So, why is it that we make such a fuss over the Sony "copycats" of the Wii controller, and their own attempt at network services?
I think the reason has to do with how good the copycat turns out to be. Copying "simple" technology such as rumble, wireless controllers, and adding a hard-drive to a system, is pretty darn easy and is almost a given. However, the Wii-mote and Xbox Live (especially considering the head start that service has), is not so easy. If Sony, or any other company, was able to copy these features, and do it well... then I agree, we probably wouldn't be complaining about copycats in the first place.
Which is why Microsoft definately needs to either kill Sony now (unlikely, despite the bad press Sony seems to attract) or build up their Live and other online services. Integrating the system with Vista is an interesting idea, and one we'll have to see how it pans out.
I have to be honest. Even as a gamer who works at MS (and in games, no doubt), I was skeptical about putting so much emphasis on Live and the services. I just want to play games, dammit. That said, after living with the 360 for a year, and getting a taste of Xbox Live, achievements, arcade, yadda yadda, I now see that it really is a big thing, and a major strength. And apparently, it's something a lot of other gamers like as well (certainly not all, but a significant number, as evidenced by all the people posting in forums with their gamercard).
I'll also note that Nintendo has the unique opportunity to completely blow it. I'm not saying it's going to happen, but if they get high on the DS and Wii sales and forget to make sweet games on the Wii to showcase what it can do they may lose all of their momentum.
Well, it's that and third party as well. Nintendo has always been a solid first-party developer, but it's the lack of 3rd party titles that's been their doom lately (at least with consoles, not portables). With the number of Wii consoles that are selling, though, I think a 3rd party would be crazy not to consider it as a viable platform though.
Anyway, it's a great time to be a gamer. If all the companies play to their strengths we could have 3 unique and worthwhile systems to own.
Definately agree here. Competition is a good thing. I like the innovations that are occuring this time around. It seems to be a lot more than the "build a faster console and games with prettier graphics" cycle of old.
I totally agree with the "jaded gamer" category. I've been thinking about it myself, since I have lots of friends that fall into that area. They grew up with games in high school and college, but ever since joining the ranks of the working world, haven't really gotten into games much since then. From reading Slashdot comments, a lot of folks here fall into the same category as well.
Frankly, that's another thing that Nintendo will excel at. These gamers remember brands such as Mario, Metroid, and Zelda. It's familiar to them, in a good way. In the meantime, it's hard to get them interested in the next Halo or GTA or God of War.
Not everyone is like you and cares about ultra-high-res splash scenes, or your "emotional" graphics.
Err, did you actually read my comment? Here is my quote again: "I'm not talking about just graphics, but all the other "stuff" in that game (physics, the size of the world, etc.)."
I've played Oblivion and I'll tell you that thing I disliked the most about it was its graphics. There was way too much "uncanney valley" going on there. But what kept me hooked was the gameplay. Go read a bunch of reviews on the game, or talk to people who've played it, and you'll see the reason why people liked it wasn't purely because of it's graphics. It was the AI, skill system, world size, etc. Unfortunately it takes quite a lot of power to drive all of that. Asides from that, the interface wasn't designed for the Wii-mote to begin with.
So, instead of a poorly-designed port of Oblivion (which by your estimate would take only "three months"), I would much rather have a stand-alone RPG for the Wii that better utilized its strengths. Yeah, so it's not necessarily a graphic/hardware powerhouse, but so what. There are lots of other things that can be done instead. Give me THAT game than a port, any day.
Many of us care a lot more about the game play, and since most of America still uses 480p standard TVs (some even have analog TV sets), all the high-end stuff is a waste of time. Technically, if you have an HDTV that's less than 40 inches, it really isn't that different anyway.
When did I ever talk about HDTV? I never said anything like "lolerz the Wii sucks because it's not HD". Can you take off your rose-colored Nintendo glasses for a bit, and see that I was praising the system for not being yet-another-destination for bad multi-platform ports?
