Comparing Handhelds to Home Consoles is slightly misleading.
for starters, the price difference makes a HUGE difference.
Funny thing that, if you look at worldwide sales for consoles you'll notice something. Something about how the price seems to directly relate to sales...
Sure, means little when we are talking about comparative quality, but its still nice to know. If the Wii outsells the 360 by as much as it did this year or more in 2008, then publishers will be forced to adapt even more than they already have. It's simple numbers. Does this mean that every game will come out on the Wii? No. Does this mean it'll recieve due attention from certain key players in the market? I believe so.
What I am afraid of is the Wii becoming the "Safe" system, for 3rd party developers.
With a massive user base, there comes a massive exposure rate to your title.
Put out somthing tried and true, and you are guarunteed to make a decent amount of pocket change, consistently, because of the massive user base.
Innovate, and, not only do you run the risk of not only failing, but also earning the ire of your investors, since they see the Wii as pretty much everyone else does, Solid gold, you can't do anything wrong with such a massive userbase, ect.
Scarab, just an FYI, Brawl is made to control with the classic controller. AND the Gamecube controler. AND the Wiimote and nunchuk. AND a wiimote alone.
Also, you're saying a lot of things, but you're missing a big, big point myself and others have made.
Nintendogs, a goddamn pet simulator, came out for the DS and sold 15 million copies. Yet the DS is getting "hardcore" games from third parties out its ears.
Now, why can third-party hardcore games survive Nintendogs, but hardcore games won't survive Wii Fit?
cloudeagle there have been serveral posts addressing that point.
The DS has no market share competition.
The Wii does.
Seems to me to be a temporary problem at best.
Well that's slightly misleading. The PSP has sold a fair amount, and as a first console out of the gate has done really well for Sony. Sure the Ds is a juggernaut of sales, especially in Japan, but again, and again in this thread too, someone minterperates 'not doing as well as the market leader' for 'outright failure'.
The Wii DOES and will CONTINUE to have tremendous competition. I dont see how people can see otherwise. There are two rival consoles as opposed to one, and both have much much more resources behind them.
To say the Wii has no, or will eventually have no competition is, in my opinion, naive and not clever. It is doing much better than the other 2 rivals, selling the same as the 360 in half the time, but the 360 and PS3 are hardly 'dead' and this goes back, way back, to a prediction thread ages ago where people assumed the trend in Wii sales would continue. Its already plateauing in Japan, America and Europe will follow.
I think sometimes people need to be more analytical in their posts rather than go for a good 'soundbite' such as 'Seems to me to be a temporary problem at best', implying the Wii wont have competition for much longer. The Wii will have competition for its entire lifespan. So will the Wii 2 and Wii 3. the DS has major competition now in the PSP, more than any other handheld Nintendo has had to compete against.
All that is happening is the competition is going in a different direction to Nintendo. So like I said, before long the real battle will be between the 360 and PS3, not the Wii and anything else.
What I am afraid of is the Wii becoming the "Safe" system, for 3rd party developers.
With a massive user base, there comes a massive exposure rate to your title.
Put out somthing tried and true, and you are guarunteed to make a decent amount of pocket change, consistently, because of the massive user base.
Innovate, and, not only do you run the risk of not only failing, but also earning the ire of your investors, since they see the Wii as pretty much everyone else does, Solid gold, you can't do anything wrong with such a massive userbase, ect.
Hell, that was the case with the PS2. And the video game industry in general. But that's another can o' worms.
Comparing Handhelds to Home Consoles is slightly misleading.
for starters, the price difference makes a HUGE difference.
Funny thing that, if you look at worldwide sales for consoles you'll notice something. Something about how the price seems to directly relate to sales...
Sure, means little when we are talking about comparative quality, but its still nice to know. If the Wii outsells the 360 by as much as it did this year or more in 2008, then publishers will be forced to adapt even more than they already have. It's simple numbers. Does this mean that every game will come out on the Wii? No. Does this mean it'll recieve due attention from certain key players in the market? I believe so.
I was comparing the price of handhelds to home consoles, not handheld to handheld.
The PSP vs. DS situation was similar but different is a few key ways. The biggest similarities are that Nintendo was trying a new kind of input: a touch screen, whereas the PSP was more traditional and had better graphics. Before they came out, the PSP was highly favored. There was no way such an underpowered, gimmicky system could stand up to the robust, media system that was the PSP. It had a web browser! and online games!
However, when the DS started succeeding around August '05 when Advance Wars and Nintedogs came out, third parties flocked to the DS. The PSP had an extremely strong launch compared to the DS, Lumines and Wipeout and some other great games, but it just kinda fell off from there. There are still plenty of games for the PSP, and it hasn't been ground into dust like it's predecessors, because it turns out there is a market for high-end traditional portable games (and homebrew) but it's just not as big as the one Nintendo found with Brain Age and Nintendogs.
But, Nintendo has been traditionally dominant in the handheld market, and the DS had the support of the vast GBA library, and after the lite came out it was just as sleek and "cool" looking as the PSP. Also, as has been said, graphics matter less and sprites are more appreciated on handhelds. It's easier and cheaper to make sprites look good because they're physically smaller on a handheld.
To say the Wii has no, or will eventually have no competition is, in my opinion, naive and not clever. It is doing much better than the other 2 rivals, selling the same as the 360 in half the time, but the 360 and PS3 are hardly 'dead' and this goes back, way back, to a prediction thread ages ago where people assumed the trend in Wii sales would continue. Its already plateauing in Japan, America and Europe will follow.
The reason Japan is plateuing is because Nintendo is diverting Wiis to America. The company itself said this. And Wii console sales in the U.S. continue to skyrocket.
And I never said the Wii wouldn't have competition. It will. But so does the DS.
Also, how do you account for the explosion of Wii games at TGS, despite the absence of Nintendo itself? Zack and Wiki isn't exactly a "casual" game, by your definition.
To say the Wii has no, or will eventually have no competition is, in my opinion, naive and not clever. It is doing much better than the other 2 rivals, selling the same as the 360 in half the time, but the 360 and PS3 are hardly 'dead' and this goes back, way back, to a prediction thread ages ago where people assumed the trend in Wii sales would continue. Its already plateauing in Japan, America and Europe will follow.
The reason Japan is plateuing is because Nintendo is diverting Wiis to America. The company itself said this. And Wii console sales in the U.S. continue to skyrocket.
And I never said the Wii wouldn't have competition. It will. But so does the DS.
Also, how do you account for the explosion of Wii games at TGS, despite the absence of Nintendo itself? Zack and Wiki isn't exactly a "casual" game, by your definition.
Actually, I believe it has more to do with the fact that the Wii really hasn't had a big hit in Japan in awhile. They are plenty easy to find right now. This is going to change in other month or so. They'll continue to outsell the PS3 and 360 handily for that time period, but console wise it is pretty dead in Japan right now.
The PSP vs. DS situation was similar but different is a few key ways. The biggest similarities are that Nintendo was trying a new kind of input: a touch screen, whereas the PSP was more traditional and had better graphics. Before they came out, the PSP was highly favored. There was no way such an underpowered, gimmicky system could stand up to the robust, media system that was the PSP. It had a web browser! and online games!
