Author Topic: The OFFICIAL Big N rumor thread bring your own salt (Read 8016881 times)

Ian Sane · « **Reply #850 on:** October 24, 2007, 10:42:31 AM »

"You, know, I agree with you Ian. But I don't think Nintendo themselves would make 'just another FPS' or 'just another racing game', which is part of the reason I like them."

It wouldn't be "just another FPS". It would be the most amazing FPS you ever played. It's like how SSB Brawl really isn't that different from the other SSB games but it looks like HAL is just going nuts trying to make the absolute best game it could possible be. Nintendo's not just innovative but also really talented and sometimes it's nice for them to just make the ultimate game in a genre that CRUSHES all others.

And I'm not suggesting it not be innovative. All sorts of cool ideas can be introduced into an FPS with it still feeling like an FPS. Goldeneye proved that. Half-Life proved that. It doesn't have to be as different as Metroid Prime is, for example, to be innovative. I'm more against Nintendo giving us real out-there games that sort of play like an FPS to act as the Wii's big FPS. I guess I'd rather them take Doom to the next level than reinvent Doom. It's like how Pikmin is an awesome game and I love it but it is so different from a conventional RTS that it doesn't fill any craving to play an RTS. However Blizzard's RTS games do fill any RTS craving and yet they're not generic or stale. They introduce enough new ideas to keep things interesting but don't play so differently that they're creating their own subgenre.

In short I don't want just wacky weirdo first person shooters on the Wii. Considering the console is seemingly tailor made for a killer FPS it would be a waste for Nintendo to not make one. Retro would never make a "normal FPS". "Normal" suggests "unexceptional" and odds are any FPS Retro made would be most exceptional.

Make me a bike. Do whatever you want with it to make it a better bike regardless of how unconvential your ideas may be but in the end make sure it's still a bike. Don't go so nuts that I get a motorized tricycle back.

I want lots of weapons, I want a first person view, I want to be able to shoot the f*ck out of my friends either online or splitscreen and I want some sort of single player mode with some depth to it and some sort of story to provide an excuse for why I'm killing stuff. Beyond that basic outline do whatever you want in between as long as you don't shoehorn an out-of-place Nintendo IP in it.

Kairon · « **Reply #851 on:** October 24, 2007, 10:48:50 AM »

But isn't that the job of third parties?

Spak-Spang · « **Reply #852 on:** October 24, 2007, 11:17:10 AM »

I agree Nintendo can make a great FPS. But like Kairon said: It is the objective of all game developers to make the best game possible, and although Nintendo is better than most it isn't like 3rd parties can't create games equally as great as Nintendo can.

But I really don't get your Smash Brothers argument...in fact Smash Bros. fits my argument better.

Nintendo set out to create a new fighting game, but instead of just making a 2D or 3D fighter with Nintendo characters. Or creating a new franchise like Rare did with Killer Instinct. Nintendo decided to create a new fighting game experience. It created an engine around King of the Hill and your damage level increasing instead of health decreasing. It added 4 players at a time, and simplified the buttons and combos down to make it approachable in a 4 player game. Then they added levels that played more like platforming games and items to attack enemies.

Basically Nintendo created the most original fighting game experience ever, by changing the formula.

Nintendo did the same thing to FPS with Metroid Prime series, turning a FPS into a FPA and changing the focus of the game. Nintendo do the same again with Pikmin creating an original and innovative Real Time Strategy game. So I look at Geist as a chance for Nintendo to create another great original experience. A game that can take FPS concept and imagination to a new level. A game that can rewrite the rules and break all the cliches of the genre.

I really don't want Nintendo just creating games that don't break the mold...even if it is the greatest game created in that design mold. I want them to reinvent genres, and set new standards for what we understand games to be. Then once they have done that, they can use that franchise to refine their original vision and perfect it.

I think Geist 2 would be a game capable of refining, and perfecting the series and Geist experience.

UltimatePartyBear · « **Reply #853 on:** October 24, 2007, 11:28:49 AM »

I don't like the attitude that Nintendo should leave certain genres to third parties as if those genres were beneath them. I'm sure Ubisoft will try, and I'd love to see Free Radical take a swing at it, but Retro is the only team we absolutely know could make the ultimate Wii FPS. Of course, I hope they're given the choice to do whatever they want to do, and I have a feeling they'll want to stretch a bit creatively, so an FPS wouldn't appeal to them.

Kairon · « **Reply #854 on:** October 24, 2007, 11:34:06 AM »

It's not so much that Nintendo should leave genres behind, just that if Nintendo made games in every genre, wouldn't that leave nothing for third parties to do? If they don't want to make games on a Nintendo console now for fear of competing, just think of what'll happen then? I mean, you already seem so sure that you'd buy a Retro developed FPS compared to a Ubisoft or Free Radical effort, and if that's discouraging now, imagine how much more discouraging it'd be if it became reality!

Maverick · « **Reply #855 on:** October 24, 2007, 11:38:15 AM »

That's not because Nintendo controls Retro though, it's because Retro has a better track record in our minds. If third parties would make games that warrant that sort of support from us (on Nintendo systems), then we would be celebrating those companies.