Sorry, Will, but sometimes you make Nintendo fanboys hang their head in shame.:)
as I understand it, due to the low dev costs, it's a lot easier to port the HD 1070p titles which ship with graphics levels for 480p, 720i/p, and 1080i/p for the PS3 and 360. So it can be as short as three months to port to the Wii.
I don't think that's an adequate assesment, unfortunately. Sure, "toning down the graphics" (resolutions, etc.) might not be terribly difficult, but certainly re-architecturing the code is not trivial. Porting something like Oblivion to the Wii just isn't possible, since there's less under the hood for the Wii. I'm not talking about just graphics, but all the other "stuff" in that game (physics, the size of the world, etc.).
Now, I don't think that's a bad thing at all. If anything, it's a benefit. Why would you want to play an extremely-toned down game of Oblivion for the Wii, which wasn't designed to work with the Wii-mote interface in the first place? I would much rather have unique games designed for the Wii from the ground-up, than half-assed ports that are essentially just a money grab.
That said, I think we will unfortunately see lots of ports for the Wii, but not from the PS3 and 360. The Wii hardware has more in common with the PS2/PSP/DS. So I expect more Wii ports from those systems.
2. Copycatting. Sony came under enough fire for their SIXAXIS being a cheap knock off aimed at stealing the Wii's thunder. Imagine the jeers at an outright, blatant copy.
I completely agree. Copycatting is a very reactive thing to do, and for all the reasons you've mentioned, not a very good idea.
This generation, it appears that all the major players have their own strengths that they can focus on, to try to distinguish them apart from everyone else. Nintendo, obviously, has the Wii-mote and everything that new interface can bring. MS is focusing a lot on all of the software/services of the 360, especially with Xbox Live. Sony, well, it's hard to say, but I imagine they would have to build their strength on just the raw power of the PS3, and really prove to gamers that their system is far more sophisticated than the others. Oh, and that Blu-ray thing too I suppose.
I agree. While so far all the games I've bought for my Wii are ones I've rated 4 or 5 out of 5 (surprises even me), I really wish there were more RPGs. I'm looking forward to Wii Sims (aka Sims for the Wii), but that's not in the same category.
RPGs typically don't come out with a console launch, since they're arguably much more complex than most other types of games (thus take longer to develop). The reason why we did see a Zelda (and I wouldn't call it a pure RPG, it's more of an action/adventure game), is because it was under development for the GameCube for years.
I really haven't paid attention to launch dates for Wii games, but I would imagine that we'll start seeing RPGs for the Wii sometime this year. One thing to look forward to, is a new Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles game for the Wii, although that will probably ship in '08.
Maybe it would be more useful to look at the Wii this way: Do people who bought a Wii enjoy it three months, six months, a year after purchase? The target audience is broader, and the games are different than those for PS2, XBox 360, et al. I'm reminded of all the early analysis of how the iPod was going to go down in flames. The analysts didn't understand that the target audience wasn't technophiles, but regular average everyday people.
The way I see it, there are two major audiences involved here. You've got your standard console gamer, who probably had a GameCube or some other system. He/she is looking for your typical "hefty" video game experience (20+ hours of gameplay, plenty of play modes, decent challenge, etc.), and buy maybe 5+ games a year.
Then you've got your "new gamer", which Nintendo is now catering too, with lighter and easier fare (Wii Sports). These new gamers, your grandparents, for example, aren't suddenly going to become your standard console gamer, purchasing 5+ games a year, spending hours in front of the console, etc. The Wii will be something they pull out from time to time, maybe when friends are over, or maybe when the grandkids visit, etc. That's fine.
So, the doom and gloom we hear from typical hardcore gamers saying that the Wii needs to "step up as a gaming platform" is somewhat unwarranted. It's already doing it's job with that new audience, and arguably, that's really the important one for Nintendo.
Hope this helps even the playing field for the Wii competition. Now if I could just find another Wii-mote...
