For one thing, Nintendo's handheld market looks like it may pull through the rough-spot of the 3DS' release and continue to do well. On a related note, in Japan the trend may be headed toward handheld gaming largely replacing console gaming, with Nintendo at the forefront.
If the WiiU doesn't catch on like it should (and I don't really know how well it should do in Nintendo's eyes), I'd say it's more likely that Nintendo pulls out of the home console market and scales back operations, or it just maintains its holding pattern of pulling down N64-Gamecube levels of console profitability, since their consoles are conservatively designed so as to require little or no recoupment of costs, until it can gauge where the market has developed and attempt to re-enter. Don't forget - much of the profit Nintendo has been pulling in has been figuratively put under the mattress (one of the major reasons behind their loss this previous year due to fluctuations in the currency market); it affords them the ability to retreat and reassess if need be.
Actually Nintendo's been experimenting with crazy controllers for a while now. The N64 had that crazy dinosaur foot, while the Cube's was this crazy asymmetrical Picasso thing. The Wiimote just took that to a different level, with varying degrees of success (high sales for the system, but confusing/annoying the third parties in the process).
The Cube didn't have a crazy controller. It was, for the most part, exactly the same as a PS2 or Xbox controller, minus two buttons. You had a d-pad, two analog sticks, two analog triggers, and four face buttons (plus start). It may have been a slightly odd design aesthetically, but it was really just the same crap.
Another crazy thing about the Gamecube... I suspect that part of its problem was that, because of its color scheme and rainbow controller and minidisk and lunch pail and it's low price, much of the market just assumed that the thing was underpowered. I've heard a lot of people get surprised when they find out it was actually more powerful than the PS2.
It also got hampered a lot by getting shitty PS2 ports, while the Xbox would get better versions. Actually, this continued at least a bit into the Wii as well, with some multiplatform titles (like Guitar Hero, IIRC). The Cube was a more powerful system than the PS2, but that doesn't matter if developers aren't using it. But Cube exclusives were usually pretty pimpin'.
I could be remembering that wrong, though.
Whereas with the Wii, being underpowered wasn't too much of a problem in the long run since the casual market was so enthralled by motion controls (hence all the casual games).
Maybe. I think it was actually better in the short run, because in the long run that enthrallment wore off. I remember when all the talk was about grandma loving her Wii. I don't hear all that much about it now. Now it's that thing that collects dust, because (for the non-trads) the fun of motion controls in and of themselves wore off and (for the traditional gamers) most games look like a gigantic open asshole when smeared across any decent HDTV.
Yup, I said it. I loved the shit out of my Wii when I was playing it on a 19" CRT. But the tacked-on waggle got annoying, most proper motion-controlled games got boring (and most were really just minigames), and I started playing it more on my flatscreen than on the shitty TV I took to school. Suddenly the appeal was lost. I won't say I regretted buying it, but I will say I'm damn glad I sold it before the price drop.
And I think I said before, I know damn well that graphics aren't the end-all be-all. But there is a certain minimum standard that players do expect. As TVs get bigger, that goes up. Hell, you don't even need to render at higher resolutions; plenty of Xbox and PS3 games are rendered at near-SD levels of quality. They get away with it through a combination of antialiasing, effects, and at least having HD resolution for non-3D elements (HUDs, menus, text, etc). There are only a handful of games that I wouldn't have much rather played on my Xbox 360 over the Wii. Most would have been better on other consoles. Including most first-party games. For instance, Mario Galaxy? Would have been better in HD and without waggle.
Actually, fuck that. Mario Galaxy would have been better on the GameCube, too. Bye waggle. Loved my 'Cube.
mcdermott on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
There are a handful of games that I wouldn't have much rather played on my Xbox 360 over the Wii. Including most first-party games. For instance, Mario Galaxy? Would have been better in HD and without waggle.
That's part of my beef, too. Other than Wii Sports, the Wii games I've really enjoyed I still would have preferred to play them in HD with traditional controls. I tolerated the Wiimote for those titles; the Wiimote did not improve those titles.
That one-two punch of short-sightedness (locking the control scheme, no HD content) is the big reason why in a few months we're going to be seeing a new Nintendo console when Sony and MS won't even act like they have plans for another generation.
Actually, I do regret buying a Wii. But mainly because backwards compatibility made me feel comfortable selling my 'Cube, and now I wish I still had it.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Actually, I do regret buying a Wii. But mainly because backwards compatibility made me feel comfortable selling my 'Cube, and now I wish I still had it.
I will say, it's a lot easier to play GC games on a GC box than to go through all the prankery getting them to play on the Wii.
Now, if there's any real-world examples that back up his assertion that gamers in general don't want new input experiences with real-world examples I certainly owe him an apology, but I'm not really seeing any in there.
If you're asking for empirical data, I don't even know where I'd begin to get that. I'm not trying to prove anything other than the strength of my argument.
My argument says:
- HD consoles (slightly) outsold the Wii
- cross-platform ports sold generally terribly on the Wii
- HD console games are being played at a significantly larger rate per console, depending on one's calculations
- Nintendo carries a certain fixed value of brand influence that, when paired with low market-entry threshold, results in an appreciably large sales figure.
Given those things, I'm making the argument (which is different from an assumption or an assertion) that there isn't a statistically relevant number of traditional console gamers that were drawn to the Wii on the merits of a new input style alone. Again, I make the argument that those gamers looking for a traditional gaming experience (offered by way the various Zelda/Metroid/Mario franchise) weren't kept away by the new control scheme (which is a totally different argument from "refuse to accept any deviation from the norm"), in part by what I expect is both the novelty of the platform and its low retail price.
You're free to disagree, and I'm sure you will, but let's talk about what we're talking about, and not hyperbolic misconstruings.
And the exact same thing won't happen with the Wii-U, making it just as successful, because...
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
And the exact same thing won't happen with the Wii-U, making it just as successful, because...
Novelty wears off?
Even given new novelty, I'd assume many customers will have learned the lesson of the Wii, and realize that it's just as likely to wind up sucking in the long run as well.
Not saying it's in any way a given, but I'd be unsuprised if there wasn't a certain "fool me once, shame on me" effect here.
I'll point out that I'm probably, at least to some extent, projecting my own experience. I was one of the people that nearly froze to death trying to get a Wii at launch. Now if you gave me one I might bother to make space in my entertainment center for it. Maybe. Or I might Craigslist it, and use the proceeds to buy a new guitar pedal or maybe just stock up on Old Spice body wash.
Swagger.
You can imagine precisely how excited I am about the Wii-U, then. And while I know better than to generalize my own experience onto everybody, I also don't get the feeling at all that I'm alone here.
And the exact same thing won't happen with the Wii-U, making it just as successful, because...
Novelty wears off?
