Post by: Shift Key on November 04, 2007, 02:17:48 PM
Quote
Nintendo’s resident genius Shigeru Miyamoto thinks that things are just getting started with the Wii. He made a comment about the future of the Wii, and it leans towards some major long-term support for the platform.
Miaymoto says that the Wii will be a lot easier to use in 5 years. There is a lot of room for improvement, and some major updates could come from new Wii channels. Apparently Nintendo has some pretty interesting ideas
Firstly: Five years is an awful long time. How about some more short-term improvements, Shiggy? Third-party support, hard drive addon (i won't lie, i loathe memory cards) better online platform plans. These tangible things will help much more than "promises" and new channels.
Second: Is this because Sony is still waiting to officially start the true next-gen race? I remember them spouting off some comments about the PS3 having a lifespan of 10 years or more, but I didn't think Nintendo were interested in that race.
What does everyone else think?
Post by: NWR_pap64 on November 04, 2007, 02:26:10 PM
In my opinion, I think what he means is that by the time the Wii celebrates its fifth anniversary developers (Nintendo included) will have finally mastered the Wii and there will be games that will truly make the console shine.
Right now the majority of the games are GC/PS2 ports or simple concept games because the developers are starting to get into it. But like every console, after a year or two the games become better as developers get used to working with the system and learn about its quirks and tricks.
Hell, it took the PSone and PS2 more than a year in order for them to get games that truly made the consoles massively popular.
That's how I see it, that with time the Wii and the games will become better and they will be so good that they will make everything released in its first year look bad.
Anyone that believes that ALL the good stuff will come in 5 years is beyond saving, in my honest opinion...
Post by: Adrock on November 04, 2007, 02:43:53 PM
Quote
That's how I see it, that with time the Wii and the games will become better and they will be so good that they will make everything released in its first year look bad.
Agreed though the sad part is that many Wii games look worse than some of last generation's best. Still, the best thing Nintendo did was get a quick start. That 13 million+ userbase is looking real good now, even if 3rd parties cite that they're mostly casual gamers. One brave publisher is bound to take advantage of it and release that one kick-ass hardcore game that will force other 3rd parties to follow suit.
Post by: SixthAngel on November 04, 2007, 04:58:11 PM
Post by: Shift Key on November 04, 2007, 05:51:30 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: SixthAngel
He is basically saying don't expect us to cut this generation short because our console is different. It will live as long and probably longer then the competition.
It doesn't matter how long he says it may live for. The games available determine how long it will live for - and I remember to paltry endings of the N64 and the GC.
Feel free to convince me otherwise, without using a time machine.
Post by: Strell on November 04, 2007, 05:59:18 PM
I don't think it is, but I've yet to see honest representations within game settings that give me a lot of stuff to do without either A) the game being a minigame, or B) holding my hand through it. For example, I hear Carnival Games is good, but I can't imagine it does anything truly different from Wii Sports. Same with Sonic/Mario Olympics, which seems to replace "hit A as fast as you can" with "waggle as fast as you can." And even in games where the utility of the Wiimote is being exploited well - Zack and Wiki comes to mind - the game has to stop, show you how to hold the thing, and then (sometimes) gives you even more direction on what exactly to do.
In other words, as intuitive as the Wiimote CAN be, it almost ceases to actually BE that way. I think everyone knows how to swing in Wii Tennis. But I don't think that knowledge works elsewhere. Again, Zack and Wiki has to guide you, and that can ruin the immersion of the game. I thought Metroid Prime 3 handled it well, but even there, you see a bunch of "ok do X now do Y now ok you're done" instructions.
I guess the point I'm making is that we need to be able to pick up a game and just instantly know either how to do all the motions intuitively a priori, or we need to be given some basic directions in an opening/tutorial mode/level, and then figure it all out on our own as the game is going on. I.e., if, say, a Half Life-like game came out, you went through a training exercise that maybe explained 3-4 motion capable actions, but combining them allows you to do a variety of things in the actual game.
I think Miyamoto's comments raise another interesting question. Go ahead and assume that the Wii has been alive for a year (because it has). Given that game development can - on average - hover around 2 years, I'm thinking a lot of third party titles are going to be released within 1.5-2 years from now. That gives the system 3 years minimum. I'm pretty sure - if sales remain the way they are - that it'll last another year beyond that. So that's 4 years I think I can safely say it will be around.
The fifth year is a little iffier, because I'm guessing Microsoft will want to move forward by then. And since I'm guessing Sony and MS are going to try and incorporate motion into their next systems, it's going to be easy for MS to roll out a system that has good graphics, motion, and the XBL platform. That'll be really hard for Nintendo to compete with, unless the system ends up in the PS2's footsteps and just KEEPS on goin'. I highly doubt the PS3 will last this legendary 10 years, because Sony said the same thing about the PS2.
Now, all of this is important, because I'm really curious what the Wii2 will be like. Because of my earlier concerns in this post, I'm thinking we'll have seen some stark limitations of the controller by then, and as much as I'd like for Nintendo to be totally awesome and let me use the four controllers I'll undoubtedly have by then (if not 5 or 6) with the Wii2, I'm thinking they'll have to completely redesign the interface to be more intuitive/user friendly/responsive/reaction sensitive.
So this just makes me worry about 5 years in the future, because Miyamoto seems to think they'll have no problem selling systems and games until that time, and I just don't know if I fully buy that. And I still think the limitations of the system will arise before that. Not so much graphically, since Galaxy looks awesome, but on the entire motion interface, and the appropriate software that takes advantage of it in new and unique ways.
Let's just say I'm still remaining a bit cautious.
Post by: Adrock on November 04, 2007, 07:06:10 PM
As far as the successor of Wii goes, I think Nintendo is planning on continuing their innovative tradition. What they plan on doing is anyone's guess, but I do expect them to remain ahead of the curve. Sony and Microsoft are sure to copy Nintendo which still leaves them behind. And if Sony or MS try something innovative, I have a feeling cost will still be a problem. Topping Nintendo is probably their main concern, I'm just not sure either company realizes that the genius of Nintendo plan was making their product as affordable as possible.
A few things I do expect from Nintendo's next controller is a microphone and a better speaker. More buttons is a possibility and shouldn't intrude on the simplicity of motion controls. Beyond that, I have no guesses.
Post by: Nick DiMola on November 04, 2007, 10:51:02 PM
Post by: Strell on November 04, 2007, 11:18:56 PM
Essentially, the problems I've outlined in here already center around the idea of just knowing what to do with the Wiimote. I mean what I want to see in a game - let's say Metroid: Next - is that I'll walk into a room. I kill all the monsters. Before me is a gigantic screen for data base. I'm going to hack into it. I walk up, and just instantly I know if I make certain motions, I access various parts of the computer. And then I see some switches and I make more motions and pull them one way or the other.
At NO TIME do I want to see "rotate the nunchuk" or "push toward the screen" comments. I just want to absolutely know what to do.
My personal solution? And before I say this, let me say that I'm almost 100% sure it can't be done.
Essentially, the problem is that we need to know what to, how to do it, and know hot to do it fast. So, maybe there could be a hologram projector with the system, and basically it does two things. The obvious first is that it brings up a hologram that shows me whatever motion-sensitive action I can do. This can be placed ANYWHERE in terms of physical space. So, a game developer could have it appear next to the screen, so I can see it peripherally. And maybe it can use different colors, each representing specific things, so I can just instantly know what action to try.
I.e., Metroid: Next again. Green is "push toward/away/twist the Wiimote" actions for the power cells. So when I'm playing the game, and I see that hologram come up out of the corner of my eye, I know exactly what kind of actions to try - there's no question in my head.