However, when the DS started succeeding around August '05 when Advance Wars and Nintedogs came out, third parties flocked to the DS. The PSP had an extremely strong launch compared to the DS, Lumines and Wipeout and some other great games, but it just kinda fell off from there. There are still plenty of games for the PSP, and it hasn't been ground into dust like it's predecessors, because it turns out there is a market for high-end traditional portable games (and homebrew) but it's just not as big as the one Nintendo found with Brain Age and Nintendogs.
But, Nintendo has been traditionally dominant in the handheld market, and the DS had the support of the vast GBA library, and after the lite came out it was just as sleek and "cool" looking as the PSP. Also, as has been said, graphics matter less and sprites are more appreciated on handhelds. It's easier and cheaper to make sprites look good because they're physically smaller on a handheld.
This is why what's happening on the Wii is even more amazing.
The DS: Weaker system with new kind of input, predictions of doom, and yet wildly successful - but they always win here
The Wii: Weaker system with new kind of input, predictions of doom, and yet wildly successful - even though they've been losing here in recent years
The PSP is a successful system, powerful with many great games and other features that appeal directly to gamers.
But that was the thing...when the PSP first came out it wasn't "appealing directly to gamers". Sony was trying to make it seem like the next Ipod or something. Well Nintendo kept doing waht they always do(IE selling their system for one it is...a game console).
Truth be told it didn't make sense to get a handheld that didn't want to be "Just a handheld" for $250 when you could get a handheld that knew it was a handheld for around $150.
The PSP is now just getting into the market two years later after it started what it should have been doing in the first place(I.E. selling itself as a handheld).
To say the Wii has no, or will eventually have no competition is, in my opinion, naive and not clever. It is doing much better than the other 2 rivals, selling the same as the 360 in half the time, but the 360 and PS3 are hardly 'dead' and this goes back, way back, to a prediction thread ages ago where people assumed the trend in Wii sales would continue. Its already plateauing in Japan, America and Europe will follow.
The reason Japan is plateuing is because Nintendo is diverting Wiis to America. The company itself said this. And Wii console sales in the U.S. continue to skyrocket.
And I never said the Wii wouldn't have competition. It will. But so does the DS.
Also, how do you account for the explosion of Wii games at TGS, despite the absence of Nintendo itself? Zack and Wiki isn't exactly a "casual" game, by your definition.
Actually, I believe it has more to do with the fact that the Wii really hasn't had a big hit in Japan in awhile. They are plenty easy to find right now. This is going to change in other month or so. They'll continue to outsell the PS3 and 360 handily for that time period, but console wise it is pretty dead in Japan right now.
Oh definitely, when I say the Wii is plateauing, its a fucking himalayan plateau mind you. it still has incredible sales, but they are not increasing. and the whole 'diverting product to america' is a very nice corporate spin from Nintendo. That is, of course, not true at all. The Wii is still in as much supply as it ever was in Japan.
IRT your other post: Yeah. I do see where you are going. its the same place Im trying to get people to go. to realise that 2nd place =/ losing.
The PSP isnt selling as well as the Ds, but its hardly bombing. Nor is the 360 or even the PS3. Quite the contrary. We should be happy that the gaming industry has reached a point where a console as popular as the 360 is considered to 'not be selling well'.
Also, Market Leader =/ best product either. This is an extremely important thing to remember. Extremely.
The PSP is a successful system, powerful with many great games and other features that appeal directly to gamers.
But that was the thing...when the PSP first came out it wasn't "appealing directly to gamers". Sony was trying to make it seem like the next Ipod or something. Well Nintendo kept doing waht they always do(IE selling their system for one it is...a game console).
Truth be told it didn't make sense to get a handheld that didn't want to be "Just a handheld" for $250 when you could get a handheld that knew it was a handheld for around $150.
The PSP is now just getting into the market two years later after it started what it should have been doing in the first place(I.E. selling itself as a handheld).
PSP had some great launch titles. Lumines, Hot Shots Golf, MLB. Better than the DS, which only really had SM64 DS. So games wasn't exactly it's problem. The early push on UMD movie sales was unfortunate at best. I remember the PSP game drought quite well. What's out for the PSP this week. Torque? Ah, I see, no new games once again. I will say that the PS3 and 360's approach to all this is pretty funny. Both are trying to set themselves up as content providers. Much more so than the Wii. Sure the Wii has a browser, some news, some weather. But remember E3 '07? Microsoft going on about Disney movies? Wow. Hey, blame Wii Fit all you want for killing traditional gaming, but at least that's a game.
Also, Market Leader =/ best product either. This is an extremely important thing to remember. Extremely.
Yes, but you were talking about "casual" vs. "hardcore" games. Both segments have crappy games, and both have awesome games. That makes the above comment a non sequitur.
but depth does. there is no depth to sonic and the secret rings. its fun, for a time. and as you said it does get more difficult (though id hardly say it got hard or very hard) but it is pretty basic. as is excite truck.
there is no reward for mastering excite truck. and while its a pretty bad game anyways,
its a pretty bad game anyways
I think I've discovered the problem, and it's that you have no taste. Please trade in your Wii to someone more deserving of it, and feel free to never play it again.
Also, Market Leader =/ best product either. This is an extremely important thing to remember. Extremely.
Of course it is. Very important to note. This is coming from someone who believed the GCN, and not the PS2, was the best system last generation. It simply had the games I wanted to play. This is not to say that the PS2, with its weaker graphics and enormous market lead, didn't have games I needed to play. Why did it get so many great games? Publishers publish more content on the market leaders, both great games and shovelware. It's a given fact. You can run the numbers if you want, but I'm sure my assertion will pan out.
What I'm trying to say here, all I'm trying to say here, is that the great third party titles will eventually come to the Wii. Hell, I think they are already coming.
the best part of this argument is that it's a "we'll see" argument. time will eventually make fools out of you both
Well Mr. Smarty pants, what do you see happening? Besides, being a fool and punditry such as this go hand in hand, ever listen to a Sports Radio program or one of those political debate shows? :P
To say the Wii has no, or will eventually have no competition is, in my opinion, naive and not clever. It is doing much better than the other 2 rivals, selling the same as the 360 in half the time, but the 360 and PS3 are hardly 'dead' and this goes back, way back, to a prediction thread ages ago where people assumed the trend in Wii sales would continue. Its already plateauing in Japan, America and Europe will follow.
The reason Japan is plateuing is because Nintendo is diverting Wiis to America. The company itself said this. And Wii console sales in the U.S. continue to skyrocket.
And I never said the Wii wouldn't have competition. It will. But so does the DS.
Also, how do you account for the explosion of Wii games at TGS, despite the absence of Nintendo itself? Zack and Wiki isn't exactly a "casual" game, by your definition.
I still see that the Wii sales will drop off majorly, I just don't see it continuing much longer heck even around here, Wii's are selling but they are everywhere and really it has alot to do with the system itself, I don't mind my Wii but it barely gets played and really with the games that stand out for it are Smash Brothers and possibly Mario Galaxy.
but I just see the Wii plateuing mainly because It's a pretty good system with a meh lineup.