Even given new novelty, I'd assume many customers will have learned the lesson of the Wii, and realize that it's just as likely to wind up sucking in the long run as well.
Not saying it's in any way a given, but I'd be unsuprised if there wasn't a certain "fool me once, shame on me" effect here.
If that was true people wouldn't still be buying MW games.
That said, the people who bought it for 1st party games like Zelda got several great Zelda games. And a great Metroid game. And so forth. I don't see what they have to be disappointed about.
And the new casual market that the Wii opened has no real competition except maybe the Kinect. And if the Wii-U others a new experience with it's tablet and stuff and comes in at a lower price point, or at worst equal, I don't think it will have much trouble.
The only real weakness Nintendo has right now is in the on line component. If they can catch up that, it should be smooth sailing.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
And the exact same thing won't happen with the Wii-U, making it just as successful, because...
Novelty wears off?
Even given new novelty, I'd assume many customers will have learned the lesson of the Wii, and realize that it's just as likely to wind up sucking in the long run as well.
Not saying it's in any way a given, but I'd be unsuprised if there wasn't a certain "fool me once, shame on me" effect here.
If that was true people wouldn't still be buying MW games.
That said, the people who bought it for 1st party games like Zelda got several great Zelda games. And a great Metroid game. And so forth. I don't see what they have to be disappointed about.
And the new casual market that the Wii opened has no real competition except maybe the Kinect. And if the Wii-U others a new experience with it's tablet and stuff and comes in at a lower price point, or at worst equal, I don't think it will have much trouble.
The only real weakness Nintendo has right now is in the on line component. If they can catch up that, it should be smooth sailing.
The comparison to MW games doesn't work because you are talking about 2 completely different markets. I mean, does anyone think the new people the Wii got buying their system are the same people buying MW 2009/2010/2011/2012/etc?
But really, the idea that they were "fooled" is likely not going to come into effect. I'd imagine the bigger issue is the Wii pulled in alot of people who bought the Wii for some fun motion control stuff and aren't traditional gamers. And I don't see anything about the WiiU that's going to convince these people to shell out another few hundred bucks.
The tablet thing just doesn't have the visceral fun factor for the non-traditional gamer that Wii Sports does. Not from anything we've seen so far.
There are a handful of games that I wouldn't have much rather played on my Xbox 360 over the Wii. Including most first-party games. For instance, Mario Galaxy? Would have been better in HD and without waggle.
That's part of my beef, too. Other than Wii Sports, the Wii games I've really enjoyed I still would have preferred to play them in HD with traditional controls. I tolerated the Wiimote for those titles; the Wiimote did not improve those titles.
That one-two punch of short-sightedness (locking the control scheme, no HD content) is the big reason why in a few months we're going to be seeing a new Nintendo console when Sony and MS won't even act like they have plans for another generation.
I love Mario Kart Wii and it's use of the Wiimote.
But I largely agree with your point. Motion controls were good for a very limited selection of games and most of the others it either added nothing or actually took something away as I'd have preferred a button.
And the exact same thing won't happen with the Wii-U, making it just as successful, because...
Novelty wears off?
Even given new novelty, I'd assume many customers will have learned the lesson of the Wii, and realize that it's just as likely to wind up sucking in the long run as well.
Not saying it's in any way a given, but I'd be unsuprised if there wasn't a certain "fool me once, shame on me" effect here.
If that was true people wouldn't still be buying MW games.
There are some other issues at play with CoD, that can drive sales despite declining quality.
Besides which, MW2 was at least still fairly decent. Which can go to that whole subjectivity thing.
That said, the people who bought it for 1st party games like Zelda got several great Zelda games.
No, they got two Zelda games. "Great" is up for debate. One was available on the 'Cube, too. So one exclusive. So far, at least.
And a great Metroid game. And so forth. I don't see what they have to be disappointed about.
That goes back to the whole "great" being up for debate thing. I was plenty disappointed, and I don't see what you have to be happy about.
And the new casual market that the Wii opened has no real competition except maybe the Kinect. And if the Wii-U others a new experience with it's tablet and stuff and comes in at a lower price point, or at worst equal, I don't think it will have much trouble.
The only real weakness Nintendo has right now is in the on line component. If they can catch up that, it should be smooth sailing.
I have faith that Nintendo will continue to monkey-fuck the online component. As for casuals, we'll see how long they hold on to their Wiis, and how long third parties continue to crank out new casual experiences for them to enjoy on it. Those folks may or may not flock to the Wii-U to get whatever new gimmicks arise on that platform in HD.
There are a handful of games that I wouldn't have much rather played on my Xbox 360 over the Wii. Including most first-party games. For instance, Mario Galaxy? Would have been better in HD and without waggle.
That's part of my beef, too. Other than Wii Sports, the Wii games I've really enjoyed I still would have preferred to play them in HD with traditional controls. I tolerated the Wiimote for those titles; the Wiimote did not improve those titles.
That one-two punch of short-sightedness (locking the control scheme, no HD content) is the big reason why in a few months we're going to be seeing a new Nintendo console when Sony and MS won't even act like they have plans for another generation.
I love Mario Kart Wii and it's use of the Wiimote.
But I largely agree with your point. Motion controls were good for a very limited selection of games and most of the others it either added nothing or actually took something away as I'd have preferred a button.
While I (rightfully!) tend to completely ignore Metacritic, it is fun to point out that Twilight Princess averaged one percent higher on the 'Cube than on the Wii.
And the exact same thing won't happen with the Wii-U, making it just as successful, because...
Novelty wears off?
Even given new novelty, I'd assume many customers will have learned the lesson of the Wii, and realize that it's just as likely to wind up sucking in the long run as well.
Not saying it's in any way a given, but I'd be unsuprised if there wasn't a certain "fool me once, shame on me" effect here.
If that was true people wouldn't still be buying MW games.
That said, the people who bought it for 1st party games like Zelda got several great Zelda games. And a great Metroid game. And so forth. I don't see what they have to be disappointed about.
And the new casual market that the Wii opened has no real competition except maybe the Kinect. And if the Wii-U others a new experience with it's tablet and stuff and comes in at a lower price point, or at worst equal, I don't think it will have much trouble.
The only real weakness Nintendo has right now is in the on line component. If they can catch up that, it should be smooth sailing.
The comparison to MW games doesn't work because you are talking about 2 completely different markets. I mean, does anyone think the new people the Wii got buying their system are the same people buying MW 2009/2010/2011/2012/etc?
But really, the idea that they were "fooled" is likely not going to come into effect. I'd imagine the bigger issue is the Wii pulled in alot of people who bought the Wii for some fun motion control stuff and aren't traditional gamers. And I don't see anything about the WiiU that's going to convince these people to shell out another few hundred bucks.
The tablet thing just doesn't have the visceral fun factor for the non-traditional gamer that Wii Sports does. Not from anything we've seen so far.