In fact, it could be standard across different games, so that in ANY game I play, I know green is to do that particular set of actions. Maybe it doesn't tell me the exact order, but I know the gist of what to try. You could always show two colors alternating, so I'd know that I need to combine "push toward the tv" with "make a fast curve motion." In this way, it's really kind of like the second screen on the DS - it provides me with information that I can interpret quickly, but without taking me out of the game, kind of like the maps in Castlevania. It's there mostly for information purposes and for allowing me to know how to handle situations inside the game world.
Now, I said the hologram would have two basic functions. The second one would be more for motion-guidance purposes. In other words, a big problem with some games is that you don't know when you can or can't do something. I.e., in Wii Tennis, sometimes I'll swing, but my guy doesn't respond, or he does a backhand instead of a forehand. Or in Zack and Wiki, if I need to saw something, it seems like I can never get the rhythm down 100% (though this doesn't actually hurt me in the game, but is annoying).
So maybe these hologram projections could also be sent "next to the player," or "wherever the player's hands are" - basically, right next to you physically. The point being here that it provides you with guidance. What happens, then, is that you can place your hands in the exact position the hologram is in, and mimic the motions. Whatever is creating the hologram senses this, and sends that data back into the system. In this manner, it helps guide players into doing actions, allowing them to begin doing something quickly and correctly.
So now, Metroid:Next again. I show up at that giant computer screen I was talking about earlier, and I see a set of controls I've never seen before in the game. I walk over to them. It's three switches like three Atari joysticks. A hologram appears near my hands showing me to hold the Wiimote straight up, and then move them like a joystick to use them. The difference between this function of the hologram and the first one I said (in fact, while you're doing this, maybe there's an orange one up near the screen) is that what this allows me to do is simple - I can alter those three switches quickly. So, on this second hologram near my hands, THREE of these switches appear. As I move the Wiimote directly onto each individual representation, the game understand immediately that I'm using switch 2, or switch 3, etc.
The reason I think this is needed is that doing it the current way takes too much time. I.e., if we had three switches like that now, well, first I have to "select" it by most likely pressing A onscreen (with the IR pointer), THEN a tutorial comes up telling me what to do, I use the switch, I "cancel out" somehow, and then do the same with the other switches.
If we had this hologram projector, instead of doing all of that, instead I walk up, I see an orange reference near the screen, so I know it's "hold the Wiimote straight up and move like a joystick" with my peripheral vision, and ALSO with my peripheral vision, I see three switch representations appear before me, and as I move the Wiimote into conjunction with them, the game lets me interface with all three quickly.
What might take a good 2-3 minutes with the current setup now takes all of 20-30 seconds.
I'm sure I haven't thought this all the way through, and I'm tired and only woke up for a few minutes before going back to bed, but this is sort of my idea for the next system. Again, I think it's not going to happen, and I'm confident that Nintendo will again floor everyone, but this represents a way to further immerse gamers AND increase intuitive controls with more precise commands.
Post by: Ceric on November 05, 2007, 01:01:42 AM
Post by: Kairon on November 05, 2007, 05:30:02 AM
... I mean.... seriosuly, you think he's telling us to wait? Talk about misreading things. He's saying that between now and five years in the future, Nintendo will get tons of things done.
Post by: Ian Sane on November 05, 2007, 06:04:14 AM
Funny how he used the term "easier to use". Who the hell finds it hard it to use?
"Personally I have honest doubts about the ability of the Wii controller to be utilized in revolutionary ways. I think Wii Sports came out and was pretty awesome, setting the bar high while simultaneously blowing the respective wad all at once. In fact, I have thought about this a lot recently - is Wii Sports already the pinnacle of what could be done with the Wiimote?"
Metroid Prime 3 makes great use of the remote though a lot of its remote usage is pretty much what a mouse does. It's kind of a mouse/controller combo that works really well. It would be very hard to replicate in another form though you probably could using a mouse in one hand and instead of a keyboard hold a "normal" controller in the other though that would be awkward and uncomfortable. But then some of the little touches like turning control panels and such wouldn't work as well. Still Metroid Prime 3 pretty much combines PC and console controls into one. I think you could make the core game work well with a different control scheme but it wouldn't feel as nice.
Wii Sports however would be boring horsesh!t with a different controller. Without the remote mechanics the game would be a laughably limited sports game. You could time button presses with racket swings and have a meter for golf. All those sports have been done with a normal controller in a very polished way. But what's the point? The control adds to it.
I think the best usage of the remote in the future will be a console substitute for a mouse which is pretty much what the DS touchscreen does and what Metroid Prime 3 deep down is really doing though it does it so well. I never for a second thought the remote was the future. Still don't. I still think certain games will be limited by the Wii's controller and others that forced remote usage like "waggle" will continue. I think Nintendo came up with a really cool speciality controller that isn't so well suited as a standard controller. But from a marketing point of view the design seems to have worked or at least Wii Sports (which is like the DDR to the remote's dance pad) is a major killer app. Nintendo seems capable of successfully shoehorning the remote into whatever game they want, whether it's appropriate or not, while third parties kind of suck at it. If the remote was the future there would be no waggle. There wasn't lousy forced analog stick usage on the N64. That's the difference.
One thing to note is Nintendo's next big game in the "Wii _____" series is Wii Fit which requires a new speciality controller. Why doesn't it just use the remote like Wii Sports did? Does that suggest anything about Nintendo's ability to come up with new ideas for the remote or is it just a fluke that their next big innovative non-traditional title requires extra hardware? Or maybe that's Nintendo's whole plan and the Wii is like an arcade in your living room with a whole bunch of custom controller options. It's like they saw how big arcades with custom hardware was in Japan and tried to bring that home.
The remote and the touchscreen were marketing ideas not game development ideas. And so far they've both worked for that purpose. Much like "non-gaming" the whole idea is to get people who don't like games buying videogame systems and having unique controllers helps with "tricking" them into trying it. I don't think anyone with half a brain was confused about the existing controllers they just decided gaming wasn't for them and refused to try it so Nintendo had to make them think that their product was different. It was never confusion or intimidation but rather stubborn refusal to learn.
Post by: Stogi on November 05, 2007, 06:46:48 AM
WiiFit was made to attract all those people who have seen the Wii on the news about getting people to actively participate in games and have fun while excersizing.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 05, 2007, 06:50:23 AM
WAIT 5 YEARS BEFORE HE SHOWS OFF HE NEW SECRET FRANCHISE HE PROMISED IN 2002.
Post by: NWR_insanolord on November 05, 2007, 06:53:33 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
In five years the next Nintendo console will be out and we won't care about the Wii anymore. Though I agree it's good that Nintendo shows commitment. Since the Wii was annouced there was always been rumour of a Wii 1.5 of sorts where the hardware gets a proper upgrade. Probably all fanboy wishing (and dumb wishing since we would get screwed if the Wii was replaced so soon) but the idea has always been there and it's good to hear otherwise from Nintendo.
Funny how he used the term "easier to use". Who the hell finds it hard it to use?
"Personally I have honest doubts about the ability of the Wii controller to be utilized in revolutionary ways. I think Wii Sports came out and was pretty awesome, setting the bar high while simultaneously blowing the respective wad all at once. In fact, I have thought about this a lot recently - is Wii Sports already the pinnacle of what could be done with the Wiimote?"
Metroid Prime 3 makes great use of the remote though a lot of its remote usage is pretty much what a mouse does. It's kind of a mouse/controller combo that works really well. It would be very hard to replicate in another form though you probably could using a mouse in one hand and instead of a keyboard hold a "normal" controller in the other though that would be awkward and uncomfortable. But then some of the little touches like turning control panels and such wouldn't work as well. Still Metroid Prime 3 pretty much combines PC and console controls into one. I think you could make the core game work well with a different control scheme but it wouldn't feel as nice.