To say the Wii has no, or will eventually have no competition is, in my opinion, naive and not clever. It is doing much better than the other 2 rivals, selling the same as the 360 in half the time, but the 360 and PS3 are hardly 'dead' and this goes back, way back, to a prediction thread ages ago where people assumed the trend in Wii sales would continue. Its already plateauing in Japan, America and Europe will follow.
The reason Japan is plateuing is because Nintendo is diverting Wiis to America. The company itself said this. And Wii console sales in the U.S. continue to skyrocket.
And I never said the Wii wouldn't have competition. It will. But so does the DS.
Also, how do you account for the explosion of Wii games at TGS, despite the absence of Nintendo itself? Zack and Wiki isn't exactly a "casual" game, by your definition.
I still see that the Wii sales will drop off majorly, I just don't see it continuing much longer heck even around here, Wii's are selling but they are everywhere and really it has alot to do with the system itself, I don't mind my Wii but it barely gets played and really with the games that stand out for it are Smash Brothers and possibly Mario Galaxy.
but I just see the Wii plateuing mainly because It's a pretty good system with a meh lineup.
Meh =/= bad sales.
Just because I'm not a huge Halo fan doesn't mean the game won't sell by the bargeload. Similarly, just because we don't care about Wii Fit doesn't mean it won't sell. It will, considering pretty much every mainstream media outlet went positively ape about it during E3.
During a discussion of SCi's financials, the company's chief exec, Jane Cavanagh said while the board still believes in the long-term success of the PS3, a price drop might help kick-start things:
The Board continues to believe in the long-term commercial success of PlayStation 3 but believes this may take more time than originally forecast by Sony. The Board is of the opinion that the key driver to the acceleration of the installed base of PlayStation 3 will be a further hardware price cut.
I would really like to know how many companies believe this.
but depth does. there is no depth to sonic and the secret rings. its fun, for a time. and as you said it does get more difficult (though id hardly say it got hard or very hard) but it is pretty basic. as is excite truck.
there is no reward for mastering excite truck. and while its a pretty bad game anyways,
its a pretty bad game anyways
I think I've discovered the problem, and it's that you have no taste. Please trade in your Wii to someone more deserving of it, and feel free to never play it again.
To be perfectly fair it does lose its charm after the first three hours or so.
But those first few hours are a blast.
but depth does. there is no depth to sonic and the secret rings. its fun, for a time. and as you said it does get more difficult (though id hardly say it got hard or very hard) but it is pretty basic. as is excite truck.
there is no reward for mastering excite truck. and while its a pretty bad game anyways,
its a pretty bad game anyways
I think I've discovered the problem, and it's that you have no taste. Please trade in your Wii to someone more deserving of it, and feel free to never play it again.
To be perfectly fair it does lose its charm after the first three hours or so.
But those first few hours are a blast.
I'm surrounded by Philistines! But, I'm offtopic, so this is the last I will remark on it here.
Also, Market Leader =/ best product either. This is an extremely important thing to remember. Extremely.
Of course it is. Very important to note. This is coming from someone who believed the GCN, and not the PS2, was the best system last generation. It simply had the games I wanted to play. This is not to say that the PS2, with its weaker graphics and enormous market lead, didn't have games I needed to play. Why did it get so many great games? Publishers publish more content on the market leaders, both great games and shovelware. It's a given fact. You can run the numbers if you want, but I'm sure my assertion will pan out.
What I'm trying to say here, all I'm trying to say here, is that the great third party titles will eventually come to the Wii. Hell, I think they are already coming.
In that we agree then.
third party will come to wii, but my problem is when it comes it may be 'too late' to sound really melodramatic. not too late for the system, too late for me. by then I may have moved on.
regardless, you cant argue with fact. and the fact is the wii is selling well and im not about to call doom on nintendo. quite the opposite.
doesnt mean i have to like their games or their console, and not liking them also doesnt mean they are bad. just not to my taste. an important distinction too.
im not worried about the future of wii. nintendo job security is pretty much guaranteed for this generation already. my concern over the future of wii is that i wont like the games. i could feel it while playing MP3. ostensibly a good game, but for the first time in a while I felt that it was going in a direction not for me. could have been the game, ill admit, but as a major first party games, triple a some say, the game did not reach me in the way the first 2 did. and thinking long and hard on it, i pin it down to it being on wii. many things in my opinion contribute to this feeling. none though are that it is a bad game. its isnt. but its gone in a direction, control, graphics, gameplay, that I feel is not right for me (but may well be right for millions of others).
I feel if MP3 goes that route, Galaxy and Brawl are sure to follow. Not by being bad, but by being different. Which sums up my entire thoughts on the console. good games will come to the system, make no mistake. but just like how I dont like Final Fantasy but can appreciate its appeal, I will not enjoy them but still critically be able to applaud their success.
Also, Market Leader =/ best product either. This is an extremely important thing to remember. Extremely.
Of course it is. Very important to note. This is coming from someone who believed the GCN, and not the PS2, was the best system last generation. It simply had the games I wanted to play. This is not to say that the PS2, with its weaker graphics and enormous market lead, didn't have games I needed to play. Why did it get so many great games? Publishers publish more content on the market leaders, both great games and shovelware. It's a given fact. You can run the numbers if you want, but I'm sure my assertion will pan out.
What I'm trying to say here, all I'm trying to say here, is that the great third party titles will eventually come to the Wii. Hell, I think they are already coming.
In that we agree then.
third party will come to wii, but my problem is when it comes it may be 'too late' to sound really melodramatic. not too late for the system, too late for me. by then I may have moved on.
regardless, you cant argue with fact. and the fact is the wii is selling well and im not about to call doom on nintendo. quite the opposite.
doesnt mean i have to like their games or their console, and not liking them also doesnt mean they are bad. just not to my taste. an important distinction too.
im not worried about the future of wii. nintendo job security is pretty much guaranteed for this generation already. my concern over the future of wii is that i wont like the games. i could feel it while playing MP3. ostensibly a good game, but for the first time in a while I felt that it was going in a direction not for me. could have been the game, ill admit, but as a major first party games, triple a some say, the game did not reach me in the way the first 2 did. and thinking long and hard on it, i pin it down to it being on wii. many things in my opinion contribute to this feeling. none though are that it is a bad game. its isnt. but its gone in a direction, control, graphics, gameplay, that I feel is not right for me (but may well be right for millions of others).
I feel if MP3 goes that route, Galaxy and Brawl are sure to follow. Not by being bad, but by being different. Which sums up my entire thoughts on the console. good games will come to the system, make no mistake. but just like how I dont like Final Fantasy but can appreciate its appeal, I will not enjoy them but still critically be able to applaud their success.
My question is....what is this "route", "direction", "feeling" that you have, that you feel these Wii games will "follow?" Do you feel silly doing motion controls? Do the games not feel serious? I'm wondering, after playing Metroid 3, you attribute this feeling to the Wii, instead of Metroid. You alluded to this ("could have been the game, ill admit"), but then your assertion is that Galaxy and Brawl will follow this "route".