That depends on how it is used. And how it is marketed.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
And the exact same thing won't happen with the Wii-U, making it just as successful, because...
Novelty wears off?
Even given new novelty, I'd assume many customers will have learned the lesson of the Wii, and realize that it's just as likely to wind up sucking in the long run as well.
Not saying it's in any way a given, but I'd be unsuprised if there wasn't a certain "fool me once, shame on me" effect here.
If that was true people wouldn't still be buying MW games.
That said, the people who bought it for 1st party games like Zelda got several great Zelda games. And a great Metroid game. And so forth. I don't see what they have to be disappointed about.
And the new casual market that the Wii opened has no real competition except maybe the Kinect. And if the Wii-U others a new experience with it's tablet and stuff and comes in at a lower price point, or at worst equal, I don't think it will have much trouble.
The only real weakness Nintendo has right now is in the on line component. If they can catch up that, it should be smooth sailing.
The comparison to MW games doesn't work because you are talking about 2 completely different markets. I mean, does anyone think the new people the Wii got buying their system are the same people buying MW 2009/2010/2011/2012/etc?
But really, the idea that they were "fooled" is likely not going to come into effect. I'd imagine the bigger issue is the Wii pulled in alot of people who bought the Wii for some fun motion control stuff and aren't traditional gamers. And I don't see anything about the WiiU that's going to convince these people to shell out another few hundred bucks.
The tablet thing just doesn't have the visceral fun factor for the non-traditional gamer that Wii Sports does. Not from anything we've seen so far.
That depends on how it is used. And how it is marketed.
Right. And I'm saying the very starting point makes it far far less effective at pulling in random non-traditional-gamers then the Wii.
Motion controls were downright cool looking. Wii Sports is probably the best system seller ever made.
I don't see the WiiU having anything even in that league. The novel input just isn't as exciting or immediately novel.
And the exact same thing won't happen with the Wii-U, making it just as successful, because...
Novelty wears off?
Even given new novelty, I'd assume many customers will have learned the lesson of the Wii, and realize that it's just as likely to wind up sucking in the long run as well.
Not saying it's in any way a given, but I'd be unsuprised if there wasn't a certain "fool me once, shame on me" effect here.
If that was true people wouldn't still be buying MW games.
There are some other issues at play with CoD, that can drive sales despite declining quality.
The main issue being it's a multiplayer game. That pretty much defines a huge component of CoD's success.
And the exact same thing won't happen with the Wii-U, making it just as successful, because...
Novelty wears off?
Even given new novelty, I'd assume many customers will have learned the lesson of the Wii, and realize that it's just as likely to wind up sucking in the long run as well.
Not saying it's in any way a given, but I'd be unsuprised if there wasn't a certain "fool me once, shame on me" effect here.
If that was true people wouldn't still be buying MW games.
That said, the people who bought it for 1st party games like Zelda got several great Zelda games. And a great Metroid game. And so forth. I don't see what they have to be disappointed about.
And the new casual market that the Wii opened has no real competition except maybe the Kinect. And if the Wii-U others a new experience with it's tablet and stuff and comes in at a lower price point, or at worst equal, I don't think it will have much trouble.
The only real weakness Nintendo has right now is in the on line component. If they can catch up that, it should be smooth sailing.
The comparison to MW games doesn't work because you are talking about 2 completely different markets. I mean, does anyone think the new people the Wii got buying their system are the same people buying MW 2009/2010/2011/2012/etc?
But really, the idea that they were "fooled" is likely not going to come into effect. I'd imagine the bigger issue is the Wii pulled in alot of people who bought the Wii for some fun motion control stuff and aren't traditional gamers. And I don't see anything about the WiiU that's going to convince these people to shell out another few hundred bucks.
The tablet thing just doesn't have the visceral fun factor for the non-traditional gamer that Wii Sports does. Not from anything we've seen so far.
That depends on how it is used. And how it is marketed.
Right. And I'm saying the very starting point makes it far far less effective at pulling in random non-traditional-gamers then the Wii.
Motion controls were downright cool looking. Wii Sports is probably the best system seller ever made.
I don't see the WiiU having anything even in that league. The novel input just isn't as exciting or immediately novel.
But what if you can play Angry Birds on it, huh.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
0
Options
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
I dunno.
The were a hell of a lot of people, in my view of things, who were really, really onboard for the Wii. This forum had a sizable group of people carrying banner sigs that said things like 'Wii Will Prevail' and 'Wii Are Back' well before the thing even launched. The Wii seemed to symbolize a host of new possibilities, as well as a reinvigorated Nintendo that had managed to maneuver around Sony and Microsoft by creating a system capable of moving in unexpected directions.
I can't speak for anybody but me, but I saw the controller, and I thought of massive improved camera functions in games where a third person perspective would shift and move based on your reflexes and how you might respond to the stress and challenge of a given situation. I saw crazy cool pantomime stuff, where the controller turned into whatever your character happened to be holding, and how you used that object would handle the rest. I saw a setup free of clunky restrictions.
Hell, remember this? We didn't get half the shit this video gave ideas for:
(fun note: I owned a Wii for years, and to this day I'm shocked to see I still can't fucking remember what the buttons on the nunchuck were. Apparently it was never that important.)
Instead we largely got party games, uneven experiments, and, worst of all, pre-scripted motions to attempt to mimic to do one specific thing. And, god damn it, when the motion plus came out I bought that, and you know what? That canoe section in WiiResort? I played the shit out of that. My head swam with Indiana Jones type stuff where you're paddling a canoe through the amazon, visiting indigenous villages, exploring a giant jungle trying to locate stuff...basically a jungle version of Endless Ocean, I guess. But much like the Wii, very, very few examples of ideas that really sought to plumb the depths of what could be done, and done richly.
So, there could be lots of people down for what the new Wii will do. That's great. But me, and maybe a few more like me, want to see Nintendo put up first. Let's see some games. No, not those games. Let's see some third party titles that are not party titles. I'd rather see new game ideas from Nintendo itself, rather than third party companies. Let the third parties bring the tried and true franchises starting out. I don't want to see the first wave of third party games having the next Billy Hatcher. I don't want to see EA make a puzzle game and try to say it can replace the gaping hole in the console library that needs to be filled by a Bioware title or a new Dead Space game. I don't want to watch Squeenix announce a new Chrystal Chronicles title, the Dennis Kucinich of Final Fantasy series, instead of a Dragon Quest or a full-fledged FF game. I don't want more Rabbids instead of an Assassin's Creed, Far Cry or Prince of Persia game. I don't want Activision's sloppy thirds with downgraded ports happening eight months after the original title came out.
So I know what I want, and I can watch and see if it happens without dropping dollar first. I'm betting there's quite a few people with a similar stance at this time.