Kairon · « **Reply #856 on:** October 24, 2007, 11:43:55 AM »

So we're back to the catch-22 of us not buying third party games because they're not trying hard enough and third parties not wanting to even try because we're not buying their games?

Maverick · « **Reply #857 on:** October 24, 2007, 11:50:22 AM »

It's not really a catch 22, they're the producer, I'm the consumer. They need to make something worth consuming (which many 3rd parties do, but less frequently on Nintendo systems).

UltimatePartyBear · « **Reply #858 on:** October 24, 2007, 12:18:43 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
It's not so much that Nintendo should leave genres behind, just that if Nintendo made games in every genre, wouldn't that leave nothing for third parties to do? If they don't want to make games on a Nintendo console now for fear of competing, just think of what'll happen then?

Who ever said they couldn't make games in those same genres? It's what they're already doing. If nobody could make a game in the same genre as someone else, we'd have less than a hundred games, even being generous with genre-crossing.

Quote
I mean, you already seem so sure that you'd buy a Retro developed FPS compared to a Ubisoft or Free Radical effort, and if that's discouraging now, imagine how much more discouraging it'd be if it became reality!

I never said I wouldn't buy the Ubisoft or Free Radical game. I'm pretty sure I expressed some excitement over them, in fact. You're the only one operating within your false dichotomy of first party vs. third party games.

Mashiro · « **Reply #859 on:** October 24, 2007, 12:30:51 PM »

Timesplitters 4.

That's all I'll say.

Kairon · « **Reply #860 on:** October 24, 2007, 02:10:38 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Maverick
It's not really a catch 22, they're the producer, I'm the consumer. They need to make something worth consuming (which many 3rd parties do, but less frequently on Nintendo systems).

But what happens when producers follow consumer trends? They'll start making something worth consuming when we start putting out money that suggests that they can profit with budgets worth consuming.

Quote
Originally posted by: PartyBear
I never said I wouldn't buy the Ubisoft or Free Radical game. I'm pretty sure I expressed some excitement over them, in fact. You're the only one operating within your false dichotomy of first party vs. third party games.

T_T But "false dichotomy" sounds so COOL! &<

Spak-Spang · « **Reply #861 on:** October 24, 2007, 04:53:45 PM »

Wow where do you get the notion that 3rd parties can't compete with 1st party or even 2nd party games. It just all depends.

I want the best variety of games possible for my Wii, and I want the best quality games for my Wii. That means I want Nintendo working on their classic franchises, and them working on new IPs creating games in the genres they know the best...and taking chances on new ideas in ways that only Nintendo can.

I want my third party companies to create the games they have the best skill and most capable of creating. I want Free Radical to create a kick ass FPS with online controls and great humor (Time Splitters 4) I want EA to keep on perfecting Sports simulations and working fun Wii controls into the design. I want SquareEnix to create intriguing stories and great RPG elements in their Wii game offerings. I want Capcom to do something right and do a truly next generation 2D Mega Man game in the classic Mega Man universe...or just port Resident Evil 5 over.

My point is each developer has their own talents and style, and when they have the budget and time all can create great games on par with each other. It is kinda the capitalist/trade nature of business.

As for Geist, as I said I think it was a great idea that needs another chance to flourish and truly shine...just like BWii is given Battalion Wars a second chance at greatness.

As for Retros future project, I want them to do whatever they want creating 3 great Metroid games they deserve the right to spread their wings and create something new and truly Retros.

Kairon · « **Reply #862 on:** October 24, 2007, 05:19:16 PM »

I agree Spak-Spang, I'd love to see third-parties firing on all cylinders on the Wii... that's EXACTLY why I'm encouraging them when I can with game purchases NOW.

Kairon · « **Reply #863 on:** October 29, 2007, 11:43:08 AM »

So.... Portal for Wii rumor?

ShyGuy · « **Reply #864 on:** October 29, 2007, 12:13:36 PM »

Would it be called Orange Slices Box?

I'd rather Have Team Fortress 2 for the Wii.

BlackNMild2k1 · « **Reply #865 on:** October 29, 2007, 04:36:02 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
So.... Portal for Wii rumor?

Its about time that an actual rumor popped up about this game cause it has been on the wish list of things that make sense ever since this game has been shown.

Adrock · « **Reply #866 on:** October 29, 2007, 08:56:23 PM »

Just because something makes sense, doesn't mean it'll happen........ or at the very least, happen right away. I'm looking in your direction, Okami for Wii.

Nick DiMola · « **Reply #867 on:** October 30, 2007, 01:23:49 AM »

Haven't the Valve guys on multiple occasions stated that they have no intentions of developing for Wii because the box was not powerful enough for their games? I highly doubt that Valve would put the effort in to port Portal or Orange Box because of the perceived Wii demographic. Ditto on what Adrock said as well.

Strell · « **Reply #868 on:** October 30, 2007, 05:35:44 AM »

Gabe Newell <3 the Wii, and I actually thought I read recently that Valve said "we have no intentions for the Wii currently, but we see this as a major problem." Of course, this doesn't really mean anything until we have an actual confirmation somewhere.