Argh, when did getting a console become a game itself? I know it's by no means a new trend. There were massive shortages with the PS2, the 360, again with the PS3 (albeit that was somewhat short), and once more with the Wii.
Now, I work in games, so I know the difficulty involved. MS got a lot of flack last year regarding the 360, which wasn't readily available until March. I was hoping that it wouldn't be the case with the Wii, since presumably they are much easier to build, but it is looking like I won't be able to just "grab one on the way home" any time soon either.
Slashdot Mirror
I almost hit the wall with Gears of War. I won't spoil anything, but let's just say I had a helluva time with the last boss. The rest of the game, I didn't have too much of a problem with, but the last guy was just brutal. Fortunately, after some tips from friends and lots of retrying, I was finally able to get it done. But yeah, I was awfully close to just packing it up.
From talking with a lot of folks, either they think the last guy is too easy, or (like me), a real pain in the ass.
Well, not really. Since my stats were much better than the first time around, I found that I was playing the game much differently, and also much better. Before, I was only able to save a handful of survivors, between missions. Now? I could save twice as many, and found myself tackling them in different orders. It also helped knowing when certain events were going to take place, so I could put myself in the right place at the right time.
So yeah, the key to Dead Rising is not being afraid to start over. That said, I really do wish Capcom did a better job of handling the save system, or at least messaging the intent of it a bit better. Normally you associate any sort of "starting over" as a sort of failure, where in this game, it's almost expected that you do this at least once.
Action Adventure games such as Deux Ex and Zelda, still require much in the way of reflexes. It's not something I can easily non-gamers just getting into. However, something like Hotel Dusk (new adventure game for the DS), is something much more approachable, even by those who haven't spent years playing video games.
It seemed to me that you were trying to make the point that Wii consoles are becoming more available, just through your one experience. I'm just saying that I don't see that as being the case yet. Apologies if that wasn't the point you were trying to make.
Anyway, one day I will be able to swing by Costco, and see stacks of Wii consoles (perhaps with a nice Zelda bundle) sitting on the warehouse floor. At that time, I'll take the plunge and buy one. Since it took till March for the 360 to be readily available at retail last year, I'll make the same prediction and say it'll take March as well for this to happen for the Wii.
To be honest, I'm in the same boat you are. Looking at the line-up and my particular preference for games, I really don't see much besides Zelda for me. Yeah, I'm not exactly the "new audience" that Nintendo is looking for, since I am most certainly considered a "hardcore gamer" (although it's really RPGs that are my thing, not so much shooters). I know a lot of people are raving about Rayman, Elebits, and Wii Sports, expecting everyone to share the same opinion they are. Meh. Doesn't really excite me. (Then again, I imagine games like Gears of War, World of Warcraft, Metal Gear Solid, and Final Fantasy, don't really excite many of these Wii fanboys either) Let's remember everyone, to each his own.
That said, I still want a Wii, just to try out the experience. Since the console is cheap enough, why not?
It's the same thing regarding stories of PS3s sitting on shelves. The first few reports don't matter. However, after some time, and with report after report coming in, then you can start to think there's some truth in there.
But for the time being, I don't really hear that with the Wii. At least not yet. Maybe a couple more weeks?
If you don't get the jokes, then they probably weren't meant for you in the first place. In the meantime, all of us video game junkies still get a kick of out them (hence their massive popularity).
If that attitude seems a bit elitist, then yeah, I guess we're guilty of that.
I do think, though, that this is a harder thing to pull with consoles. That said, I would not be surprised if we see console revisions from multiple companies (notably Nintendo and MS), addressing things like adding in DVD/HD-DVD functionality, hard-drives (or larger ones), more HD video options (like HDMI), etc. As an "early adopter", I think it sucks, but then again, I also have a lot of friends who WON'T adopt until those revisions make it in.