Actually, that commercial is beautiful. Both because A) it reminds me of the promise that the Wii had for me once upon a time, because 99% of it looks awesome and it actually provided a glimpse of what the Wii actually delivered, at least for me.
The chick at about 1:01? Flicking the Wiimote up to Mario jumping sounds? Yeah, that sums up the Wii for me. Except instead of what I assume is supposed to be wonder or amazement on her face, imagine annoyance on mine. Both because I'm trying to figure out why I'm doing this stupid repetitive motion instead of just hitting a button, and because half the time it doesn't register properly (or registers when I don't want it to). Behold the face of waggle. We were warned.
Wait, was there an actual Waggle Mario Bros. where you just flicked your wrist like a total douchebag to make him jump?
Because if there was, I've been far too kind to the Wii this whole time.
EDIT: Also, you glazed over it HamHamJ, but you do accept that there was actually only a single exclusive Zelda title on the Wii thus far, and that it's not universally accepted as great...right?
It's not a misconception, Miyamoto stated outright at E3 last year that the Wii-U would only support one tablet, suggesting that multiplayer games would use the old Wiimotes .
Doing some Googling, there seems to be a consensus now that the Wii-U will support up to two tablets per console, but no more thanks to hardware limitations. And even that hasn't been confirmed, and those rumors didn't start until well after the abysmal E3 showing. It's probably Nintendo using consumer feedback to do the right thing, but crap they really botched that expo.
Just passing along what they're saying. We'll no doubt find out what the eventual truth is, whether they changed it or it was always the plan, at E3.
Wiki claims they're in the 'card game' business. From what I understand, all their non-video game stuff is Japan only.
I think they still manufacture Hanafuda cards out of tradition; they don't really do the things like toys, instant rice, taxis, or love hotels any more.
Also, to throw my two cents in on Metroid Prime 3/Trilogy: I far prefer using the Wii control scheme for games like that to a regular controller.
Like Mega Man Legends? Then check out my story, Legends of the Halcyon Era - An Adventure in the World of Mega Man Legends on TMMN and AO3!
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Also, you glazed over it HamHamJ, but you do accept that there was actually only a single exclusive Zelda title on the Wii thus far, and that it's not universally accepted as great...right?
To be fair, Skyward Sword has been consistently rated fairly high by critics. It's just that almost every review has a caveat that's some variation on the statement, "If you're looking for a new or fresh take on the franchise, this isn't for you."
But I will say that I don't think I've seen as much collective outcries of boredom with the franchise from players as I have after that game came out. It's kind of a rehash of Twilight Princess' aesthetic, which itself was a rehash of OoT's aesthetic. By being a copy of a copy, it's kinda like being the handjob of Zelda games; it'll do, but it's not what's really wanted.
I won't completely dismiss a company's or division's profitability as a factor. In my professional life it's a huge factor, because I don't want to go down a road of partnership and investment if you aren't going to survive long enough to make it where I want to go. That's a factor to some extent in my retail consumer stuff, too. Ignoring other factors for the sake of argument, I don't want to spend money on a console if I think there's a good reason to believe that the technology will fail and get ditched and I'll have to buy something else. I bought a 360 HD-DVD attachment. Not exactly the same thing, but anyway, I still hate Sony for tainting that battle by backing up a failed, inferior standard with their cash.
But just as in business, that determination isn't just about current profits. Considering all the other stuff we've discussed, the truth is that despite Nintendo's superiority on the financial statements so far, I still view them as the least like to survive the next generation. By "survive" I mean "continue to focus on a hardware platform," not necessarily "stay in business."
And yeah, the core of the problem for serious gamers and the Wii is that developers have to develop specifically for the Wii. Often at best this means you get a version of a popular title that has weakened sound and graphics, and a gratuitous waggle tacked on for no enjoyable reason. Or you get games developed only for the Wii, which means casual stuff I'd rather play on my Android. Or first-party stuff, which is still good in many cases, but as we've beaten to death already, is overly reliant on churning out the same IP in the same form factor over and over. When part of the draw of the system was the "revolutionary innovation," you're shooting yourself in the foot when you put all of your eggs in a too-familiar MarioKart/Zelda basket.
And at worst it means developers don't bother to develop for your system.
Yar on
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
It's kind of a rehash of Twilight Princess' aesthetic, which itself was a rehash of OoT's aesthetic. By being a copy of a copy, it's kinda like being the handjob of Zelda games; it'll do, but it's not what's really wanted.
This is the best description of this game I have ever seen. You need to review stuff.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
The thing that gets me is how many reviewers (and people on this board) said that Skyward Sword was as perfect as reasonably possible. Good, ok, I can see that. Great, eh, I guess if you really like Zelda. Perfect? How fucking low are your standards?
Like, I didn't hate the game, but to say it has no real issues is.. stunning. Also the sword controls didn't add shit to the game. Yeah, I said it.
The pacing and setting of SS is a nightmare. The entire world is one long Spiritual Trial without end. SS link cures no plaugues, saves no villiages, solves no problems for anything. The whole game is one long trial to make his sword and his soul glow more...or something. I fell asleep.
3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
0
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
Now, if there's any real-world examples that back up his assertion that gamers in general don't want new input experiences with real-world examples I certainly owe him an apology, but I'm not really seeing any in there.
If you're asking for empirical data, I don't even know where I'd begin to get that. I'm not trying to prove anything other than the strength of my argument.
My argument says:
- HD consoles (slightly) outsold the Wii
- cross-platform ports sold generally terribly on the Wii
- HD console games are being played at a significantly larger rate per console, depending on one's calculations
- Nintendo carries a certain fixed value of brand influence that, when paired with low market-entry threshold, results in an appreciably large sales figure.
Given those things, I'm making the argument (which is different from an assumption or an assertion) that there isn't a statistically relevant number of traditional console gamers that were drawn to the Wii on the merits of a new input style alone. Again, I make the argument that those gamers looking for a traditional gaming experience (offered by way the various Zelda/Metroid/Mario franchise) weren't kept away by the new control scheme (which is a totally different argument from "refuse to accept any deviation from the norm"), in part by what I expect is both the novelty of the platform and its low retail price.
You're free to disagree, and I'm sure you will, but let's talk about what we're talking about, and not hyperbolic misconstruings.
Again, I'm trying to work with what I'm given, and what you gave me is that gamers in general don't want new input experiences because of Metroid Prime 3. What you're presenting here is an entirely new argument, not what you said before. And honestly? I feel that's kind of a dishonest dodge. I'd be happy to argue with you about a completely fresh argument, but I don't really feel inclined to get into revisionist history.
Actually, I do regret buying a Wii. But mainly because backwards compatibility made me feel comfortable selling my 'Cube, and now I wish I still had it.
I will say, it's a lot easier to play GC games on a GC box than to go through all the prankery getting them to play on the Wii.
