Topic: Nintendo Teabagged Once Again....

[KDR_11k]

Since Ubi is still making Red Steel 2 and Rabbids (yep, they've already announced that another Rabbids game is coming) I think what they're cutting is the Petz titles.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

"I expect no marketing and a stealth release "

Tenchu4 made a stealthy release a year ago.

"I think what they're cutting is the Petz titles."

Is this what they mean by "less Wii focus" ?  They're really aiming for "Nintendo quality" and "Nintendo-style droughts" ?

[Peachylala]

They're really aiming for "Nintendo quality" and "Nintendo-style droughts" ?

They need to make something in order to get the funding for Beyond Flop and Bankrupty 2.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

I have a lot of RAGE built up from last night's chat.  I don't know where to place it.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

They're really aiming for "Nintendo quality" and "Nintendo-style droughts" ?

They need to make something in order to get the funding for Beyond Flop and Bankrupty 2.

Probably iPhone games.  What?  There's no real money to make outside of cheap Nintendo-platform projects?

[KDR_11k]

They're letting Gameloft do the ports of those. They're mostly bad. I mean, it's amazing how they managed to port so much of HAWX and forgot about the crucial part.

[Mop it up]

I also think "games for gamers" is hilarious.  It is like making "food for eaters."  I suppose when someone says gamer now they really mean teh hardkorez though.

That just goes to show you what's wrong with the gaming industry.
Seriously, do companies which produce other types of media make statements like that? Are there filmmakers who create movies for theater goers? Are television shows separated between watchers and non-watchers? Do writers make books for readers? Is sports radio considered music for non-listeners?

[EasyCure]

I also think "games for gamers" is hilarious.  It is like making "food for eaters."  I suppose when someone says gamer now they really mean teh hardkorez though.

That just goes to show you what's wrong with the gaming industry.
Seriously, do companies which produce other types of media make statements like that? Are there filmmakers who create movies for theater goers? Are television shows separated between watchers and non-watchers? Do writers make books for readers? Is sports radio considered music for non-listeners?

To be fair, writers make books for children. Thats about as equal to devs making 'casual' games for non-gamers IMO.

[Ian Sane]

That just goes to show you what's wrong with the gaming industry.
Seriously, do companies which produce other types of media make statements like that? Are there filmmakers who create movies for theater goers? Are television shows separated between watchers and non-watchers? Do writers make books for readers? Is sports radio considered music for non-listeners?

Well there are all sorts of demographics that they do focus on.  Not everything is just for everyone.
 
In some more specialized industries it isn't uncommon to have something marketed as being for "professionals" as opposed to a recreational or home user.  Some athletic stuff will advertise itself as being for serious athletes.  As a musician I know that there is a big different between beginner stuff and stuff aimed at experienced musicians or professional studio musicians.  You go to a bike shop and you'll get that "for cyclists" thing as opposed to just the cheapo bike at Sears.  The "this is for the REAL _____" marketing strategy is pretty common.

[Mop it up]

In some more specialized industries it isn't uncommon to have something marketed as being for "professionals" as opposed to a recreational or home user. You go to a bike shop and you'll get that "for cyclists" thing as opposed to just the cheapo bike at Sears.  The "this is for the REAL _____" marketing strategy is pretty common.

That's understandable but it makes more sense to use terms like "casual", "hardcore", "serious", "professional", etc. than it does things like "gamer" and "non-gamer". Saying "this is for the REAL _____" seems to imply that everything else is for people who have a fake interest in the product; it isn't very inviting to new customers. Are those cheapo bikes you speak of advertised as being for non-cyclists or simply recreational bike riders? Which one doesn't have negative implications?

To be fair, writers make books for children. Thats about as equal to devs making 'casual' games for non-gamers IMO.

Even if you're simply saying that they're creating a product which wouldn't appeal to themselves, I'm still not sure that's the greatest of comparisons.

[EasyCure]

i shouldve added the following to my post:

[Mop it up]

You know what? You should put that in your signature. 

[Chozo Ghost]

I really wonder if the devs behind these "casual" games have any respect or pride whatsoever in what they make. Perhaps they are no different than a burger flipper at a fast-food chain who hates what he's doing and only does it because he needs that pay check. I suspect these devs probably spit in their product (or whatever a proper analogy of that would be).

[broodwars]

I really wonder if the devs behind these "casual" games have any respect or pride whatsoever in what they make. Perhaps they are no different than a burger flipper at a fast-food chain who hates what he's doing and only does it because he needs that pay check. I suspect these devs probably spit in their product (or whatever a proper analogy of that would be).

