Author Topic: Miyamoto tells me to wait five years... (Read 19480 times)

couchmonkey · « **Reply #50 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.

NWR_insanolord · « **Reply #51 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.

Adrock · « **Reply #52 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......

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #53 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.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #54 on:** November 06, 2007, 07:25:39 AM »

"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."

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.

Kairon · « **Reply #55 on:** November 06, 2007, 07:39:44 AM »

So in conclusion!

Old controllers: not broken.

Wiimote: great for getting people to play.

Anything else?

Stogi · « **Reply #56 on:** November 06, 2007, 07:42:33 AM »

Miyamoto is a damn liar!

couchmonkey · « **Reply #57 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.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #58 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...

BigJim · « **Reply #59 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.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #60 on:** November 06, 2007, 10:34:43 AM »

"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.

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.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #61 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.

Kairon · « **Reply #62 on:** November 06, 2007, 05:25:15 PM »

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.

Plugabugz · « **Reply #63 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?

Chozo Ghost · « **Reply #64 on:** November 06, 2007, 09:17:42 PM »

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.

Ceric · « **Reply #65 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!

couchmonkey · « **Reply #66 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.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #67 on:** November 07, 2007, 04:44:40 AM »

"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."

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.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #68 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.

Kairon · « **Reply #69 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...

Chile Boy · « **Reply #70 on:** November 09, 2007, 12:46:26 PM »

i just think that hes taking time to help maxis to make the next real sims game (I dont consider Mysims to be a real sims game)

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

Stogi · « **Reply #71 on:** November 09, 2007, 01:09:31 PM »

whoa

Kairon · « **Reply #72 on:** November 09, 2007, 09:01:33 PM »

Dude, back off. Wii Sports rocks!

NWR_insanolord · « **Reply #73 on:** November 09, 2007, 09:19:29 PM »

The only thing he got right was that MySims isn't a real Sims game. Miyamoto's not helping Maxis, Maxis isn't making The Sims 3 right now, they're making Spore, he's not making another game like Wii Sports and Wii Fit, those games aren't crappy, and Nintendo doesn't need to start making some real games because they've already made quite a few and seem to be continuing to do so.

News:

Author Topic: Miyamoto tells me to wait five years... (Read 19480 times)