What is the feeling Metroid gave you that, say, Halo or MGS do not? It sounds to me like you're pre-emptively deciding you won't like future Wii games, because they're "different". What is that difference?
I don't mean to put you on the spot, the conversation so far has been very civil. I'm just curious.
this is what I was talking about, Nintendo defense usually boils down to 'you just dont 'get' wii' or 'haha, how narrow minded are you. expand your mind and embrace wii'.
Like I said, so what if I want to play Halo over Brawl. so do 3 million other people. Or Madden over Galaxy. Does that make you an elitist jerk who regards these people as some sort of naive 'mob' or does it mean you are ignorant of the wider gaming scene. Or both.
The thing is that in coming to the conclusions that you've come to, you're taking some really questionable leaps in logic and taking some things for given that aren't at all apparent.
You're very dismissive of the Wii's existing library, for example, which - for a system less than a year away from launch - is at least very good by any standards (even if they might not be your particular taste).
Likewise, I think your definition of "depth" is kind of arbitrary. I don't see where Sonic and the Secret Rings, for instance, has significantly less replay value than a lot of other games. As others have mentioned, Brawl is the kind of game people are going to be playing for the entire lifetime of the system.
The terminology being used is also a huge issue here. People who have been gaming for decades are now being told that the games they're looking forward to are either not "hardcore" or aren't games at all, and that their console of choice doesn't even count as a video game console, but is some kind of dumbed-down funbox for soccer moms. Clearly that's going to rub people the wrong way, which is one of the reasons I absolutely despise the term "hardcore" games/gamers.
It should come as no surprise that people are going to get miffed when they hear something like, "As a hardcore gamer I find that the Wii has nothing that piques my interest, full as it is of casual games lacking depth." The implication being that gamers who perfer the Wii aren't "hardcore" and are no more invested in the games they play on the Wii than they are in Bejeweled.
Scarab, I'm also curious as to why MP3 didn't "feel" as good as the other two to you. It really didn't differ much from the other games, other than the control... the art style was similar, the pacing was similar, the game played more or less the same way as the other metroids.
Maybe you're just getting tired of the series, which is fine but hardly attributable to the fact that it's on the Wii.
my concern over the future of wii is that i wont like the games. i could feel it while playing MP3. ostensibly a good game, but for the first time in a while I felt that it was going in a direction not for me.
[snip]
but its gone in a direction, control, graphics, gameplay, that I feel is not right for me (but may well be right for millions of others).
Well, that's pretty much how I feel about console FPSes with dual-analog controls. I personally dislike the control scheme, and feel that the gameplay suffers as a result of it.
So, I just play my FPSes on the PC instead. There are still other games on the XBox 360 that I like. However, even if the 360 just ended up being all FPSes, it wouldn't be a disaster, since there are other gaming platforms. That's the great thing about competion, there are four viable platforms to choose from (360, PS3, Wii, PC), so surely one of them will suit your gaming tastes.
Edit: rereading this post its actually really complicated. so bear with it. sorry. i rambled.
That's not at all what I have said, or meant.
The direction I see Wii games taking is being more about the control scheme as part of the fun. To me, while this has some aspect of variety, Id rather the controls merely be a means to experience fun in the game.
Wii sports played with the classic controller for example would be the worst game ever.
Its not that I hate 'waggle' or feel stupid doing it, its just that to me the idea that 'moving around' and 'experiencing tactile feedback from a game' doesnt really add much to the experience.
If you take away the control scheme of the Wii it is a gamecube with better graphics.
I KNOW I KNOW before you get in a rage and hit the reply button to vent let me elaborate. Please read on.
For many people, shit, millions upon millions, the experience of interacting with the game via the Wiimote adds significant 'fun' to the gaming session. I am not debating whether it does or it doesnt. It clearly does, and for many people is a significant step forward in gaming. However, for ME, the different control scheme does not add much to the gameplay.
So, for example, in Metroid Prime 3, opening doors sometimes requires you to manipulate a lock with the wiimote with simulated 1:1 controls. to a lot of people this is interesting and new, to me its just opening a door. No different than pressing A. In some cases, with bad design, it becomes worse than pressing a button, especially when it isnt exactly the most fun thing to do.
For me, the experience of the game is within the game, not outside of it. Im positive im in some kind of minority on this. So when galaxy is shown and it is all about the wiimote sensing, such as using it to point as stuff, waggling it to perform spin attacks etc, it doesnt really contribute to my estimation of the game.
On the other hand Brawl, which the designers have said was designed from the ground up with the classic controls in mind (while still definitely employing Wiimote sensitive controls) appeals more because the core game interests me more.
With Galaxy, if you took away the controls, it would be a marginal improvement over sunshine. Ive read a lot of previews on it, wanting to like it. A lot of reviewers have said, and Ill dig up quotes if needs be, that it does feel a lot like a classic mario game with added wiimote functionality. the planetoid aspect to the game and the platforming etc is probably all going to be exceptional, but if the game doesnt interest me to begin with, not to badmouth what is clearly a well made game, the wiimote controls dotn 'add' anything to it.
same with a lot of other games. They use the wii control scheme to add content and functionality to the game. this is fine. I dont have any problems with it. But to me, its just not something I like doing. im not fat, in fact without being too arrogant im in pretty much peak physical condition. its not that waggling tires me, or makes me embarassed. its just for me another means to an end. the game itself should be deep enough, have enough going on and engage me without having to rely on an unusual and different control scheme to add a layer of fun to itself.
this is why I think with wiifit and waggle controls becoming more and more popular the games i thought i would enjoy probably wont engage me.
im generalising a little here. zelda without wii controls was just as fun as with them. but for a wii game built from the ground up for the new controls, they are definitely using them to add a layer of excellence on top. and to me, when that layer adds nothing, the game falls a little flat because one of the major aspects of it irks me more than it works me.
now, this may seem unusual, heck probably insane. a game is just as good as another irrespective of the controls. yes. Galaxy is probably going to be just as good as game as it would have been if, say, it was on the gamecube without wii controls. You cannot complain for having something EXTRA on top. No. very much no. Im not doing that.
What Im saying is, with the prevalence being on Wii games focussing a large part of the game on the controls, advertising tactile advances in each genre, meaning you get to aim with the wiimote in MP3, or waggle the nunchuk in galaxy to perform moves, it doesnt really mean anything to me. so what you end up with is just another game. only now, the way I see it, with popular games on wii being all about the control method and not the game itself, there is a carnivorous effect that the control 'fun' devours the inherent 'game fun' and you end up, for someone to which the controls add little fun' a worse off game.
This is the casual vrsus hardcore debate. if we are going to continue to use such arbitrary terms for the sake of discussion so be it:
to appeal to a casual gamer, one not having 20 years of experience with a similar control scheme only refined to the point of perfection, they need something not simple, but accessible to understand. This is inherently the whole point of the wii. a new control scheme for new ways to play. Nothing wrong at all with that. I applaud nintendo for achievement excellence.