Now granted, you could argue that it should probably be tied to profits, since this is a business we are talking about. However, that's a bit difficult seeing how there's much more to MS and Sony than just their game units (MGS is notorious for losing the company money), so they can afford to be a loss leader. Alternatively, Nintendo is pretty much solely focused on games, so while their consoles may not be the market leader, they still make a profit on each one (GameCube is the best example).
Also, with the market share, comes the spoils: more developers likely to focus on your platform, more exclusives, more games
Xbox and GC sales are essentially dead, because their respective owners have put all their eggs in the new systems. I can't blame them. The 360 and Wii offer so much more over their predecessors in terms of new features and services (Xbox Live, Virtual Console, Wii-mote, etc.), and the original machines weren't exactly selling like hot cakes to begin with.
I agree that the PS2 selling so well is beneficial to Sony, at least when it comes to their bottom line. However, it does have an impact on PS3 sales, so it'll be interesting to see just how much longer the PS2 will last
Plus, it doesn't even consider that Sony is already taking a loss on the sale of each system, so to make up selling that many more systems, the software attach rate has to increase substantially. That's really not going to happen, especially this early in a console life-cycle.
As much as gamers would love for Sony to drop the PS3 price drastically (myself included), I really can't see them doing it any time soon, without totally tanking the business side of things. After all, they are ultimately beholden to their shareholders.
I was surprised by how good the analyst opinions were. They all pretty much said the same thing: Wii is doing well, MS is on track, and Sony is lagging a bit now ... but it's still too early to say who the long-term market leader will be. I think that's definately the right approach to take.
In contrast, here's a typical fanboy view of all the consoles:
Wii
Pro: Wii-mote rules! It's all about the innovation and gameplay. Sony and MS have none of that, so they're doomed! Who cares about HD? Look at the holiday sales! We are DEFINATELY going to win.
Con: The Wii was doomed from the start when they released the hardware specs. HD is the wave of the future. The "waggle" is just a gimmick, no one is going to want a "GameCube 1.5" months from now. Nintendo is DOOMED.
Xbox 360
Pro: First to 10 million baby! Also, see how Sony is losing exclusives left and right. Xbox Live all the way. Finally, Halo 3 babeeee! We are DEFINATELY going to win.
Con: M$ should go back to making Windows. 360 is failing in Japan, and red-lights are everywhere! M$ is DOOOMED.
Playstation 3
Pro: Blu-ray all the way baby! PS3 is the real next-gen and HD. Also, the PS2 is still selling like hot-cakes. Finally, you can't deny the power of MGS4 and FFXIII. We are DEFINATELY going to win.
Con: Batteries exploding, root kits, and constant PR fiascos. Also, PS3s sitting on shelves everywhere? $ony is DOOMED!
Certainly, there are lots of both truth and falseness to the statements above, which is why fanboys keep making them. However, it's still way too early to tell anything, especially when consoles generally last for years and perceptions change quickly. Remember how doomed many people thought Nintendo was when they first announced the "Wii" name? Or how silly the DS seemed, compared to the sexiness of the PSP? Or about how solid the PlayStation brand was a year and half ago?
Yeah, go figure.
One thing that annoyed me with the first wave of DS game was the number of games that threw in the touch screen functionality as an ill-thought gimmick. Castlevania Dawn of Sorrow came to mind. Good game, but the stylus mechanic (forcing you to make some silly drawing right at the end of a harrowing boss fight) was lame. The next Castlevania game did a much better job, not forcing the player to use the stylus where it was inappropriate.
So, why is it that we make such a fuss over the Sony "copycats" of the Wii controller, and their own attempt at network services?
I think the reason has to do with how good the copycat turns out to be. Copying "simple" technology such as rumble, wireless controllers, and adding a hard-drive to a system, is pretty darn easy and is almost a given. However, the Wii-mote and Xbox Live (especially considering the head start that service has), is not so easy. If Sony, or any other company, was able to copy these features, and do it well
Well, it's that and third party as well. Nintendo has always been a solid first-party developer, but it's the lack of 3rd party titles that's been their doom lately (at least with consoles, not portables). With the number of Wii consoles that are selling, though, I think a 3rd party would be crazy not to consider it as a viable platform though.