Wii Sports however would be boring horsesh!t with a different controller. Without the remote mechanics the game would be a laughably limited sports game. You could time button presses with racket swings and have a meter for golf. All those sports have been done with a normal controller in a very polished way. But what's the point? The control adds to it.
I think the best usage of the remote in the future will be a console substitute for a mouse which is pretty much what the DS touchscreen does and what Metroid Prime 3 deep down is really doing though it does it so well. I never for a second thought the remote was the future. Still don't. I still think certain games will be limited by the Wii's controller and others that forced remote usage like "waggle" will continue. I think Nintendo came up with a really cool speciality controller that isn't so well suited as a standard controller. But from a marketing point of view the design seems to have worked or at least Wii Sports (which is like the DDR to the remote's dance pad) is a major killer app. Nintendo seems capable of successfully shoehorning the remote into whatever game they want, whether it's appropriate or not, while third parties kind of suck at it. If the remote was the future there would be no waggle. There wasn't lousy forced analog stick usage on the N64. That's the difference.
One thing to note is Nintendo's next big game in the "Wii _____" series is Wii Fit which requires a new speciality controller. Why doesn't it just use the remote like Wii Sports did? Does that suggest anything about Nintendo's ability to come up with new ideas for the remote or is it just a fluke that their next big innovative non-traditional title requires extra hardware? Or maybe that's Nintendo's whole plan and the Wii is like an arcade in your living room with a whole bunch of custom controller options. It's like they saw how big arcades with custom hardware was in Japan and tried to bring that home.
The remote and the touchscreen were marketing ideas not game development ideas. And so far they've both worked for that purpose. Much like "non-gaming" the whole idea is to get people who don't like games buying videogame systems and having unique controllers helps with "tricking" them into trying it. I don't think anyone with half a brain was confused about the existing controllers they just decided gaming wasn't for them and refused to try it so Nintendo had to make them think that their product was different. It was never confusion or intimidation but rather stubborn refusal to learn.
I don't know if the remote is the future or not, but the fact that developers have trouble implementing it well where there was no trouble with the analog stick is irrelevant to that discussion. The analog stick was evolutionary technology, a better version of a style of control that everyone was used to. The Wii remote is something completely new that requires new design techniques and new kinds of programming that have to be learned. And as you said, Nintendo seems to be able to make any game work with Wii controls. Maybe the problem isn't with the controller, but with the developers.
Post by: couchmonkey on November 05, 2007, 07:13:56 AM
Personally, I've been thinking something like this recently...but the context is, "People still don't have faith in Wii at this point, but five years down the road when we're all looking back, I believe Wii will be seen as the best of the three systems." Or he could mean we'll have to wait five years for Wii to be any good...which seems to be the viewpoint a few are automatically taking here.
I hear a lot of people talking about games and how they will affect the system's lifespan, and I want to point out that Wii has the most third party games this holiday season. Yes 95% are crap, but for a Nintendo console to have the most games in a holiday season was inconceivable two years ago.
Post by: Smash_Brother on November 05, 2007, 07:33:44 AM
The real beauty of the Wiimote is that it allows sensitivity to player input in ways which a regular controller cannot. While that sounds beautiful on paper, translating that into workable game mechanics is an entirely different matter, but not one which is impossible.
Right now, we're seeing game ideas which primarily use waggle to replace button presses, but the ideas which will come from those will be better and better still. One might argue that it took a great deal of time for the standard controller to really reach its prime, especially when it has seen piles of revamps and redesigns. The Wiimote is the first of its kind and will no doubt also see the same number of revamps over the coming generations, some by Nintendo and some by other companies. I honestly doubt that we'll be seeing any more "standard" controllers out of Sony/MS after this gen, as much as they love to dismiss the ideas now.
I still think the best examples of Wiimote usage will, without a doubt, stem from examples which are similar to the current best controller examples: games which feature very few buttons but are context sensitive to allow the player to accomplish different things in different situations. Someone used the example of how jumping in the first Super Mario Bros. was an attack, an evasive maneuver, a device to cross obstacles and a means of opening/destroying blocks above you, all with a single button. Hell, even RPGs do this with the menus which allow you to select actions from a list with a single button.
The real key to a killer piece of motion-sensitive software will be something which uses the motion sensing in such a way that it the controls become genuinely transparent to the user, and since the mote n chuck allow for full freedom of motion, it's difficult to lock people into a specific position to hold the controller when it isn't actually tethered to anything.
Bottom line, the concepts are still being fleshed out and built upon, and I believe this is what Miyamoto is trying to say.
On an unrelated note, RE:UC will allow players to pull of the "dual wield guns with 2 wiimotes" setup which people have been asking for.
Post by: King of Twitch on November 05, 2007, 07:41:24 AM
Their second goal should be wiping the two great satans off the map within five years.
Post by: Ceric on November 05, 2007, 08:23:30 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on November 05, 2007, 08:42:27 AM
So if I make a proposed new automobile standard and only 10% of the population can drive the thing without crashing it's the drivers' fault? Not everyone is going to adapt to new ideas. Hell some very talented developers had difficulty switching to 3D. But there's a balance between people not getting a new idea and a new idea being too difficult for people to get. If Nintendo ends up the only developer who can consistently design games for the Wii that don't play like sh!t then they didn't introduce a new standard.
Post by: NWR_insanolord on November 05, 2007, 09:09:12 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Maybe the problem isn't with the controller, but with the developers."
So if I make a proposed new automobile standard and only 10% of the population can drive the thing without crashing it's the drivers' fault? Not everyone is going to adapt to new ideas. Hell some very talented developers had difficulty switching to 3D. But there's a balance between people not getting a new idea and a new idea being too difficult for people to get. If Nintendo ends up the only developer who can consistently design games for the Wii that don't play like sh!t then they didn't introduce a new standard.
No one is putting a gun to developers' heads and forcing them to make games for the Wii. If they don't want to take the time to learn how to use the new technology then they don't have to. There have been very few serious attempts at crafting a game from the ground up on the Wii outside Nintendo, and the ones we've seen so far were started before the console launched and we had good ideas of what the thing was capable of. It is way too soon to be saying that nobody but Nintendo can make good games on the Wii. If we're going into 2009 and we still haven't seen much of anything from third parties then we should be worried, but we have to wait and see, give the developers a chance to learn before saying that only Nintendo can do it.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 05, 2007, 09:16:36 AM
Post by: Strell on November 05, 2007, 09:20:47 AM
Post by: NWR_insanolord on November 05, 2007, 09:26:25 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on November 05, 2007, 09:41:46 AM
Same with the "no one thought the Wii would be this successful" excuse used to defend weak third party support. It has never taken this long for third parties to catch up with the market leader.
There's some sort of problem with the Wii that we can't quite put our finger on and if the Wii ever loses the top spot I think that problem will be the key factor. This console is taking way too long to really get going.
Post by: NWR_insanolord on November 05, 2007, 10:13:14 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I've been hearing "it's too soon; devs need more time" stuff for almost a whole year now. I can't think of any other videogame system in history to have such a high learning curve for development. The Gamecube was obviously not nearly as successful as the Wii has been but at this point the devs that were actually making games for it had the kinks out. Same with every other Nintendo console. This excuse had some weight back in March but it isn't really making much sense anymore.
Same with the "no one thought the Wii would be this successful" excuse used to defend weak third party support. It has never taken this long for third parties to catch up with the market leader.
There's some sort of problem with the Wii that we can't quite put our finger on and if the Wii ever loses the top spot I think that problem will be the key factor. This console is taking way too long to really get going.
Again you're comparing this to what we've seen historically too much. This is an entirely new way of doing things and you can't make direct comparisons to other consoles.
The GameCube was around the same technological level as its two competitors and was programmed for in roughly the same way. That's why it got support even when it wasn't popular.