But, and this is a big but; Me, as a so called hardcore gamer, garner no extra enjoyment from the Wii controls. To me, whether you fight an interesting boss with wii controls or with regular ones makes no difference as to how good the boss is. I value a game on its objective gameplay. Is the level design good? Are the enemies interesting to fight? Is the AI good and fun to play against? does the game have clear objective and an interesting narrativem, good grpahics, interesting art style etc? All these 'meta' ways to judge a game matter to me more than the way in which you interact with the game.
This, in effect, is also why I have no console allegiance. I enjoy good games, irrespective of console. Also why I am able to have no siding with keyboard and mouse versus controller. A good game is a good game no matter how you interact with it.
Therefore, by extension, if I judge games irrespective of controls (and I realise controls can add gameplay, such as in MP3 the locked doors, or using simulated 1:1 controls in a marble madness esque game) but rather on its own attributes, a Wii game will end up being judged by me as nothing more than, say, a gamecube 1.5 game.
Hear me out: If a developer develops a game to have, lets say, 100% fun. If 30% of that 'fun quotient' is directed at the player through the control input, in that waggling the controller adds to 30% to the experience of the game' then someone like me on who it has no effect will only garner 70% of the quality of the game.
Now lets look at this another way. The game is 100% fun. Adding wii controls ADDs 30% ontop of this, making it 130% fun. Meaning it is better than it would have been before. To me its just the same. Still 100%. Therefore the Wii is just like the 360 or the PS3. The control scheme adds nothing (well not nothing, but little) for me therefore I judge it purely on the games.
And as we know, if you take away the control scheme the Wii doesnt have much. Galaxy will still be fun, Brawl will. But they are only as fun as, say, Halo 3 or MGS4. and both of those games have superior graphics.
Now, and this is rambling a little, lets look at it like this. Say graphics add 30% to the 'fun' of a game. To me, they do, so a game like Gears, Bioshock, Killzone 2 or Halo 3 ends up being 130% as fun as it would have been. But to another person, to whom graphics dont matter, its still only 100%. same with any aspect of a game, online, AI, story.
So my point is this: Wii controls should be judged in the same way as good graphics, or good sound, good AI, character, plot, narrative, multiplayer etc and all aspects with which you judge a game.
For some people, these things matter. For others they dont. For me, Wii controls dont matter, whereas graphics, sound, plot do a lot.
Of course, Galaxy STILL does have plot, graphics, sound and gameplay. the wii controls are on top of the game already there.
but in the future, with more focus being on the Wii being about the control scheme, developers will and ARE putting less effort on the other factors and making up for these failings with the control scheme.
therefore, if you are still keeping up: if the game is 100% but with the wiimote controls included, because it has lost good points elsewhere, then for me, to whom the controls dont matter, its only, say, 70% fun. and not as good as nother game which doesnt rely on control scheme to gain interest.
Im not saying this is the situation now. Im saying that in the future, if the trend continues on the wii, where more and more games put emphasis on the control method as being integral to the experience of the game, I will find less and less interest in it.
Im open to playing a good game. As I said, a good game is a good game. If its fun Ill play it. but the novelty of the wiimote is wearing off for me, as with everything in life, and what is left if I am being brutally honest, is a last gen remake of a good game, but with less quality. MP3 is not as good as 2 or 1 at all ostensibly. And with Wiifit going to dominate as it has, with the ENTIRE point of that game being the control scheme, I can see this effect becoming more prevalent for the Wii environment.
Of course, a game can have good graphics, good gameplay, good AI etc AND good wii controls ON TOP, but I can see that becoming rarer and rarer. Not to say impossible, but less common.
whereas on the 360 or PS3, where to me graphics do matter, as does sound, online play and all that jazz which the Wii doesnt have, I am touching base because I know the games coming out will have all that.
So my confidence in those systems having games which appeal to me is higher than for the Wii. The Wii will still have outstanding titles, but when the novelty of the wiimote wears off for you, you will find only the real cream of the wii games matches up to the best games on other systems.
Scarab, I'm also curious as to why MP3 didn't "feel" as good as the other two to you. It really didn't differ much from the other games, other than the control... the art style was similar, the pacing was similar, the game played more or less the same way as the other metroids.
Maybe you're just getting tired of the series, which is fine but hardly attributable to the fact that it's on the Wii.
The level design, the pacing of the game. the structure is quite different from the first 2. apart from the first level being basically the Pillar of Autumn the rest of the game lacks a polish and sense of scale that the first 2 did for me.
Its still good, but not quite as epic as particularly the first. which was groundbreaking. it focusses more on the gunplay (as a result of the new controls) and metroid was supposed to be about the exploration and discoveries.
Scarab, I'm also curious as to why MP3 didn't "feel" as good as the other two to you. It really didn't differ much from the other games, other than the control... the art style was similar, the pacing was similar, the game played more or less the same way as the other metroids.
Maybe you're just getting tired of the series, which is fine but hardly attributable to the fact that it's on the Wii.
Not that I speak for him, but I have a feeling that maybe our reasons are similiar.
The game, despite new controls, felt like something I played last gen. It looked like something I played last gen. The AI acted like something from 2 gens ago. the puzzles were last gen. I could have just as easily played that game on the gamecube as I did on the wii.
And as for the controls, they simply replaced things I would do with a button, rather than emulate a movement (grapple being the exception). It wasn't 'new', it was just different.
It was akin to pressing the Z button instead of pressing the A button. Yeah, it's different to press Z instead of A in a situation. But it didn't feel like I was doing something special.
It's shuffling the deck and saying you got a new way to play cards. Just because they're in a different order doesn't mean you came up with something that changes how I think about cards. The FUNDAMENTALS are still there.
That's why *I* care about physics and AI, and realized that I did more than I thought recently. Every advance *does* change the experience, *does* change how I have to think about what I'm doing. It's why I care about how developers are trying to integrate stories in a more compelling way (rather than the extremely pathetic offering in MP3).
shaking a controller instead of rapidly tapping the A button just shuffles the deck, and for a console that I purchased, I still haven't really played a game that I felt was different from anything I haven't played before either with a mouse, a controller, or a light gun.
Scarab, I'm also curious as to why MP3 didn't "feel" as good as the other two to you. It really didn't differ much from the other games, other than the control... the art style was similar, the pacing was similar, the game played more or less the same way as the other metroids.
Maybe you're just getting tired of the series, which is fine but hardly attributable to the fact that it's on the Wii.
The level design, the pacing of the game. the structure is quite different from the first 2. apart from the first level being basically the Pillar of Autumn the rest of the game lacks a polish and sense of scale that the first 2 did for me.
Its still good, but not quite as epic as particularly the first. which was groundbreaking. it focusses more on the gunplay (as a result of the new controls) and metroid was supposed to be about the exploration and discoveries.
I actually thought the first level lacked the polish and scale of the rest of the game, and all the areas still had plenty of moody exploration and discoveries Metroid's known for. Ah well, different opinions, then.
Posts
Funny thing that, if you look at worldwide sales for consoles you'll notice something. Something about how the price seems to directly relate to sales...