What prankery? Just plug in a memory card and a 'cube controller, and you're ready to go.
cloudeagle on
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
The Wiimote worked great for Metroid Prime 3 and RE4. Other games, not so much.
Now, if there's any real-world examples that back up his assertion that gamers in general don't want new input experiences with real-world examples I certainly owe him an apology, but I'm not really seeing any in there.
If you're asking for empirical data, I don't even know where I'd begin to get that. I'm not trying to prove anything other than the strength of my argument.
My argument says:
- HD consoles (slightly) outsold the Wii
- cross-platform ports sold generally terribly on the Wii
- HD console games are being played at a significantly larger rate per console, depending on one's calculations
- Nintendo carries a certain fixed value of brand influence that, when paired with low market-entry threshold, results in an appreciably large sales figure.
Given those things, I'm making the argument (which is different from an assumption or an assertion) that there isn't a statistically relevant number of traditional console gamers that were drawn to the Wii on the merits of a new input style alone. Again, I make the argument that those gamers looking for a traditional gaming experience (offered by way the various Zelda/Metroid/Mario franchise) weren't kept away by the new control scheme (which is a totally different argument from "refuse to accept any deviation from the norm"), in part by what I expect is both the novelty of the platform and its low retail price.
You're free to disagree, and I'm sure you will, but let's talk about what we're talking about, and not hyperbolic misconstruings.
Again, I'm trying to work with what I'm given, and what you gave me is that gamers in general don't want new input experiences because of Metroid Prime 3. What you're presenting here is an entirely new argument, not what you said before. And honestly? I feel that's kind of a dishonest dodge. I'd be happy to argue with you about a completely fresh argument, but I don't really feel inclined to get into revisionist history.
Just sayin'.
If you'll go alllllllllll the way back to the original argument, I was arguing that gamers were largely more interested in new narrative and gameplay experiences, not new input experiences.
I believe my exact words were, "gamers want new narrative experiences, not new input experiences." You have since turned that into a crusade based on the question, "How can you prove gamers DON'T want new input experiences?" To humor you, I compared the sales of Metroid Prime 3 to Metroid Prime 1, positing that no appreciable increase in sales showed an argument (again, not PROOF) that the brand and the quality of the title drove the sales, not in input type. Input schemes on the Wii for traditional gaming, as I continue to argue, can't be said to be more than "tolerated."
wrote:
What prankery? Just plug in a memory card and a 'cube controller, and you're ready to go.
No, that's not the whole story. I can't access my console menu while playing a GC game and I have to use a corded controller, which thanks to the Wii needing to be played a good distance from the TV, I don't have comfortable seating nearby enough for the cord to reach.
You'd think since a classic control nunchuk exists Nintendo would opt for that, but nope.
Now, if there's any real-world examples that back up his assertion that gamers in general don't want new input experiences with real-world examples I certainly owe him an apology, but I'm not really seeing any in there.
If you're asking for empirical data, I don't even know where I'd begin to get that. I'm not trying to prove anything other than the strength of my argument.
My argument says:
- HD consoles (slightly) outsold the Wii
- cross-platform ports sold generally terribly on the Wii
- HD console games are being played at a significantly larger rate per console, depending on one's calculations
- Nintendo carries a certain fixed value of brand influence that, when paired with low market-entry threshold, results in an appreciably large sales figure.
Given those things, I'm making the argument (which is different from an assumption or an assertion) that there isn't a statistically relevant number of traditional console gamers that were drawn to the Wii on the merits of a new input style alone. Again, I make the argument that those gamers looking for a traditional gaming experience (offered by way the various Zelda/Metroid/Mario franchise) weren't kept away by the new control scheme (which is a totally different argument from "refuse to accept any deviation from the norm"), in part by what I expect is both the novelty of the platform and its low retail price.
You're free to disagree, and I'm sure you will, but let's talk about what we're talking about, and not hyperbolic misconstruings.
Again, I'm trying to work with what I'm given, and what you gave me is that gamers in general don't want new input experiences because of Metroid Prime 3. What you're presenting here is an entirely new argument, not what you said before. And honestly? I feel that's kind of a dishonest dodge. I'd be happy to argue with you about a completely fresh argument, but I don't really feel inclined to get into revisionist history.
Just sayin'.
If you'll go alllllllllll the way back to the original argument, I was arguing that gamers were largely more interested in new narrative and gameplay experiences, not new input experiences.
Well, it wasn't clear that you were actually doing that, I was just basing this on the Metroid Prime 3 argument, which appeared to still be going on.
I believe my exact words were, "gamers want new narrative experiences, not new input experiences." You have since turned that into a crusade based on the question, "How can you prove gamers DON'T want new input experiences?" To humor you, I compared the sales of Metroid Prime 3 to Metroid Prime 1, positing that no appreciable increase in sales showed an argument (again, not PROOF) that the brand and the quality of the title drove the sales, not in input type. Input schemes on the Wii for traditional gaming, as I continue to argue, can't be said to be more than "tolerated."
Actually, what you subsequently said was that Metroid Prime 1 sold more than twice as many copies as Metroid Prime 3 and based your entire argument around that, when it turned out that Metroid Prime 1 sold only slightly more than Metroid Prime 3. Again, you've revised what you said after the fact.
As far as your assertion that you said that you posited, rather than proved that the brand drove the sales and not the input type... well, let's just quote what you actually said, yet again:
I know that the Wii-U will be an okay system, and some Zelda, Mario, and Metroid games will come out on it that will almost certainly be reasonably well-made. But that's it. It's not exciting anymore. Nintendo had their period of striking out in every direction and occasionally hitting the mark to great success, and now they've basically figured it out. For all that Nintendo appears to making risky, innovative hardware releases...you'll notice that none of them are actually flopping. Maybe the Wii Fit didn't light the world on fire, but it wasn't exactly the Super Scope 6, either. The 3DS was maybe priced a bit too high at release and didn't explode across the market...but it wasn't the Virtual Boy. Nintendo has apparently figured out how to reliably innovate themselves into a profit, and they now go exactly that far and no further. Which means that they don't have any Power Glove-esque failures, but they don't have any wildly exciting (from the long-time gamer's perspective) successes, either. A steady stream of reasonable quality releases is great and all, especially for Nintendo's bottom line and for younger or new-to-the-hobby gamers, but for people who have played decades of the stuff it all just feels like more of the same.
That's definitely been Nintendo's MO for this generation: innovating new ways to play a very limited spectrum of game options. You can now bowl in your living room. You can swordfight. You can box from the POV of a fighter. That's all legitimately very cool . . . for about ten minutes.