The only other thing I think worth noting is that Mario Galaxy is about to come out, and it's one of the first games that truly takes advantage of the system's power, and this makes me wonder if developers will stop being able to rely on "it's not as powerful" excuse as much.

The other side of this equation is that Nintendo is notorious for not releasing programming information outside of their first/second parties, so that their games always look the best (which is debatable). This is important, because I want to find out that the following happens:
1) Galaxy convinces people there's power in the system that can churn out nice graphics
2) Nintendo informs developers on how to unleash it
3) Devs not only make better looking games, but developers-previously-unwilling-to-develop get on board
4) ??????
5) Profit

NWR_insanolord · « **Reply #869 on:** October 30, 2007, 06:25:45 AM »

I think Nintendo's games look the best because they give a lot more attention and development time/resources to their games than third parties give to games on Nintendo platforms. The popularity of the Wii and relative ease and inexpensiveness of development on the platform will help get the third parties making better-looking games, but I still think Nintendo will have the best looking stuff.

Kairon · « **Reply #870 on:** October 30, 2007, 09:42:35 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
So.... Portal for Wii rumor?

Disproven...for now...

Quote
With that in mind we spoke to Valve spokesman Doug Lombardi, who admitted it's an interesting idea but said there are no plans on the drawing board just yet.

"It's an extremely interesting idea, but there's nothing in product - not yet, anyway," he told CVG. Notice how he didn't rule it our completely? And let's face it, it would work on Wii, just a case of getting the engine up and running. We'll be keeping an eye on this one...

Strell · « **Reply #871 on:** October 30, 2007, 06:39:58 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: insanolord
I think Nintendo's games look the best because they give a lot more attention and development time/resources to their games than third parties give to games on Nintendo platforms. The popularity of the Wii and relative ease and inexpensiveness of development on the platform will help get the third parties making better-looking games, but I still think Nintendo will have the best looking stuff.

You're missing the point.

It is well known that Nintendo has historically not provided third parties with information on how to get the very best graphical capability out of their systems.

The best example off the top of my head is the N64, which was capable of Beizure (sic) curves, but only internal terms had access to this knowledge and how to pull it off.

I'm not saying third parties can't look good. I'm saying they are at a disadvantage in comparison to Nintendo's own efforts.

Ultimately, this ties into the whole "third parties complain about poor sales against Nintendo's own franchises" dilemma, but that's an entirely different discussion.

Kairon · « **Reply #872 on:** October 30, 2007, 09:17:48 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Strell
Quote
Originally posted by: insanolord
I think Nintendo's games look the best because they give a lot more attention and development time/resources to their games than third parties give to games on Nintendo platforms. The popularity of the Wii and relative ease and inexpensiveness of development on the platform will help get the third parties making better-looking games, but I still think Nintendo will have the best looking stuff.

You're missing the point.

It is well known that Nintendo has historically not provided third parties with information on how to get the very best graphical capability out of their systems.

The best example off the top of my head is the N64, which was capable of Beizure (sic) curves, but only internal terms had access to this knowledge and how to pull it off.

I'm not saying third parties can't look good. I'm saying they are at a disadvantage in comparison to Nintendo's own efforts.

Ultimately, this ties into the whole "third parties complain about poor sales against Nintendo's own franchises" dilemma, but that's an entirely different discussion.

Hasn't this situation been rectified a lot under Iwata?

BlackNMild2k1 · « **Reply #873 on:** October 30, 2007, 09:29:34 PM »

I thought Nintendo had made it a point to point out that they were actually sending their own "coding ninjas" to 3rd parties to help them actually take advantage of the Wii hardware so that the level of pathetic that was considered "effort" from most 3rd parties on the GC won't be repeated, for much longer.

NinGurl69 *huggles · « **Reply #874 on:** October 30, 2007, 10:58:52 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Quote
Originally posted by: Strell
Quote
Originally posted by: insanolord
I think Nintendo's games look the best because they give a lot more attention and development time/resources to their games than third parties give to games on Nintendo platforms. The popularity of the Wii and relative ease and inexpensiveness of development on the platform will help get the third parties making better-looking games, but I still think Nintendo will have the best looking stuff.

You're missing the point.

It is well known that Nintendo has historically not provided third parties with information on how to get the very best graphical capability out of their systems.

The best example off the top of my head is the N64, which was capable of Beizure (sic) curves, but only internal terms had access to this knowledge and how to pull it off.

I'm not saying third parties can't look good. I'm saying they are at a disadvantage in comparison to Nintendo's own efforts.

Ultimately, this ties into the whole "third parties complain about poor sales against Nintendo's own franchises" dilemma, but that's an entirely different discussion.

Hasn't this situation been rectified a lot under Iwata?

Hardware and waggle are 2 different things. Nintendo might send 1 kind of ninja and forget about the other.

The situation hasn't been rectified since Nintendo's software looks ABSOLUTELY PHENOMENAL, while Zack & Wiki has to compete with Carnival Games.

News:

Author Topic: The OFFICIAL Big N rumor thread *bring your own salt* (Read 8016881 times)

Author Topic: The OFFICIAL Big N rumor thread bring your own salt (Read 8016881 times)