Sure, means little when we are talking about comparative quality, but its still nice to know. If the Wii outsells the 360 by as much as it did this year or more in 2008, then publishers will be forced to adapt even more than they already have. It's simple numbers. Does this mean that every game will come out on the Wii? No. Does this mean it'll recieve due attention from certain key players in the market? I believe so.
With a massive user base, there comes a massive exposure rate to your title.
Put out somthing tried and true, and you are guarunteed to make a decent amount of pocket change, consistently, because of the massive user base.
Innovate, and, not only do you run the risk of not only failing, but also earning the ire of your investors, since they see the Wii as pretty much everyone else does, Solid gold, you can't do anything wrong with such a massive userbase, ect.
Well that's slightly misleading. The PSP has sold a fair amount, and as a first console out of the gate has done really well for Sony. Sure the Ds is a juggernaut of sales, especially in Japan, but again, and again in this thread too, someone minterperates 'not doing as well as the market leader' for 'outright failure'.
The Wii DOES and will CONTINUE to have tremendous competition. I dont see how people can see otherwise. There are two rival consoles as opposed to one, and both have much much more resources behind them.
To say the Wii has no, or will eventually have no competition is, in my opinion, naive and not clever. It is doing much better than the other 2 rivals, selling the same as the 360 in half the time, but the 360 and PS3 are hardly 'dead' and this goes back, way back, to a prediction thread ages ago where people assumed the trend in Wii sales would continue. Its already plateauing in Japan, America and Europe will follow.
I think sometimes people need to be more analytical in their posts rather than go for a good 'soundbite' such as 'Seems to me to be a temporary problem at best', implying the Wii wont have competition for much longer. The Wii will have competition for its entire lifespan. So will the Wii 2 and Wii 3. the DS has major competition now in the PSP, more than any other handheld Nintendo has had to compete against.
All that is happening is the competition is going in a different direction to Nintendo. So like I said, before long the real battle will be between the 360 and PS3, not the Wii and anything else.
Hell, that was the case with the PS2. And the video game industry in general. But that's another can o' worms.
I was comparing the price of handhelds to home consoles, not handheld to handheld.
The PSP is a successful system, powerful with many great games and other features that appeal directly to gamers.
The 360 is a successful system, powerful with many great games and other features that appeal directly to gamers.
See where I am going here?
However, when the DS started succeeding around August '05 when Advance Wars and Nintedogs came out, third parties flocked to the DS. The PSP had an extremely strong launch compared to the DS, Lumines and Wipeout and some other great games, but it just kinda fell off from there. There are still plenty of games for the PSP, and it hasn't been ground into dust like it's predecessors, because it turns out there is a market for high-end traditional portable games (and homebrew) but it's just not as big as the one Nintendo found with Brain Age and Nintendogs.
But, Nintendo has been traditionally dominant in the handheld market, and the DS had the support of the vast GBA library, and after the lite came out it was just as sleek and "cool" looking as the PSP. Also, as has been said, graphics matter less and sprites are more appreciated on handhelds. It's easier and cheaper to make sprites look good because they're physically smaller on a handheld.
The reason Japan is plateuing is because Nintendo is diverting Wiis to America. The company itself said this. And Wii console sales in the U.S. continue to skyrocket.
And I never said the Wii wouldn't have competition. It will. But so does the DS.
Also, how do you account for the explosion of Wii games at TGS, despite the absence of Nintendo itself? Zack and Wiki isn't exactly a "casual" game, by your definition.
Actually, I believe it has more to do with the fact that the Wii really hasn't had a big hit in Japan in awhile. They are plenty easy to find right now. This is going to change in other month or so. They'll continue to outsell the PS3 and 360 handily for that time period, but console wise it is pretty dead in Japan right now.
The DS: Weaker system with new kind of input, predictions of doom, and yet wildly successful - but they always win here
The Wii: Weaker system with new kind of input, predictions of doom, and yet wildly successful - even though they've been losing here in recent years
But that was the thing...when the PSP first came out it wasn't "appealing directly to gamers". Sony was trying to make it seem like the next Ipod or something. Well Nintendo kept doing waht they always do(IE selling their system for one it is...a game console).
Truth be told it didn't make sense to get a handheld that didn't want to be "Just a handheld" for $250 when you could get a handheld that knew it was a handheld for around $150.
The PSP is now just getting into the market two years later after it started what it should have been doing in the first place(I.E. selling itself as a handheld).
Oh definitely, when I say the Wii is plateauing, its a fucking himalayan plateau mind you. it still has incredible sales, but they are not increasing. and the whole 'diverting product to america' is a very nice corporate spin from Nintendo. That is, of course, not true at all. The Wii is still in as much supply as it ever was in Japan.
IRT your other post: Yeah. I do see where you are going. its the same place Im trying to get people to go. to realise that 2nd place =/ losing.
The PSP isnt selling as well as the Ds, but its hardly bombing. Nor is the 360 or even the PS3. Quite the contrary. We should be happy that the gaming industry has reached a point where a console as popular as the 360 is considered to 'not be selling well'.
Also, Market Leader =/ best product either. This is an extremely important thing to remember. Extremely.
PSP had some great launch titles. Lumines, Hot Shots Golf, MLB. Better than the DS, which only really had SM64 DS. So games wasn't exactly it's problem. The early push on UMD movie sales was unfortunate at best. I remember the PSP game drought quite well. What's out for the PSP this week. Torque? Ah, I see, no new games once again. I will say that the PS3 and 360's approach to all this is pretty funny. Both are trying to set themselves up as content providers. Much more so than the Wii. Sure the Wii has a browser, some news, some weather. But remember E3 '07? Microsoft going on about Disney movies? Wow. Hey, blame Wii Fit all you want for killing traditional gaming, but at least that's a game.
Yes, but you were talking about "casual" vs. "hardcore" games. Both segments have crappy games, and both have awesome games. That makes the above comment a non sequitur.
I think I've discovered the problem, and it's that you have no taste. Please trade in your Wii to someone more deserving of it, and feel free to never play it again.
Of course it is. Very important to note. This is coming from someone who believed the GCN, and not the PS2, was the best system last generation. It simply had the games I wanted to play. This is not to say that the PS2, with its weaker graphics and enormous market lead, didn't have games I needed to play. Why did it get so many great games? Publishers publish more content on the market leaders, both great games and shovelware. It's a given fact. You can run the numbers if you want, but I'm sure my assertion will pan out.
What I'm trying to say here, all I'm trying to say here, is that the great third party titles will eventually come to the Wii. Hell, I think they are already coming.
you think people talk too much about how unappreciated Beyond G&E was? just you wait
Well Mr. Smarty pants, what do you see happening? Besides, being a fool and punditry such as this go hand in hand, ever listen to a Sports Radio program or one of those political debate shows? :P
Considering how much time I once wasted with TFC, I can easily see this.