What Nintendo seems to have gotten all backwards is that gamers are largely looking for new gameplay experiences, not new input experiences. Nobody rants and raves about the way you press buttons and use the D-sticks on a standard controller, but that's because they're largely intuitive and built to ergonomically provide efficient and easy experiences. Twisting my hands and waving my arms might be the practical way I would perform a mundane action in real life; that doesn't mean I want to repeat the experience virtually 2000 times in a game. Action buttons exist for a reason.
So while we've been on the receiving end of a whole generation's worth of Nintendo's input tweaks, their product has become even more reductive and stale, almost to the point to where I feel cheated and swindled. I had a perfectly serviceable Metroid experience on the GameCube already, so doing little to enhance the graphical or technical capabilities of a game in that series while forcing me to use the Wiimote input for further iterations seems somewhat like a bargain in bad faith.
I don't see any of that in there, and you flat-out said that "gamers are not looking for new input experiences," a broad and sweeping generalization, with no evidence whatsoever.
Ross, c'mon. You can't say "what I actually said was this!" when what you actually said is easily accessible a few pages up. Give me a little more respect than that.
wrote:
What prankery? Just plug in a memory card and a 'cube controller, and you're ready to go.
No, that's not the whole story. I can't access my console menu while playing a GC game and I have to use a corded controller, which thanks to the Wii needing to be played a good distance from the TV, I don't have comfortable seating nearby enough for the cord to reach.
You'd think since a classic control nunchuk exists Nintendo would opt for that, but nope.
So, given your massive gripes about the Wiimote in this entire thread, you really want to play Gamecube games on that?
I would imagine some major, major restructuring going on in the next ten years, bland as that prediction is.
I think I see what you mean, but what specifics can you speculate upon?
Me, I'm working from feeling that the Wii-U isn't going to be doctor orders. If it is, then the argument pretty much dies there, and that's that. But if not, what then? Where does Nintendo go? How does it "restructure?"
Well, I hate to be blunt, but Miyamoto's turning 60 this year. How long is he gonna keep doing this? You can argue he's got one of the best jobs in the world, and according to the man himself, it's unlikely he'll be retiring anytime soon. But this is a high-energy, high-stress gig. He carries himself very well. But he's also a man who's not getting any younger. At the same time, he dictates a LOT of the internal culture and public perception of what Nintendo is. Nearly everything Nintendo stands within the shadow he casts these days. Name me three other Nintendo developers. All I can come up with is Eiji Aonuma, and he's done some good things, but he's no Miyamoto.
A big part of that is that Miyamoto's career grew up basically at the same time the industry began to grow up. No one is capable of expecting to have the career arc Miyamoto has had. It's ridiculously laced with history and accolades. He once famously declined saying who in the industry he'd like to work with on anything, the implication being that most people would quit their job and come to him if he just said so. There's simply no replacing him.
So imagine, if you will, a Nintendo without Miyamoto at the cultural helm of the ship.
That's one hell of a void to fill.
For a lot of people, it might not matter that the big man's retired. Not right away, anyway. Mario can keep being Mario being Mario. But eventually that's gonna be a problem. I could speculate that a big reason Nintendo hasn't felt a need to court 3rd parties is their base of power and talent, and a lot of that stems from Miyamoto. When he steps down, all bets are off.
Actually, Nintendo realizes this, and has publicly said they've gradually weaned Miyamoto off of supervising, well, pretty much everything Nintendo puts out so that not only can the company continue to run, but he can go back to making his own personal games.
Now granted, that's no guarantee that things won't go to hell when he retires. But at least Nintendo realizes he's mortal. And two big games that were made with little to no Miyamoto input, Super Mario 3D Land and Mario Kart 7, both turned out to be great games and sold like crazy.
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
So, given your massive gripes about the Wiimote in this entire thread, you really want to play Gamecube games on that?
No, I think he is saying that he would rather play cube games on the SNES meets PS2 controller attachment to the Wiimote, since it is wireless and has enough sticks and buttons.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I won't completely dismiss a company's or division's profitability as a factor. In my professional life it's a huge factor, because I don't want to go down a road of partnership and investment if you aren't going to survive long enough to make it where I want to go. That's a factor to some extent in my retail consumer stuff, too. Ignoring other factors for the sake of argument, I don't want to spend money on a console if I think there's a good reason to believe that the technology will fail and get ditched and I'll have to buy something else. I bought a 360 HD-DVD attachment. Not exactly the same thing, but anyway, I still hate Sony for tainting that battle by backing up a failed, inferior standard with their cash.
But just as in business, that determination isn't just about current profits. Considering all the other stuff we've discussed, the truth is that despite Nintendo's superiority on the financial statements so far, I still view them as the least like to survive the next generation. By "survive" I mean "continue to focus on a hardware platform," not necessarily "stay in business."
And yeah, the core of the problem for serious gamers and the Wii is that developers have to develop specifically for the Wii. Often at best this means you get a version of a popular title that has weakened sound and graphics, and a gratuitous waggle tacked on for no enjoyable reason. Or you get games developed only for the Wii, which means casual stuff I'd rather play on my Android. Or first-party stuff, which is still good in many cases, but as we've beaten to death already, is overly reliant on churning out the same IP in the same form factor over and over. When part of the draw of the system was the "revolutionary innovation," you're shooting yourself in the foot when you put all of your eggs in a too-familiar MarioKart/Zelda basket.
And at worst it means developers don't bother to develop for your system.
Sorry, but Blu-Ray was a superior format to HD-DVD. The only notable technical differences between the two were data capacity and read speed, both of which are things Blu-Ray is better at. I agree with the rest of this, though.
So, given your massive gripes about the Wiimote in this entire thread, you really want to play Gamecube games on that?
No, I think he is saying that he would rather play cube games on the SNES meets PS2 controller attachment to the Wiimote, since it is wireless and has enough sticks and buttons.
Posts
If the WiiU doesn't catch on like it should (and I don't really know how well it should do in Nintendo's eyes), I'd say it's more likely that Nintendo pulls out of the home console market and scales back operations, or it just maintains its holding pattern of pulling down N64-Gamecube levels of console profitability, since their consoles are conservatively designed so as to require little or no recoupment of costs, until it can gauge where the market has developed and attempt to re-enter. Don't forget - much of the profit Nintendo has been pulling in has been figuratively put under the mattress (one of the major reasons behind their loss this previous year due to fluctuations in the currency market); it affords them the ability to retreat and reassess if need be.
The Cube didn't have a crazy controller. It was, for the most part, exactly the same as a PS2 or Xbox controller, minus two buttons. You had a d-pad, two analog sticks, two analog triggers, and four face buttons (plus start). It may have been a slightly odd design aesthetically, but it was really just the same crap.
It also got hampered a lot by getting shitty PS2 ports, while the Xbox would get better versions. Actually, this continued at least a bit into the Wii as well, with some multiplatform titles (like Guitar Hero, IIRC). The Cube was a more powerful system than the PS2, but that doesn't matter if developers aren't using it. But Cube exclusives were usually pretty pimpin'.