Why would a difference of a few months make a difference in the validity of a reason why we haven't gotten many good third party games when games (good ones, at least) take a lot longer than that to develop? Not to mention that there are a number of third party games between now and the end of the year that look like they'll be good.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 05, 2007, 10:27:42 AM
Post by: NWR_insanolord on November 05, 2007, 10:49:37 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
Maybe the reason why 3rd parties are taking so long is because they invested so much in systems like 360 and PS3 it is hard to change? The industry is VASTLY different today because budgets are huge, and games take much longer to create, so it is much harder to get developers to commit. Heck there are few situations like the Wii, during the NES era there was basically Nintendo or nothing, SNES era it was mostly Nintendo though Sega gave them a run for their money, PSone era took awhile to get going with Sony finally dominating for two generations, now we have the Wii leading which flipped the industry on its head. Really the only somewhat legit comparison is Wii to PSone but even that is lacking because PSone was a "next generation" with Sega being its only real competition.
That's also likely a part of it. No one in their right mind would have predicted the situation we're in now.
Post by: Ian Sane on November 05, 2007, 11:02:06 AM
It starts of as a few months and then gets bigger and bigger. The cliche defenses against most Wii criticisms often involve time being a factor. Thus as time goes by excuses about "giving it time" and such make less and less sense because more time has gone by. Nintendo has started releasing the really big games, the console has been number one for a while now, and all the industry shows and such are over. Yet the Wii doesn't feel "established" yet. Do I have to wait another year? Wait until next year's trade shows?
"Again you're comparing this to what we've seen historically too much. This is an entirely new way of doing things and you can't make direct comparisons to other consoles."
Sure I can. I'm a consumer and I expect so much out of videogame console. If the Wii can't get up to speed in a year when other consoles I have bought were easily able to do so why should I put up with it? There can be legitimate reasons for this but if I'm just some guy who doesn't follow gaming the way we do on this site I don't know of those reasons. All I see is a console that is taking a ridiculously long amount of time to get the kinks out.
At this point there should be solid support from third parties (or at least comparible to the market share the console has) and I should expect games to be polished and have smooth controls. You can lay out all the reasons why that's not the case yet but to me those are all just excuses. I tolerated excuses on the Cube and got burned so the hell with "wait and see".
Post by: Smash_Brother on November 05, 2007, 11:26:18 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
At this point there should be solid support from third parties (or at least comparible to the market share the console has) and I should expect games to be polished and have smooth controls. You can lay out all the reasons why that's not the case yet but to me those are all just excuses. I tolerated excuses on the Cube and got burned so the hell with "wait and see".
You're like the guy standing there with a tidal wave behind him saying, "There's no water! It's a drought, I tell you!"
Examine this list of coming Wii games
And if you say, "Yeah, but there's nothing good on that list" then I'm going to remind you that 99.9% of the games on the PS2, the previous market leader, were pure ass and this was never truer than it was just a year into the console's life.
The game that "sold" the PS2 didn't even really exist until GTA3 game out. Before then, there wasn't a compelling reason to own the console.
I wouldn't mind this type of incessant bitching about the Wii except for the fact that it's always being compared to some type of mystical console which only exists in the mind of the complainers.
I have both a Wii and a 360 in my home: the only decent things out for 360 in the past few months were Orange Box and Halo 3, and considering OB is infinitely better than Halo 3, it's an overlap which will only necessitate the purchase of one of the games (I don't even consider the PS3 a contender in this).
The Wii has Zak and Wiki, Manhunt 2, Batallion Wars 2 and soon, Mario Galaxy.
I don't know what magical console is beating releases like this right now but I'd love to know where I can find one.
Post by: Kairon on November 05, 2007, 11:29:59 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Not everyone is going to adapt to new ideas. Hell some very talented developers had difficulty switching to 3D. But there's a balance between people not getting a new idea and a new idea being too difficult for people to get. If Nintendo ends up the only developer who can consistently design games for the Wii that don't play like sh!t then they didn't introduce a new standard.
Nintendo acknowledges this. The Wii is all for nothing if they can't get developers and the industry as a whole changed over to a different way of thinking about games, what they are, how they're controlled, and who they can sell them too. Iwata himself has said that if all they ever really accomplish doing is outselling the gamecube with no other changes, they've failed!
After all, Nintendo is advising third parties on how controls can be implemented, how the interfaces can work, possibilities for use... Nintendo knows what's at stake here too Ian, and behind all this business success and rhetoric they're actively trying to change the environment of the game industry in exactly the direction the Wii promises.
Post by: Chozo Ghost on November 05, 2007, 11:36:26 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I've been hearing "it's too soon; devs need more time" stuff for almost a whole year now. I can't think of any other videogame system in history to have such a high learning curve for development. The Gamecube was obviously not nearly as successful as the Wii has been but at this point the devs that were actually making games for it had the kinks out. Same with every other Nintendo console. This excuse had some weight back in March but it isn't really making much sense anymore.
Same with the "no one thought the Wii would be this successful" excuse used to defend weak third party support. It has never taken this long for third parties to catch up with the market leader.
There's some sort of problem with the Wii that we can't quite put our finger on and if the Wii ever loses the top spot I think that problem will be the key factor. This console is taking way too long to really get going.
Umm, Ian... it took well over a year for the DS to really take off in a significant way. The Wii hasn't even been out for a year yet.
Also, it takes more than a year (usually) to make a decent game. How long was Zelda TP in production? It was announced long before the Wii was, if I'm not mistaken. So even though third parties HAVE jumped on the Wii bandwagon, you can't expect high quality games to come out right away. You can be sure they are in the pipeline, but good god man, have some patience.
We're only seeing minigames and ports right now because those are what can be thrown out with minimal effort. Creating stuff from scratch can take years.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 05, 2007, 11:40:22 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Chozo GhostQuote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I've been hearing "it's too soon; devs need more time" stuff for almost a whole year now. I can't think of any other videogame system in history to have such a high learning curve for development. The Gamecube was obviously not nearly as successful as the Wii has been but at this point the devs that were actually making games for it had the kinks out. Same with every other Nintendo console. This excuse had some weight back in March but it isn't really making much sense anymore.
Same with the "no one thought the Wii would be this successful" excuse used to defend weak third party support. It has never taken this long for third parties to catch up with the market leader.
There's some sort of problem with the Wii that we can't quite put our finger on and if the Wii ever loses the top spot I think that problem will be the key factor. This console is taking way too long to really get going.
Umm, Ian... it took well over a year for the DS to really take off in a significant way. The Wii hasn't even been out for a year yet.
Also, it takes more than a year (usually) to make a decent game. How long was Zelda TP in production? It was announced long before the Wii was, if I'm not mistaken. So even though third parties HAVE jumped on the Wii bandwagon, you can't expect high quality games to come out right away. You can be sure they are in the pipeline, but good god man, have some patience.
We're only seeing minigames and ports right now because those are what can be thrown out with minimal effort. Creating stuff from scratch can take years.
NDS is a great example, I think we sometimes forget how horrid the drought was the first year. It dwarfed what the Wii is going through.
Post by: Chozo Ghost on November 05, 2007, 11:47:24 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenixQuote
Originally posted by: Chozo GhostQuote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I've been hearing "it's too soon; devs need more time" stuff for almost a whole year now. I can't think of any other videogame system in history to have such a high learning curve for development. The Gamecube was obviously not nearly as successful as the Wii has been but at this point the devs that were actually making games for it had the kinks out. Same with every other Nintendo console. This excuse had some weight back in March but it isn't really making much sense anymore.
Same with the "no one thought the Wii would be this successful" excuse used to defend weak third party support. It has never taken this long for third parties to catch up with the market leader.
There's some sort of problem with the Wii that we can't quite put our finger on and if the Wii ever loses the top spot I think that problem will be the key factor. This console is taking way too long to really get going.