I still see that the Wii sales will drop off majorly, I just don't see it continuing much longer heck even around here, Wii's are selling but they are everywhere and really it has alot to do with the system itself, I don't mind my Wii but it barely gets played and really with the games that stand out for it are Smash Brothers and possibly Mario Galaxy.
but I just see the Wii plateuing mainly because It's a pretty good system with a meh lineup.
awesome.
cuz it's awesome
...jawesome...
need I go on?
also pata sucks. also an opinion
Meh =/= bad sales.
Just because I'm not a huge Halo fan doesn't mean the game won't sell by the bargeload. Similarly, just because we don't care about Wii Fit doesn't mean it won't sell. It will, considering pretty much every mainstream media outlet went positively ape about it during E3.
To be perfectly fair it does lose its charm after the first three hours or so.
But those first few hours are a blast.
I'm surrounded by Philistines! But, I'm offtopic, so this is the last I will remark on it here.
In that we agree then.
third party will come to wii, but my problem is when it comes it may be 'too late' to sound really melodramatic. not too late for the system, too late for me. by then I may have moved on.
regardless, you cant argue with fact. and the fact is the wii is selling well and im not about to call doom on nintendo. quite the opposite.
doesnt mean i have to like their games or their console, and not liking them also doesnt mean they are bad. just not to my taste. an important distinction too.
im not worried about the future of wii. nintendo job security is pretty much guaranteed for this generation already. my concern over the future of wii is that i wont like the games. i could feel it while playing MP3. ostensibly a good game, but for the first time in a while I felt that it was going in a direction not for me. could have been the game, ill admit, but as a major first party games, triple a some say, the game did not reach me in the way the first 2 did. and thinking long and hard on it, i pin it down to it being on wii. many things in my opinion contribute to this feeling. none though are that it is a bad game. its isnt. but its gone in a direction, control, graphics, gameplay, that I feel is not right for me (but may well be right for millions of others).
I feel if MP3 goes that route, Galaxy and Brawl are sure to follow. Not by being bad, but by being different. Which sums up my entire thoughts on the console. good games will come to the system, make no mistake. but just like how I dont like Final Fantasy but can appreciate its appeal, I will not enjoy them but still critically be able to applaud their success.
My question is....what is this "route", "direction", "feeling" that you have, that you feel these Wii games will "follow?" Do you feel silly doing motion controls? Do the games not feel serious? I'm wondering, after playing Metroid 3, you attribute this feeling to the Wii, instead of Metroid. You alluded to this ("could have been the game, ill admit"), but then your assertion is that Galaxy and Brawl will follow this "route".
What is the feeling Metroid gave you that, say, Halo or MGS do not? It sounds to me like you're pre-emptively deciding you won't like future Wii games, because they're "different". What is that difference?
I don't mean to put you on the spot, the conversation so far has been very civil. I'm just curious.
@ShiftyPumpkin on the Twitterings. Book the Faces at [facebook.com/PerceptivePumpkinProductions]
The thing is that in coming to the conclusions that you've come to, you're taking some really questionable leaps in logic and taking some things for given that aren't at all apparent.
You're very dismissive of the Wii's existing library, for example, which - for a system less than a year away from launch - is at least very good by any standards (even if they might not be your particular taste).
Likewise, I think your definition of "depth" is kind of arbitrary. I don't see where Sonic and the Secret Rings, for instance, has significantly less replay value than a lot of other games. As others have mentioned, Brawl is the kind of game people are going to be playing for the entire lifetime of the system.
The terminology being used is also a huge issue here. People who have been gaming for decades are now being told that the games they're looking forward to are either not "hardcore" or aren't games at all, and that their console of choice doesn't even count as a video game console, but is some kind of dumbed-down funbox for soccer moms. Clearly that's going to rub people the wrong way, which is one of the reasons I absolutely despise the term "hardcore" games/gamers.
It should come as no surprise that people are going to get miffed when they hear something like, "As a hardcore gamer I find that the Wii has nothing that piques my interest, full as it is of casual games lacking depth." The implication being that gamers who perfer the Wii aren't "hardcore" and are no more invested in the games they play on the Wii than they are in Bejeweled.
Maybe you're just getting tired of the series, which is fine but hardly attributable to the fact that it's on the Wii.
Well, that's pretty much how I feel about console FPSes with dual-analog controls. I personally dislike the control scheme, and feel that the gameplay suffers as a result of it.
So, I just play my FPSes on the PC instead. There are still other games on the XBox 360 that I like. However, even if the 360 just ended up being all FPSes, it wouldn't be a disaster, since there are other gaming platforms. That's the great thing about competion, there are four viable platforms to choose from (360, PS3, Wii, PC), so surely one of them will suit your gaming tastes.
That's not at all what I have said, or meant.
The direction I see Wii games taking is being more about the control scheme as part of the fun. To me, while this has some aspect of variety, Id rather the controls merely be a means to experience fun in the game.
Wii sports played with the classic controller for example would be the worst game ever.
Its not that I hate 'waggle' or feel stupid doing it, its just that to me the idea that 'moving around' and 'experiencing tactile feedback from a game' doesnt really add much to the experience.
If you take away the control scheme of the Wii it is a gamecube with better graphics.
I KNOW I KNOW before you get in a rage and hit the reply button to vent let me elaborate. Please read on.
For many people, shit, millions upon millions, the experience of interacting with the game via the Wiimote adds significant 'fun' to the gaming session. I am not debating whether it does or it doesnt. It clearly does, and for many people is a significant step forward in gaming. However, for ME, the different control scheme does not add much to the gameplay.
So, for example, in Metroid Prime 3, opening doors sometimes requires you to manipulate a lock with the wiimote with simulated 1:1 controls. to a lot of people this is interesting and new, to me its just opening a door. No different than pressing A. In some cases, with bad design, it becomes worse than pressing a button, especially when it isnt exactly the most fun thing to do.
For me, the experience of the game is within the game, not outside of it. Im positive im in some kind of minority on this. So when galaxy is shown and it is all about the wiimote sensing, such as using it to point as stuff, waggling it to perform spin attacks etc, it doesnt really contribute to my estimation of the game.
On the other hand Brawl, which the designers have said was designed from the ground up with the classic controls in mind (while still definitely employing Wiimote sensitive controls) appeals more because the core game interests me more.
With Galaxy, if you took away the controls, it would be a marginal improvement over sunshine. Ive read a lot of previews on it, wanting to like it. A lot of reviewers have said, and Ill dig up quotes if needs be, that it does feel a lot like a classic mario game with added wiimote functionality. the planetoid aspect to the game and the platforming etc is probably all going to be exceptional, but if the game doesnt interest me to begin with, not to badmouth what is clearly a well made game, the wiimote controls dotn 'add' anything to it.
same with a lot of other games. They use the wii control scheme to add content and functionality to the game. this is fine. I dont have any problems with it. But to me, its just not something I like doing. im not fat, in fact without being too arrogant im in pretty much peak physical condition. its not that waggling tires me, or makes me embarassed. its just for me another means to an end. the game itself should be deep enough, have enough going on and engage me without having to rely on an unusual and different control scheme to add a layer of fun to itself.
this is why I think with wiifit and waggle controls becoming more and more popular the games i thought i would enjoy probably wont engage me.
im generalising a little here. zelda without wii controls was just as fun as with them. but for a wii game built from the ground up for the new controls, they are definitely using them to add a layer of excellence on top. and to me, when that layer adds nothing, the game falls a little flat because one of the major aspects of it irks me more than it works me.
now, this may seem unusual, heck probably insane. a game is just as good as another irrespective of the controls. yes. Galaxy is probably going to be just as good as game as it would have been if, say, it was on the gamecube without wii controls. You cannot complain for having something EXTRA on top. No. very much no. Im not doing that.