I could be remembering that wrong, though.
Maybe. I think it was actually better in the short run, because in the long run that enthrallment wore off. I remember when all the talk was about grandma loving her Wii. I don't hear all that much about it now. Now it's that thing that collects dust, because (for the non-trads) the fun of motion controls in and of themselves wore off and (for the traditional gamers) most games look like a gigantic open asshole when smeared across any decent HDTV.
Yup, I said it. I loved the shit out of my Wii when I was playing it on a 19" CRT. But the tacked-on waggle got annoying, most proper motion-controlled games got boring (and most were really just minigames), and I started playing it more on my flatscreen than on the shitty TV I took to school. Suddenly the appeal was lost. I won't say I regretted buying it, but I will say I'm damn glad I sold it before the price drop.
And I think I said before, I know damn well that graphics aren't the end-all be-all. But there is a certain minimum standard that players do expect. As TVs get bigger, that goes up. Hell, you don't even need to render at higher resolutions; plenty of Xbox and PS3 games are rendered at near-SD levels of quality. They get away with it through a combination of antialiasing, effects, and at least having HD resolution for non-3D elements (HUDs, menus, text, etc). There are only a handful of games that I wouldn't have much rather played on my Xbox 360 over the Wii. Most would have been better on other consoles. Including most first-party games. For instance, Mario Galaxy? Would have been better in HD and without waggle.
Actually, fuck that. Mario Galaxy would have been better on the GameCube, too. Bye waggle. Loved my 'Cube.
That's part of my beef, too. Other than Wii Sports, the Wii games I've really enjoyed I still would have preferred to play them in HD with traditional controls. I tolerated the Wiimote for those titles; the Wiimote did not improve those titles.
That one-two punch of short-sightedness (locking the control scheme, no HD content) is the big reason why in a few months we're going to be seeing a new Nintendo console when Sony and MS won't even act like they have plans for another generation.
I will say, it's a lot easier to play GC games on a GC box than to go through all the prankery getting them to play on the Wii.
And the exact same thing won't happen with the Wii-U, making it just as successful, because...
Novelty wears off?
Even given new novelty, I'd assume many customers will have learned the lesson of the Wii, and realize that it's just as likely to wind up sucking in the long run as well.
Not saying it's in any way a given, but I'd be unsuprised if there wasn't a certain "fool me once, shame on me" effect here.
Swagger.
You can imagine precisely how excited I am about the Wii-U, then. And while I know better than to generalize my own experience onto everybody, I also don't get the feeling at all that I'm alone here.
If that was true people wouldn't still be buying MW games.
That said, the people who bought it for 1st party games like Zelda got several great Zelda games. And a great Metroid game. And so forth. I don't see what they have to be disappointed about.
And the new casual market that the Wii opened has no real competition except maybe the Kinect. And if the Wii-U others a new experience with it's tablet and stuff and comes in at a lower price point, or at worst equal, I don't think it will have much trouble.
The only real weakness Nintendo has right now is in the on line component. If they can catch up that, it should be smooth sailing.
The comparison to MW games doesn't work because you are talking about 2 completely different markets. I mean, does anyone think the new people the Wii got buying their system are the same people buying MW 2009/2010/2011/2012/etc?
But really, the idea that they were "fooled" is likely not going to come into effect. I'd imagine the bigger issue is the Wii pulled in alot of people who bought the Wii for some fun motion control stuff and aren't traditional gamers. And I don't see anything about the WiiU that's going to convince these people to shell out another few hundred bucks.
The tablet thing just doesn't have the visceral fun factor for the non-traditional gamer that Wii Sports does. Not from anything we've seen so far.
I love Mario Kart Wii and it's use of the Wiimote.
But I largely agree with your point. Motion controls were good for a very limited selection of games and most of the others it either added nothing or actually took something away as I'd have preferred a button.
There are some other issues at play with CoD, that can drive sales despite declining quality.
Besides which, MW2 was at least still fairly decent. Which can go to that whole subjectivity thing.
No, they got two Zelda games. "Great" is up for debate. One was available on the 'Cube, too. So one exclusive. So far, at least.
That goes back to the whole "great" being up for debate thing. I was plenty disappointed, and I don't see what you have to be happy about.
I have faith that Nintendo will continue to monkey-fuck the online component. As for casuals, we'll see how long they hold on to their Wiis, and how long third parties continue to crank out new casual experiences for them to enjoy on it. Those folks may or may not flock to the Wii-U to get whatever new gimmicks arise on that platform in HD.
While I (rightfully!) tend to completely ignore Metacritic, it is fun to point out that Twilight Princess averaged one percent higher on the 'Cube than on the Wii.
That depends on how it is used. And how it is marketed.
Right. And I'm saying the very starting point makes it far far less effective at pulling in random non-traditional-gamers then the Wii.
Motion controls were downright cool looking. Wii Sports is probably the best system seller ever made.
I don't see the WiiU having anything even in that league. The novel input just isn't as exciting or immediately novel.
The main issue being it's a multiplayer game. That pretty much defines a huge component of CoD's success.
But what if you can play Angry Birds on it, huh.
The were a hell of a lot of people, in my view of things, who were really, really onboard for the Wii. This forum had a sizable group of people carrying banner sigs that said things like 'Wii Will Prevail' and 'Wii Are Back' well before the thing even launched. The Wii seemed to symbolize a host of new possibilities, as well as a reinvigorated Nintendo that had managed to maneuver around Sony and Microsoft by creating a system capable of moving in unexpected directions.
I can't speak for anybody but me, but I saw the controller, and I thought of massive improved camera functions in games where a third person perspective would shift and move based on your reflexes and how you might respond to the stress and challenge of a given situation. I saw crazy cool pantomime stuff, where the controller turned into whatever your character happened to be holding, and how you used that object would handle the rest. I saw a setup free of clunky restrictions.
Hell, remember this? We didn't get half the shit this video gave ideas for:
(fun note: I owned a Wii for years, and to this day I'm shocked to see I still can't fucking remember what the buttons on the nunchuck were. Apparently it was never that important.)
Instead we largely got party games, uneven experiments, and, worst of all, pre-scripted motions to attempt to mimic to do one specific thing. And, god damn it, when the motion plus came out I bought that, and you know what? That canoe section in WiiResort? I played the shit out of that. My head swam with Indiana Jones type stuff where you're paddling a canoe through the amazon, visiting indigenous villages, exploring a giant jungle trying to locate stuff...basically a jungle version of Endless Ocean, I guess. But much like the Wii, very, very few examples of ideas that really sought to plumb the depths of what could be done, and done richly.