Umm, Ian... it took well over a year for the DS to really take off in a significant way. The Wii hasn't even been out for a year yet.
Also, it takes more than a year (usually) to make a decent game. How long was Zelda TP in production? It was announced long before the Wii was, if I'm not mistaken. So even though third parties HAVE jumped on the Wii bandwagon, you can't expect high quality games to come out right away. You can be sure they are in the pipeline, but good god man, have some patience.
We're only seeing minigames and ports right now because those are what can be thrown out with minimal effort. Creating stuff from scratch can take years.
NDS is a great example, I think we sometimes forget how horrid the drought was the first year. It dwarfed what the Wii is going through.
Absolutely. Of course the PSP's drought was a 100 times worse, but the DS's drought was still terrible. I don't think there is really any console that doesn't experience a drought in its first year.
Post by: darknight06 on November 05, 2007, 12:04:36 PM
As far as the statement is concerned, once again it seems like everybody's taking it way out of proportion as usual. I swear, it's almost as if some of you guys are so used to being overly pessimistic to the point where when even ground shaking things happen you guys will find something wrong with it.
Post by: Kairon on November 05, 2007, 12:12:40 PM
Post by: BigJim on November 05, 2007, 12:44:09 PM
Post by: Stogi on November 05, 2007, 12:57:18 PM
But like Samuel L. always says: the abscence of evidence is not the evidence of abscence.
Post by: Mario on November 05, 2007, 03:05:36 PM
QuoteDo you ever think? You just tried to pass off comparing professional game developers to average joe drivers as fair. Do you really think everyone driving Formula 1 cars around is more likely than game developers making good Wii games? These developers are expected to do their job, just like professional drivers who DO continually adapt to new machinery. I suppose the only difference is, if they crash they could lose their life and if game devs can't adapt they'll blame Nintendo and everyone else or swing a bag.
So if I make a proposed new automobile standard and only 10% of the population can drive the thing without crashing it's the drivers' fault?
Here's my analogy. If the developers who are too used to driving in a straight line, don't know what to do when Nintendo adds a steering wheel, then quite simply they are friggin morons. Nintendo needed to add this to keep the consumers interested, we were sick of watching drag races, Nintendo has shown us corners are much more interesting, ratings have gone up, more people are showing up to Nintendos racing series than the old ones. Problem is there's only two or three drivers going around. All developers need to do is show up and try, if they crash THEY WONT DIE! And if they come last, who cares, the people in the stands will still be cheering as they pass the finish line.
Quote
This console is taking way too long to really get going.
It's the fastest selling game console of all time.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 05, 2007, 03:11:16 PM
Post by: Smash_Brother on November 05, 2007, 04:22:17 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mario Here's my analogy. If the developers who are too used to driving in a straight line, don't know what to do when Nintendo adds a steering wheel, then quite simply they are friggin morons. Nintendo needed to add this to keep the consumers interested, we were sick of watching drag races, Nintendo has shown us corners are much more interesting, ratings have gone up, more people are showing up to Nintendos racing series than the old ones. Problem is there's only two or three drivers going around. All developers need to do is show up and try, if they crash THEY WONT DIE! And if they come last, who cares, the people in the stands will still be cheering as they pass the finish line.
Very well put.
::cleans up the pieces of GP's head::
Post by: BigJim on November 05, 2007, 05:02:55 PM
Quote
If the developers who are too used to driving in a straight line, don't know what to do when Nintendo adds a steering wheel, then quite simply they are friggin morons.
If the "steering wheel" doesn't pan out to be the next, err, steering wheel, then you can't point the finger at everybody but the source. It doesn't fly when Sony blames movie studios for UMD, and it wouldn't fly for Wiimote. They're taking a calculated risk, and while the steering wheel is working out for them (*sort of) if it's not part of others' agendas, then it's ultimately falling on Nintendo.
* "sort of" referring to how they have the car, they have the steering wheel, but the major metropolis areas are being damn slow about paving the street with curves, while going gung-ho for the straight streets.
What were we talking about again?
Oh yeah, I hate analogies.
Post by: IceCold on November 05, 2007, 05:18:12 PM
QuoteMaking the controls more intuitive while integrating them seamlessly for more immersion? I like the idea.
Originally posted by: Strell
My personal solution? And before I say this, let me say that I'm almost 100% sure it can't be done.
Essentially, the problem is that we need to know what to, how to do it, and know hot to do it fast. So, maybe there could be a hologram projector with the system, and basically it does two things. The obvious first is that it brings up a hologram that shows me whatever motion-sensitive action I can do. This can be placed ANYWHERE in terms of physical space. So, a game developer could have it appear next to the screen, so I can see it peripherally. And maybe it can use different colors, each representing specific things, so I can just instantly know what action to try.
I.e., Metroid: Next again. Green is "push toward/away/twist the Wiimote" actions for the power cells. So when I'm playing the game, and I see that hologram come up out of the corner of my eye, I know exactly what kind of actions to try - there's no question in my head.
In fact, it could be standard across different games, so that in ANY game I play, I know green is to do that particular set of actions. Maybe it doesn't tell me the exact order, but I know the gist of what to try. You could always show two colors alternating, so I'd know that I need to combine "push toward the tv" with "make a fast curve motion." In this way, it's really kind of like the second screen on the DS - it provides me with information that I can interpret quickly, but without taking me out of the game, kind of like the maps in Castlevania. It's there mostly for information purposes and for allowing me to know how to handle situations inside the game world.
Now, I said the hologram would have two basic functions. The second one would be more for motion-guidance purposes. In other words, a big problem with some games is that you don't know when you can or can't do something. I.e., in Wii Tennis, sometimes I'll swing, but my guy doesn't respond, or he does a backhand instead of a forehand. Or in Zack and Wiki, if I need to saw something, it seems like I can never get the rhythm down 100% (though this doesn't actually hurt me in the game, but is annoying).
So maybe these hologram projections could also be sent "next to the player," or "wherever the player's hands are" - basically, right next to you physically. The point being here that it provides you with guidance. What happens, then, is that you can place your hands in the exact position the hologram is in, and mimic the motions. Whatever is creating the hologram senses this, and sends that data back into the system. In this manner, it helps guide players into doing actions, allowing them to begin doing something quickly and correctly.
So now, Metroid:Next again. I show up at that giant computer screen I was talking about earlier, and I see a set of controls I've never seen before in the game. I walk over to them. It's three switches like three Atari joysticks. A hologram appears near my hands showing me to hold the Wiimote straight up, and then move them like a joystick to use them. The difference between this function of the hologram and the first one I said (in fact, while you're doing this, maybe there's an orange one up near the screen) is that what this allows me to do is simple - I can alter those three switches quickly. So, on this second hologram near my hands, THREE of these switches appear. As I move the Wiimote directly onto each individual representation, the game understand immediately that I'm using switch 2, or switch 3, etc.
The reason I think this is needed is that doing it the current way takes too much time. I.e., if we had three switches like that now, well, first I have to "select" it by most likely pressing A onscreen (with the IR pointer), THEN a tutorial comes up telling me what to do, I use the switch, I "cancel out" somehow, and then do the same with the other switches.
If we had this hologram projector, instead of doing all of that, instead I walk up, I see an orange reference near the screen, so I know it's "hold the Wiimote straight up and move like a joystick" with my peripheral vision, and ALSO with my peripheral vision, I see three switch representations appear before me, and as I move the Wiimote into conjunction with them, the game lets me interface with all three quickly.
What might take a good 2-3 minutes with the current setup now takes all of 20-30 seconds.