Definately agree here. Competition is a good thing. I like the innovations that are occuring this time around. It seems to be a lot more than the "build a faster console and games with prettier graphics" cycle of old.
I totally agree with the "jaded gamer" category. I've been thinking about it myself, since I have lots of friends that fall into that area. They grew up with games in high school and college, but ever since joining the ranks of the working world, haven't really gotten into games much since then. From reading Slashdot comments, a lot of folks here fall into the same category as well.
Frankly, that's another thing that Nintendo will excel at. These gamers remember brands such as Mario, Metroid, and Zelda. It's familiar to them, in a good way. In the meantime, it's hard to get them interested in the next Halo or GTA or God of War.
I've played Oblivion and I'll tell you that thing I disliked the most about it was its graphics. There was way too much "uncanney valley" going on there. But what kept me hooked was the gameplay. Go read a bunch of reviews on the game, or talk to people who've played it, and you'll see the reason why people liked it wasn't purely because of it's graphics. It was the AI, skill system, world size, etc. Unfortunately it takes quite a lot of power to drive all of that. Asides from that, the interface wasn't designed for the Wii-mote to begin with.
So, instead of a poorly-designed port of Oblivion (which by your estimate would take only "three months"), I would much rather have a stand-alone RPG for the Wii that better utilized its strengths. Yeah, so it's not necessarily a graphic/hardware powerhouse, but so what. There are lots of other things that can be done instead. Give me THAT game than a port, any day.
When did I ever talk about HDTV? I never said anything like "lolerz the Wii sucks because it's not HD". Can you take off your rose-colored Nintendo glasses for a bit, and see that I was praising the system for not being yet-another-destination for bad multi-platform ports?
Sorry, Will, but sometimes you make Nintendo fanboys hang their head in shame.
Now, I don't think that's a bad thing at all. If anything, it's a benefit. Why would you want to play an extremely-toned down game of Oblivion for the Wii, which wasn't designed to work with the Wii-mote interface in the first place? I would much rather have unique games designed for the Wii from the ground-up, than half-assed ports that are essentially just a money grab.
That said, I think we will unfortunately see lots of ports for the Wii, but not from the PS3 and 360. The Wii hardware has more in common with the PS2/PSP/DS. So I expect more Wii ports from those systems.
This generation, it appears that all the major players have their own strengths that they can focus on, to try to distinguish them apart from everyone else. Nintendo, obviously, has the Wii-mote and everything that new interface can bring. MS is focusing a lot on all of the software/services of the 360, especially with Xbox Live. Sony, well, it's hard to say, but I imagine they would have to build their strength on just the raw power of the PS3, and really prove to gamers that their system is far more sophisticated than the others. Oh, and that Blu-ray thing too I suppose.
I really haven't paid attention to launch dates for Wii games, but I would imagine that we'll start seeing RPGs for the Wii sometime this year. One thing to look forward to, is a new Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles game for the Wii, although that will probably ship in '08.
Then you've got your "new gamer", which Nintendo is now catering too, with lighter and easier fare (Wii Sports). These new gamers, your grandparents, for example, aren't suddenly going to become your standard console gamer, purchasing 5+ games a year, spending hours in front of the console, etc. The Wii will be something they pull out from time to time, maybe when friends are over, or maybe when the grandkids visit, etc. That's fine.
So, the doom and gloom we hear from typical hardcore gamers saying that the Wii needs to "step up as a gaming platform" is somewhat unwarranted. It's already doing it's job with that new audience, and arguably, that's really the important one for Nintendo.
Now, I work in games, so I know the difficulty involved. MS got a lot of flack last year regarding the 360, which wasn't readily available until March. I was hoping that it wouldn't be the case with the Wii, since presumably they are much easier to build, but it is looking like I won't be able to just "grab one on the way home" any time soon either.