What Im saying is, with the prevalence being on Wii games focussing a large part of the game on the controls, advertising tactile advances in each genre, meaning you get to aim with the wiimote in MP3, or waggle the nunchuk in galaxy to perform moves, it doesnt really mean anything to me. so what you end up with is just another game. only now, the way I see it, with popular games on wii being all about the control method and not the game itself, there is a carnivorous effect that the control 'fun' devours the inherent 'game fun' and you end up, for someone to which the controls add little fun' a worse off game.
This is the casual vrsus hardcore debate. if we are going to continue to use such arbitrary terms for the sake of discussion so be it:
to appeal to a casual gamer, one not having 20 years of experience with a similar control scheme only refined to the point of perfection, they need something not simple, but accessible to understand. This is inherently the whole point of the wii. a new control scheme for new ways to play. Nothing wrong at all with that. I applaud nintendo for achievement excellence.
But, and this is a big but; Me, as a so called hardcore gamer, garner no extra enjoyment from the Wii controls. To me, whether you fight an interesting boss with wii controls or with regular ones makes no difference as to how good the boss is. I value a game on its objective gameplay. Is the level design good? Are the enemies interesting to fight? Is the AI good and fun to play against? does the game have clear objective and an interesting narrativem, good grpahics, interesting art style etc? All these 'meta' ways to judge a game matter to me more than the way in which you interact with the game.
This, in effect, is also why I have no console allegiance. I enjoy good games, irrespective of console. Also why I am able to have no siding with keyboard and mouse versus controller. A good game is a good game no matter how you interact with it.
Therefore, by extension, if I judge games irrespective of controls (and I realise controls can add gameplay, such as in MP3 the locked doors, or using simulated 1:1 controls in a marble madness esque game) but rather on its own attributes, a Wii game will end up being judged by me as nothing more than, say, a gamecube 1.5 game.
Hear me out: If a developer develops a game to have, lets say, 100% fun. If 30% of that 'fun quotient' is directed at the player through the control input, in that waggling the controller adds to 30% to the experience of the game' then someone like me on who it has no effect will only garner 70% of the quality of the game.
Now lets look at this another way. The game is 100% fun. Adding wii controls ADDs 30% ontop of this, making it 130% fun. Meaning it is better than it would have been before. To me its just the same. Still 100%. Therefore the Wii is just like the 360 or the PS3. The control scheme adds nothing (well not nothing, but little) for me therefore I judge it purely on the games.
And as we know, if you take away the control scheme the Wii doesnt have much. Galaxy will still be fun, Brawl will. But they are only as fun as, say, Halo 3 or MGS4. and both of those games have superior graphics.
Now, and this is rambling a little, lets look at it like this. Say graphics add 30% to the 'fun' of a game. To me, they do, so a game like Gears, Bioshock, Killzone 2 or Halo 3 ends up being 130% as fun as it would have been. But to another person, to whom graphics dont matter, its still only 100%. same with any aspect of a game, online, AI, story.
So my point is this: Wii controls should be judged in the same way as good graphics, or good sound, good AI, character, plot, narrative, multiplayer etc and all aspects with which you judge a game.
For some people, these things matter. For others they dont. For me, Wii controls dont matter, whereas graphics, sound, plot do a lot.
Of course, Galaxy STILL does have plot, graphics, sound and gameplay. the wii controls are on top of the game already there.
but in the future, with more focus being on the Wii being about the control scheme, developers will and ARE putting less effort on the other factors and making up for these failings with the control scheme.
therefore, if you are still keeping up: if the game is 100% but with the wiimote controls included, because it has lost good points elsewhere, then for me, to whom the controls dont matter, its only, say, 70% fun. and not as good as nother game which doesnt rely on control scheme to gain interest.
Im not saying this is the situation now. Im saying that in the future, if the trend continues on the wii, where more and more games put emphasis on the control method as being integral to the experience of the game, I will find less and less interest in it.
Im open to playing a good game. As I said, a good game is a good game. If its fun Ill play it. but the novelty of the wiimote is wearing off for me, as with everything in life, and what is left if I am being brutally honest, is a last gen remake of a good game, but with less quality. MP3 is not as good as 2 or 1 at all ostensibly. And with Wiifit going to dominate as it has, with the ENTIRE point of that game being the control scheme, I can see this effect becoming more prevalent for the Wii environment.
Of course, a game can have good graphics, good gameplay, good AI etc AND good wii controls ON TOP, but I can see that becoming rarer and rarer. Not to say impossible, but less common.
whereas on the 360 or PS3, where to me graphics do matter, as does sound, online play and all that jazz which the Wii doesnt have, I am touching base because I know the games coming out will have all that.
So my confidence in those systems having games which appeal to me is higher than for the Wii. The Wii will still have outstanding titles, but when the novelty of the wiimote wears off for you, you will find only the real cream of the wii games matches up to the best games on other systems.
The level design, the pacing of the game. the structure is quite different from the first 2. apart from the first level being basically the Pillar of Autumn the rest of the game lacks a polish and sense of scale that the first 2 did for me.
Its still good, but not quite as epic as particularly the first. which was groundbreaking. it focusses more on the gunplay (as a result of the new controls) and metroid was supposed to be about the exploration and discoveries.
Not that I speak for him, but I have a feeling that maybe our reasons are similiar.
The game, despite new controls, felt like something I played last gen. It looked like something I played last gen. The AI acted like something from 2 gens ago. the puzzles were last gen. I could have just as easily played that game on the gamecube as I did on the wii.
And as for the controls, they simply replaced things I would do with a button, rather than emulate a movement (grapple being the exception). It wasn't 'new', it was just different.
It was akin to pressing the Z button instead of pressing the A button. Yeah, it's different to press Z instead of A in a situation. But it didn't feel like I was doing something special.
It's shuffling the deck and saying you got a new way to play cards. Just because they're in a different order doesn't mean you came up with something that changes how I think about cards. The FUNDAMENTALS are still there.
That's why *I* care about physics and AI, and realized that I did more than I thought recently. Every advance *does* change the experience, *does* change how I have to think about what I'm doing. It's why I care about how developers are trying to integrate stories in a more compelling way (rather than the extremely pathetic offering in MP3).
shaking a controller instead of rapidly tapping the A button just shuffles the deck, and for a console that I purchased, I still haven't really played a game that I felt was different from anything I haven't played before either with a mouse, a controller, or a light gun.
I actually thought the first level lacked the polish and scale of the rest of the game, and all the areas still had plenty of moody exploration and discoveries Metroid's known for. Ah well, different opinions, then.