I'm sure I haven't thought this all the way through, and I'm tired and only woke up for a few minutes before going back to bed, but this is sort of my idea for the next system. Again, I think it's not going to happen, and I'm confident that Nintendo will again floor everyone, but this represents a way to further immerse gamers AND increase intuitive controls with more precise commands.
Post by: IceCold on November 05, 2007, 05:26:58 PM
QuoteKirby, Meteos and Advance Wars are crying
I'm gonna put the DS first year this way, past Wario Ware Touched, that system practically had not much of anything until fall when Nintendogs and Castlevania, and especially Mario Kart launched.
Post by: Shift Key on November 05, 2007, 06:28:03 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: IceColdQuoteMaking the controls more intuitive while integrating them seamlessly for more immersion? I like the idea.
Originally posted by: Strell
wordwordswordswords
For pete's sake, don't quote entire walls of text. I didn't read it the first time.
Post by: Shift Key on November 05, 2007, 06:39:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BigJim
If the "steering wheel" doesn't pan out to be the next, err, steering wheel, then you can't point the finger at everybody but the source.
Actually, this analogy does fit. Developers can choose to ignore the "steering wheel" and "continue to drive in a straight line" at their own peril. But there's a good indication that people are interested in "cars" that are fitted with the "steering wheel" and want to see some "cars" make use of it in interesting ways.
Quote
Originally posted by: BigJim
It doesn't fly when Sony blames movie studios for UMD, and it wouldn't fly for Wiimote.
UMD is a storage medium. The Wiimote is a controller. How does it affect games? Storage and input device. Apples and oranges. It has a far better chance of flying.
Post by: Nick DiMola on November 06, 2007, 02:02:32 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: BigJimIf the "steering wheel" doesn't pan out to be the next, err, steering wheel, then you can't point the finger at everybody but the source. It doesn't fly when Sony blames movie studios for UMD, and it wouldn't fly for Wiimote. They're taking a calculated risk, and while the steering wheel is working out for them (*sort of) if it's not part of others' agendas, then it's ultimately falling on Nintendo.
That is really broken logic. Clearly the Wii remote can and does work. Enough developers have proven that this is true. I know it has been said about a million times, but looks at the DS. People were shoehorning touch controls in for the longest time in their shovelware and making the DS look terrible. But there were plenty of other devs looking for a way to use touch controls to their advantage and change the gameplay experience. As a programmer, and as someone who has programmed for games before, it isn't easy to adjust to such a radical change. Before you could just map simple commands to keys or buttons and most of the work was done for you. Now you need to interpret the input and act accordingly. I'm sure plenty of studios are still figuring out the best way to utilize the Wii remote and are building packages of software that will make integrating it much easier when it comes time to make a game. You'll see great Wii remote games in the very near future. It is just a matter of developers making sure they are ready for liftoff before they just take off. Most developers probably aren't interested in creating shovelware and losing customers. Once they have figured out the equation you will see them come strong out of the gate.
Comparing UMD to Wii Remote just doesn't work, there is no effort on the end of a movie company to put a film on UMD. Also keep in mind that UMD failed because it was over priced and useless, those are two things I can't really say about the Wii.
Post by: Stogi on November 06, 2007, 02:11:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: IceColdQuote
Originally posted by: Strell
wordswordswords
Making the controls more intuitive while integrating them seamlessly for more immersion? I like the idea.
I don't know. That doesn't seem to help. It would still take too long.
The reason WiiSports is so great is because of the knowledge we have already. We already know how swinging a tennis racket is done, and we know how to bowl. So in essence, to really create immersive atmospheres, we need more obvious functions.
Post by: Ian Sane on November 06, 2007, 06:03:50 AM
That doesn't make any sense. Nintendo hasn't really changed anything that much. They've mostly just found a new way to do what we doing before which has some new benefits. The remote is NOT the big life altering innovation Nintendo promotes it as. Nintendo didn't create a steering wheel. The wheel already existed and cars could turn perfectly fine and then Nintendo decided to create a new way to turn a car. The Wii has been from day one fixing something that was never broken. They may get non-gamers to TRY the remote and it's a very good marketing tool but no one who spent more than five seconds learning how to use a "traditional" controller had a problem with it. You could complain that games were getting stale but that's unrelated. The controller was never the reason why games were getting stale, EA-style corporate rehashing was (and still is).
Nintendo has replaced the steering wheel with something else and it still turns a car and there are a few turns that are now easier and a few that are now harder. If no one gets it it's not the driver's fault. It's Nintendo's for fixing what wasn't broke. And even if it is the driver's fault it doesn't matter. If only Nintendo and handful of others actually use the remote for something worthwhile then it still doesn't become the standard. But it's selling so well so everyone is using it, right? Well for now they are but if we're still getting a bunch of waggle games and last-gen ports and sh!t like that I think the bubble is going to burst at some point. You can't have a standard if only a handful of developers can use it.
Post by: Smash_Brother on November 06, 2007, 06:21:09 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KashogiStogi we need more obvious functions.
Like stabbing people in the face, yes.
Honestly, I'm unsure why a company hasn't made an unabashedly violent game for the Wii which just involves a simple first-person view and stabbing/slashing the crap out of everything in sight.
That gives me a great idea...
Post by: couchmonkey on November 06, 2007, 07:08:37 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
The Wii has been from day one fixing something that was never broken. They may get non-gamers to TRY the remote and it's a very good marketing tool but no one who spent more than five seconds learning how to use a "traditional" controller had a problem with it.
I will sum up my argument as follows: Fastest-selling video game system in North America, ever.
Post by: NWR_insanolord on November 06, 2007, 07:09:27 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"If the developers who are too used to driving in a straight line, don't know what to do when Nintendo adds a steering wheel, then quite simply they are friggin morons."
That doesn't make any sense. Nintendo hasn't really changed anything that much. They've mostly just found a new way to do what we doing before which has some new benefits. The remote is NOT the big life altering innovation Nintendo promotes it as. Nintendo didn't create a steering wheel. The wheel already existed and cars could turn perfectly fine and then Nintendo decided to create a new way to turn a car. The Wii has been from day one fixing something that was never broken. They may get non-gamers to TRY the remote and it's a very good marketing tool but no one who spent more than five seconds learning how to use a "traditional" controller had a problem with it. You could complain that games were getting stale but that's unrelated. The controller was never the reason why games were getting stale, EA-style corporate rehashing was (and still is).
Nintendo has replaced the steering wheel with something else and it still turns a car and there are a few turns that are now easier and a few that are now harder. If no one gets it it's not the driver's fault. It's Nintendo's for fixing what wasn't broke. And even if it is the driver's fault it doesn't matter. If only Nintendo and handful of others actually use the remote for something worthwhile then it still doesn't become the standard. But it's selling so well so everyone is using it, right? Well for now they are but if we're still getting a bunch of waggle games and last-gen ports and sh!t like that I think the bubble is going to burst at some point. You can't have a standard if only a handful of developers can use it.
No, standard controllers aren't broken. But then again D-Pads weren't broken back in 1996 when Nintendo emphasized the analog stick on the N64 controller and 2D gaming wasn't broken when the vast majority of the industry moved to 3D. Sometimes fixing something that isn't broken actually works.
Post by: Adrock on November 06, 2007, 07:13:40 AM
Quote
Honestly, I'm unsure why a company hasn't made an unabashedly violent game for the Wii which just involves a simple first-person view and stabbing/slashing the crap out of everything in sight.
I hope you're joking. The ESRB's secret police would have a field day with a game like that......
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 06, 2007, 07:18:17 AM
Quote
They may get non-gamers to TRY the remote and it's a very good marketing tool but no one who spent more than five seconds learning how to use a "traditional" controller had a problem with it.