I doubt it.  No one wants to make a bad game, especially since it goes on their resume.  I suspect they have as much pride in what they do as any other developer, but I can imagine that their enthusiasm may be a bit dampened since game devs like making games that they themselves would play.

[Kairon]

T_T

[Mop it up]

If that's the sentiment that developers have then this industry needs some new faces.

[EasyCure]

If that's the sentiment that developers have then this industry needs some new faces.

You mean like these:

? As opposed to the ever-so-hardcore:

 

[mantidor]

So with the "graphics" argument out of the picture, (it was before anyway, there's an assasin's creed for ds and psp), whats left to explain the dumb decisions of third parties regarding wii?

Only Nintendo games sell - proved false.
Only "casual" (whatever the hell that means) sells - proved false again.

... I can't recall any others

[Kairon]

If that's the sentiment that developers have then this industry needs some new faces.

Developers of this day and age are very likely of a certain generation, so if we want a shift in culture and values inside the game industry, we'd need to broaden the demographics and opinions found within the game industry itself.

[Chozo Ghost]

It might just be the Wii's control scheme and that 3rd parties just don't know how to deal with it. Which is stupid, because the Wii and Nunchuck CAN work as a traditional control scheme rather easily, and if that is still an issue then there is always the classic controller.

So its stupid, but I think this might be part of the reason 3rd parties fear the Wii. No one can claim the DS or PSP are graphically superior systems to the Wii, and yet these systems are getting games like Assassin's Creed and GTA and so forth. Hell, even the PS2 is probably getting more 3rd party support at this time than the Wii is.

[Peachylala]

And we all know how Karma works.

Nintendo gets sales, 3rd Parties fail to meet sales expectations.

[Ian Sane]

It might just be the Wii's control scheme and that 3rd parties just don't know how to deal with it. Which is stupid, because the Wii and Nunchuck CAN work as a traditional control scheme rather easily, and if that is still an issue then there is always the classic controller.

Yeah but I think there's a tendency for a developer to feel they have to "justify" the Wii as the target platform for a game and that means it has to make use of motion control.  That's the Wii's whole hook.  If you don't use it then the attitude is like "well why make it for the Wii, then?"  The fact that the Wii is the market leader SHOULD be justification enough but it just doesn't seem to work that way.
 
Once you decide that you're going to only use normal controls because for whatever reason you just can't get decent motion controls working, then you've made it so that your game can be easily ported to the other consoles.  But are Wii graphics going to fly on the other consoles?  I think you HAVE to support HD for those consoles as well (can't remember the details) so there's extra work involved.
 
I think there's also the feeling that if you just made a Wii game with normal controls it would come off as a last gen game that might as well be made for the PS2.  The whole reason that people accept the idea of buying a new console every five years or so is because the new games made for the new console demonstrate themselves to have not been possible on the old console.  Usually this is done VERY easily with a graphics boost.  You weren't playing too many SNES games that looked like NES games.  The Wii doesn't have much of a graphics boost.  It's entire justification for even existing is the motion control.  So if my game doesn't use it in SOME way my game looks fucking old.
 
I don't know if the market really sees it that way but that might be how developers see it.

[King of Twitch]

So if a Wii game doesn't use motion controls it automatically looks dated?

I thought motion controls were gimmicks for teletubby purple handle lunchbox gamers

[Chozo Ghost]

I think there's also the feeling that if you just made a Wii game with normal controls it would come off as a last gen game that might as well be made for the PS2.

I think we're pretty much near the point where game consoles can't really improve much more graphically. There can be some subtle improvements, but it won't ever be enough to warrant a new console. The next big leap will be with 3D consoles, and then after that will there be anything left to improve? Once you have a system capable of generating completely realistic graphics, you've pretty much hit a dead end.

All the Wii really needs to have graphical parity with its competition is HD, which only matters if you have an HD tv to play it with. The Wii isn't as outdated as you imply. Its definitely an improvement over the PS2, but on the other hand I think the PS2's graphics aren't that bad either. Graphics mattered a lot up until the 6th generation, but now they're irrelevant. Games played on an N64 and below looked like crap by today's standards, but everything after the N64 is as good as it needs to be, graphics wise.

[Mop it up]

All the Wii really needs to have graphical parity with its competition is HD

From what I've seen, that is very untrue. Those systems have much more processing power which results in far better graphics at any definition.