So, there could be lots of people down for what the new Wii will do. That's great. But me, and maybe a few more like me, want to see Nintendo put up first. Let's see some games. No, not those games. Let's see some third party titles that are not party titles. I'd rather see new game ideas from Nintendo itself, rather than third party companies. Let the third parties bring the tried and true franchises starting out. I don't want to see the first wave of third party games having the next Billy Hatcher. I don't want to see EA make a puzzle game and try to say it can replace the gaping hole in the console library that needs to be filled by a Bioware title or a new Dead Space game. I don't want to watch Squeenix announce a new Chrystal Chronicles title, the Dennis Kucinich of Final Fantasy series, instead of a Dragon Quest or a full-fledged FF game. I don't want more Rabbids instead of an Assassin's Creed, Far Cry or Prince of Persia game. I don't want Activision's sloppy thirds with downgraded ports happening eight months after the original title came out.
So I know what I want, and I can watch and see if it happens without dropping dollar first. I'm betting there's quite a few people with a similar stance at this time.
The chick at about 1:01? Flicking the Wiimote up to Mario jumping sounds? Yeah, that sums up the Wii for me. Except instead of what I assume is supposed to be wonder or amazement on her face, imagine annoyance on mine. Both because I'm trying to figure out why I'm doing this stupid repetitive motion instead of just hitting a button, and because half the time it doesn't register properly (or registers when I don't want it to). Behold the face of waggle. We were warned.
Total false advertising.
They are fun.
You're about to say Red Steel was fun, aren't you.
Because if there was, I've been far too kind to the Wii this whole time.
EDIT: Also, you glazed over it HamHamJ, but you do accept that there was actually only a single exclusive Zelda title on the Wii thus far, and that it's not universally accepted as great...right?
Just passing along what they're saying. We'll no doubt find out what the eventual truth is, whether they changed it or it was always the plan, at E3.
I think they still manufacture Hanafuda cards out of tradition; they don't really do the things like toys, instant rice, taxis, or love hotels any more.
Also, to throw my two cents in on Metroid Prime 3/Trilogy: I far prefer using the Wii control scheme for games like that to a regular controller.
Like Mega Man Legends? Then check out my story, Legends of the Halcyon Era - An Adventure in the World of Mega Man Legends on TMMN and AO3!
To be fair, Skyward Sword has been consistently rated fairly high by critics. It's just that almost every review has a caveat that's some variation on the statement, "If you're looking for a new or fresh take on the franchise, this isn't for you."
But I will say that I don't think I've seen as much collective outcries of boredom with the franchise from players as I have after that game came out. It's kind of a rehash of Twilight Princess' aesthetic, which itself was a rehash of OoT's aesthetic. By being a copy of a copy, it's kinda like being the handjob of Zelda games; it'll do, but it's not what's really wanted.
But just as in business, that determination isn't just about current profits. Considering all the other stuff we've discussed, the truth is that despite Nintendo's superiority on the financial statements so far, I still view them as the least like to survive the next generation. By "survive" I mean "continue to focus on a hardware platform," not necessarily "stay in business."
And yeah, the core of the problem for serious gamers and the Wii is that developers have to develop specifically for the Wii. Often at best this means you get a version of a popular title that has weakened sound and graphics, and a gratuitous waggle tacked on for no enjoyable reason. Or you get games developed only for the Wii, which means casual stuff I'd rather play on my Android. Or first-party stuff, which is still good in many cases, but as we've beaten to death already, is overly reliant on churning out the same IP in the same form factor over and over. When part of the draw of the system was the "revolutionary innovation," you're shooting yourself in the foot when you put all of your eggs in a too-familiar MarioKart/Zelda basket.
And at worst it means developers don't bother to develop for your system.
This is the best description of this game I have ever seen. You need to review stuff.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Like, I didn't hate the game, but to say it has no real issues is.. stunning. Also the sword controls didn't add shit to the game. Yeah, I said it.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Again, I'm trying to work with what I'm given, and what you gave me is that gamers in general don't want new input experiences because of Metroid Prime 3. What you're presenting here is an entirely new argument, not what you said before. And honestly? I feel that's kind of a dishonest dodge. I'd be happy to argue with you about a completely fresh argument, but I don't really feel inclined to get into revisionist history.
Just sayin'.
What prankery? Just plug in a memory card and a 'cube controller, and you're ready to go.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
If you'll go alllllllllll the way back to the original argument, I was arguing that gamers were largely more interested in new narrative and gameplay experiences, not new input experiences.
I believe my exact words were, "gamers want new narrative experiences, not new input experiences." You have since turned that into a crusade based on the question, "How can you prove gamers DON'T want new input experiences?" To humor you, I compared the sales of Metroid Prime 3 to Metroid Prime 1, positing that no appreciable increase in sales showed an argument (again, not PROOF) that the brand and the quality of the title drove the sales, not in input type. Input schemes on the Wii for traditional gaming, as I continue to argue, can't be said to be more than "tolerated."
No, that's not the whole story. I can't access my console menu while playing a GC game and I have to use a corded controller, which thanks to the Wii needing to be played a good distance from the TV, I don't have comfortable seating nearby enough for the cord to reach.
You'd think since a classic control nunchuk exists Nintendo would opt for that, but nope.
Well, it wasn't clear that you were actually doing that, I was just basing this on the Metroid Prime 3 argument, which appeared to still be going on.
Actually, what you subsequently said was that Metroid Prime 1 sold more than twice as many copies as Metroid Prime 3 and based your entire argument around that, when it turned out that Metroid Prime 1 sold only slightly more than Metroid Prime 3. Again, you've revised what you said after the fact.
As far as your assertion that you said that you posited, rather than proved that the brand drove the sales and not the input type... well, let's just quote what you actually said, yet again:
I don't see any of that in there, and you flat-out said that "gamers are not looking for new input experiences," a broad and sweeping generalization, with no evidence whatsoever.
Ross, c'mon. You can't say "what I actually said was this!" when what you actually said is easily accessible a few pages up. Give me a little more respect than that.
So, given your massive gripes about the Wiimote in this entire thread, you really want to play Gamecube games on that?
Actually, Nintendo realizes this, and has publicly said they've gradually weaned Miyamoto off of supervising, well, pretty much everything Nintendo puts out so that not only can the company continue to run, but he can go back to making his own personal games.
Now granted, that's no guarantee that things won't go to hell when he retires. But at least Nintendo realizes he's mortal. And two big games that were made with little to no Miyamoto input, Super Mario 3D Land and Mario Kart 7, both turned out to be great games and sold like crazy.
No, I think he is saying that he would rather play cube games on the SNES meets PS2 controller attachment to the Wiimote, since it is wireless and has enough sticks and buttons.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Sorry, but Blu-Ray was a superior format to HD-DVD. The only notable technical differences between the two were data capacity and read speed, both of which are things Blu-Ray is better at. I agree with the rest of this, though.
Ah, gotcha.