This tells me that you obviously don't know many people who haven't been into gaming, the controller is almost always the biggest obstacle for people because of its complexity now days. Yeah that may have been true back in the NES or SNES days, but the complexity of controllers now are intimidating to people. On the flip side I have had NO problem getting people to play Wii, they find it quite inviting and not nearly as scary. Heck I got my 80 year old grandpa to play and he doesn't even know how to turn on a computer. So really, Ian, I think you are underestimating the impact that Wii has had on gaming and increasing its market.
Post by: Ian Sane on November 06, 2007, 07:25:39 AM
Nintendo didn't replace the d-pad, but merely adding to the existing controller model like they did when they added shoulder buttons to the NES design. The N64 controller wasn't a replacement but merely an enhancement. The remote (by itself and even with the nunchuk) strips away existing functionality. Thus it is more of an attempted replacement ie: fixing what wasn't broken. Nintendo never acted like their previous controllers were "new standards". They didn't need to because they largely kept the earlier designs intact and added to them.
"I will sum up my argument as follows: Fastest-selling video game system in North America, ever."
That doesn't mean the existing controller was broken. Those who took the short amount of time needed to use it had no problems with it. The remote works well as a marketing tool as it creates the illusion of ease-of-use to those who refused to learn the old method. It's like how I know people of older generations that will not pay for gas at the pump and will not use microwaves. Do those have broken interfaces? No. Those who don't have a bias against them and try them out adapt to them immediately. Same with traditional controllers. With non-gamers the problem for me was always getting them to even TRY the damn thing. If I found the right game and they were willing to try they adapted almost immediately. My brother doesn't play many 3D games. He likes the old 2D design. But when he is presented with a 3D game he thinks he'll like he adapts immediately because he wants to try.
Are keyboards broken because your grandma refuses to ever try using a computer? No. The difficulty is all an illusion. The remote has been very successful because Nintendo has removed that illusion but from a functional point of view the old design was never broken.
Post by: Kairon on November 06, 2007, 07:39:44 AM
Old controllers: not broken.
Wiimote: great for getting people to play.
Anything else?
Post by: Stogi on November 06, 2007, 07:42:33 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on November 06, 2007, 08:09:17 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"I will sum up my argument as follows: Fastest-selling video game system in North America, ever."
That doesn't mean the existing controller was broken. Those who took the short amount of time needed to use it had no problems with it. The remote works well as a marketing tool as it creates the illusion of ease-of-use to those who refused to learn the old method. It's like how I know people of older generations that will not pay for gas at the pump and will not use microwaves. Do those have broken interfaces? No. Those who don't have a bias against them and try them out adapt to them immediately.
However, your original point was that Nintendo didn't make a big life-altering innovation. I would totally disagree: when I see YouTube videos of senior homes putting on Wii bowling tournaments, I think life for those people has changed quite a bit - about as much as video games can change life. I'd also disagree that the ease of use is an illusion. Learning a game like Splinter Cell or even Zelda means investing 20-30 minutes in tutorials (and that's if you're already a gamer).
Now, I am perhaps being obtuse here, because I guess you really want to say that we aren't getting games that couldn't somehow be adapted to other controllers* but to say that this hasn't had a big impact on the industry would be false. Nintendo is in first place, the audience for gaming is expanding, and the face of blockbuster gaming is changing from Link and Cloud Strife to Dr. Kawashima and Miis.
*although there's no denying that Wii Sports or Rayman Raving Rabbids would be really boring on an ordinary controller, or that Metroid Prime 3 would play worse on an ordinary controller.
Post by: Smash_Brother on November 06, 2007, 08:34:25 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock
I hope you're joking. The ESRB's secret police would have a field day with a game like that......
Not if you were killing Nazis.
They always go easy on that...
Post by: BigJim on November 06, 2007, 10:05:50 AM
Quote
Actually, this analogy does fit. Developers can choose to ignore the "steering wheel" and "continue to drive in a straight line" at their own peril. But there's a good indication that people are interested in "cars" that are fitted with the "steering wheel" and want to see some "cars" make use of it in interesting ways.
Whether it's to their own peril remains to be seen. Wiimote is not the "steering wheel" yet, and until it's used in more creative ways, it doesn't yet stand out as a great improvement except in anecdotal examples like Wii Sports where it is masterfully "organic". But most games can't be motion simulators.
Quote
UMD is a storage medium. The Wiimote is a controller. How does it affect games? Storage and input device. Apples and oranges. It has a far better chance of flying.
The point was that blame can't get pointed in every other direction but its inventor if it doesn't fly. I'm not debating the validity, but who's to blame if it turns out not to be valid.
Quote
That is really broken logic. Clearly the Wii remote can and does work. Enough developers have proven that this is true.
Working for Nintendo doesn't make it the next steering wheel for everybody. Since there's already been discussion about how the promise of the Wiimote has not yet been fully realized, I won't overlap that conversation.
Quote
I'm sure plenty of studios are still figuring out the best way to utilize the Wii remote and are building packages of software that will make integrating it much easier when it comes time to make a game. You'll see great Wii remote games in the very near future. It is just a matter of developers making sure they are ready for liftoff before they just take off. Most developers probably aren't interested in creating shovelware and losing customers. Once they have figured out the equation you will see them come strong out of the gate.
It's naturally the *hope* that discovering the right way to use the Wiimote is upon us. But until we're actually there, we're not there. Personally I think there's only so many different ways to skin a cat. I'm not counting on us being on the verge of any breakthrough if it hasn't been obvious yet. But of course I'd love to be wrong. That's when it's most exciting.
Quote
Comparing UMD to Wii Remote just doesn't work,
I wasn't comparing them in that context. See above.
Post by: Ian Sane on November 06, 2007, 10:34:43 AM
Yeah but the remote hasn't made learning Zelda easier. Metroid Prime 3 still requires some time to figure out how to play. I took a while for me and I've played Metroid Prime 1&2 so I was trying to figure out how to scan and such. A newcomber would take a lot longer since they don't even know the concept. That's all based on the game itself. Wii Sports is very easy to learn how to play but then even if it used a traditional controller (and thus really sucked) it would still be very easy to learn. Meanwhile games that had a steeper learning curve and more complexity aren't easier to get into because of the remote.
The non-games and specifically Wii Sports is where the credit is really due. Everyone is familiar with baseball and tennis and such so they see a game that looks really easy to get into and they're interested. The non-gamers I encounter that are interested in the Wii are really only interested in titles like Wii Sports and Wii Play which are simple titles that take no time at all to learn. They're not interested in Metroid Prime 3 or Super Mario Galaxy or SSB Brawl. Those games remain complex (and thank God for that) and the controller not only doesn't make them less so (unless Nintendo intentionally borks the game) but it doesn't even create the illusion of ease-of-use. Hell maybe the remote and the touchscreen aren't really deserving of as much credit as the non-games themselves are an essential part. It's really the combination. The controls provide the illusion of ease-of-use and that combines with a simplistic game (or "non-game") that attracts the attention of those who for whatever reason decided they weren't interested in games.
The marketing strategy is why the Wii is selling so well. I didn't really acknowledge it before because Nintendo commercials still seem pretty crappy but I initially didn't notice that the product itself is the marketing tool and the public need only know of its existence. The remote by itself would have done little if anything at all. It's all been in getting the mainstream to try the thing out and to do that Nintendo had to "trick" them.
Post by: Smash_Brother on November 06, 2007, 11:00:32 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane The remote by itself would have done little if anything at all. It's all been in getting the mainstream to try the thing out and to do that Nintendo had to "trick" them.
Actually, it's viral.
The Wii is doing what it's doing because it jumped ahead and became a phenomenon without much advertising at all. Don't you remember roundabout this time last year when we were all saying "Where the hell are the Wii ads?!?!?"?
Beyond that, "ease of use" is a highly subjective term but in the end, that's not what the Wii is all about. You can make a bowling game where you simply press any input at all and your character automatically bowls a strike and claim, with pure honesty, that's it's the easiest game to pick up and play, ever.
But again, it's not ease of use which will make the Wii great: it's IMMERSION which the controller will allow for. This isn't about making a control scheme that controls better so much as a control scheme that puts the player closer to the game world and makes it more immersive. The Wiimote does this just fine, whether it's holding your gun "gangsta style" in Red Steel, using a pole to balance in Zack and Wiki or stabbing a guy repeatedly in Manhunt 2, there can be no arguing that the controller gives the player a stronger sense of performing the action than they would via pressing a button.
Now, there are a select few examples in which gesture gameplay couldn't be replaced with a button press, but the truth is, you could replace just about everything with a button press, losing 90% of the game's appeal in the process, but it could still be done.
If the argument is that the Wiimote has yet to prove itself, then I say bullsh*t. If your argument is that the Wiimote still has a ways to go before its true potential is unlocked, then I can definitely agree.
Post by: Kairon on November 06, 2007, 05:25:15 PM
Post by: Plugabugz on November 06, 2007, 09:13:11 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
I think the problem is that Wii Sports is STILL one of the best implementations of the wiimote evar. The Wii mote has proven itself in that game time and time again. But that game soared so high that... well... when expectations are extrapolated we're bound to be disappointed.
The irony surrounding that is a year ago very few people wanted Wii Sports and would prefer a drop in the price of the console instead. In hindsight that would have been a stupid move, no?
Post by: Chozo Ghost on November 06, 2007, 09:17:42 PM
Wii Sports is a paradox.
Post by: Ceric on November 07, 2007, 01:31:07 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Chozo Ghost
Yeah, the odd thing about Wii Sports is it isn't worth $49.99, and certainly not $39.99.... maybe not even 29.99. And yet, at the same time it is worth much more than all of those prices because of it's replayability and virality.
Wii Sports is a paradox.
A paradox, a paradox, a most amusing paradox.Ah ha ha ho ho ho a Paradox!
Post by: couchmonkey on November 07, 2007, 04:04:21 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"I'd also disagree that the ease of use is an illusion. Learning a game like Splinter Cell or even Zelda means investing 20-30 minutes in tutorials (and that's if you're already a gamer)."
Yeah but the remote hasn't made learning Zelda easier. Metroid Prime 3 still requires some time to figure out how to play. I took a while for me and I've played Metroid Prime 1&2 so I was trying to figure out how to scan and such. A newcomber would take a lot longer since they don't even know the concept. That's all based on the game itself. Wii Sports is very easy to learn how to play but then even if it used a traditional controller (and thus really sucked) it would still be very easy to learn. Meanwhile games that had a steeper learning curve and more complexity aren't easier to get into because of the remote.
The non-games and specifically Wii Sports is where the credit is really due. Everyone is familiar with baseball and tennis and such so they see a game that looks really easy to get into and they're interested. The non-gamers I encounter that are interested in the Wii are really only interested in titles like Wii Sports and Wii Play which are simple titles that take no time at all to learn. They're not interested in Metroid Prime 3 or Super Mario Galaxy or SSB Brawl. Those games remain complex (and thank God for that) and the controller not only doesn't make them less so (unless Nintendo intentionally borks the game) but it doesn't even create the illusion of ease-of-use. Hell maybe the remote and the touchscreen aren't really deserving of as much credit as the non-games themselves are an essential part. It's really the combination. The controls provide the illusion of ease-of-use and that combines with a simplistic game (or "non-game") that attracts the attention of those who for whatever reason decided they weren't interested in games.
We have yet to see a Zelda designed for Wii from the ground-up. I'm not saying it will be easier, but I've been hearing that Super Mario Galaxy is easier (no camera to worry about).
But you do have a point, that "non-games" are where the credit really lies. Interesting! Perhaps it's more the software like Nintendogs and Wii Sports that deserves the credit for Nintendo's turnaround, but the software goes hand-in-hand with the new interfaces that the company has created. I always assumed Wii Fit would just use the motion controllers, and I was confused by the board at first, but now I understand: Nintendo needs the right interface to communicate with the end-user. The balance board lets Wii mimic step-aerobics and yoga, languages that non-gamers already understand.
Rayman Raving Rabbids can be an okay workout, but Jane-30-something trying to get back to her pre-baby weight will likely relate to Wii Fit a lot better.
I also tend to agree with Smash Bros' talk about how the controller makes games more immersive, but that seems to be a subject of debate among gamers. Some hate waggle, some love it.
Post by: Ian Sane on November 07, 2007, 04:44:40 AM
I think that makes sense for titles like Wii Sports but with waggle being a pretty common substitute for a lack of buttons I don't think the remote is as immersive as it is often claimed to be. I do feel immersed in Wii Sports but with Metroid Prime 3 I still feel like some guy holding a controller playing a game (and I don't consider that a bad thing). I think sometimes the remote is going to provide immersion but only in certain circumstances. It certainly isn't a catch-all instant immersion enhancer and it relies on the games involved.
Besides immersion is greatly overrated. All that matters is that you enjoy the game. It isn't virtual reality and it's not really supposed to be either.
Post by: Smash_Brother on November 07, 2007, 05:58:12 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane I think sometimes the remote is going to provide immersion but only in certain circumstances. It certainly isn't a catch-all instant immersion enhancer and it relies on the games involved.
I agree completely: it's the job of the software to do this.
Quote
Besides immersion is greatly overrated. All that matters is that you enjoy the game. It isn't virtual reality and it's not really supposed to be either.
Yes and no.
While I won't argue that enjoying the game matters first and foremost, immersion can bring a game from "decent" to "enjoyable" for most people.
Take Eternal Darkness, for example. The actual gameplay was both simple and generally easy, but it held the interest of a whole room full of people when I played it because the story and atmosphere were both so immersive.
Same goes for RE4: the game has the power to draw people into it and keep them on the edge of their seats.
I think a game's ability to entertain can be multiplied dramatically if it does a good job immersing the player(s). In fact, I've seen many games which offer good gameplay but don't immerse which I know would have been treated more favorably had it done a better job drawing the players into it.
Wii Sports is still really the best example when it comes to direct immersion, but I think devs are getting the hang of it. The biggest hurdle to properly developing for the Wii isn't going to be figuring out how to translate existing game actions into gesture controls. It's going to be designing completely new actions which have never been brought into the context of gaming and applying the same skill and reflex tests to them that makes gaming so great. That's why I agree that gesture controls aren't going to cut it when it comes to things like fighting games or games where you pause to pull a switch with the Wiimote before continuing on to kill enemies with the analogue stick and the A button.
I fully believe this is possible, however, and that's why I'm not counting the controller out just yet.
Post by: Kairon on November 07, 2007, 06:11:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
Wii Sports is still really the best example when it comes to direct immersion, but I think devs are getting the hang of it. The biggest hurdle to properly developing for the Wii isn't going to be figuring out how to translate existing game actions into gesture controls. It's going to be designing completely new actions which have never been brought into the context of gaming and applying the same skill and reflex tests to them that makes gaming so great. That's why I agree that gesture controls aren't going to cut it when it comes to things like fighting games or games where you pause to pull a switch with the Wiimote before continuing on to kill enemies with the analogue stick and the A button.
Yeah, gesture controls are basically the Wii's equivalent of having a bunch of buttons on the touchscreen of the DS...
Post by: Chile Boy on November 09, 2007, 12:46:26 PM
that or hes trying to make another crappy Wii title like WiiSports or Wiifit. nintendo needs to get real and start making some real games
Post by: Stogi on November 09, 2007, 01:09:31 PM
Post by: Kairon on November 09, 2007, 09:01:33 PM
Post by: NWR_insanolord on November 09, 2007, 09:19:29 PM
