Topic: What Kind of Games should the 3DS have?

[Spak-Spang]

True, and am I the only one that thinks 2D gaming with 3D visuals is not a gimmick but would be quite impressive and visually stunning.  Imagine for a second that each layer of sprites has its own depth to create a deep image...much like the movie Tarzan did.  Now if somebody did that with a Super Mario Bros 3 or Yoshi's Island or dare dream Wario Shake graphics that would be the best 2D visuals created.

While that would be neat, I don't see Nintendo doing that themselves. That's nothing more than a visual gimmick and adds nothing to game design. They're all about gameplay first and foremost, so I'd imagine they're going to use the 3DS for new gameplay possibilities instead of stunning visuals.

Actually I disagree.  Visuals effects add much more to gameplay than just pretty pictures.  But lets take this 3D layering of 2D images.  Imagine for a second playing a top down Zelda.  You have basically 3D effects adding depth to the 2D plane.  You can now see enemies flying moving in and out of the 3D planes and you can expertly tell when you can attack these enemies, or use a nice lock on system but still feel the excitement of attacking a flying creature.  The game would feel more like a 3D game, but have the precision game control of a 2D game. 

Now imagine level design that is built around the idea of the levels, puzzles, enemies, items and what not, and you have a very rich and new Zelda experience.

The same could be said about a Mario game.  Use your imaginations on how it could work, and you can see that it is not just a visual improvement but actually a deep gameplay mechanic. 

[UncleBob]

mmmm.... Professor Layton 3D. 

[Pale]

Best-selling games are hardly ever creative - they're just simple fun. And that's what i expect. I expect Mario Kart 3D or Super Mario 3D.

God, this statement hurts my freaking heart.

Did you really just make the statement that Mario Kart and Super Mario Bros. is NOT creative?  I'm speechless.



On the thread topic, for what it's worth, I know a couple people that have been hip deep in development on next gen titles.  One was an environmental artist on Dead Space.

You would not believe the stories I heard about how sad/frustrated/unhappy people on that team were when they had to move on to making Extraction.  You can argue all you want about whether or not they should or should not have felt that way, but the fact remains that they did.  It was frustrating for them to move from a system that facilitated their work to a system that did not and have the audience expect the same results.

That is why third party support is bad on Wii.  That is why it is not OK that Nintendo's systems are primitive technically.

Well, I guess it's OK if all you are concerned about is first party games.  I'm derailing though so I'll stop.

[UncleBob]

If Nintendo hardware isn't capable of running your re-imangined port of an HD system's game, then don't try to jam it in there.  Create us something that is fun and will run on the Wii.

[BlackNMild2k1]

^ That is the strategy they took for the Wii.... and we all know how that turned out (they forgot the fun in most of them).

[UncleBob]

Yeah - simply creating something that will run on the Wii isn't very helpful.

[SixthAngel]

Actually I disagree.  Visuals effects add much more to gameplay than just pretty pictures.  But lets take this 3D layering of 2D images.  Imagine for a second playing a top down Zelda.  You have basically 3D effects adding depth to the 2D plane.  You can now see enemies flying moving in and out of the 3D planes and you can expertly tell when you can attack these enemies, or use a nice lock on system but still feel the excitement of attacking a flying creature.  The game would feel more like a 3D game, but have the precision game control of a 2D game. 

Now imagine level design that is built around the idea of the levels, puzzles, enemies, items and what not, and you have a very rich and new

Everyone should remember the first Zelda and how the spinning fan enemies "flew."  Flying in a 2d game is extremely hard to show in a meaningful sense and this isn't the only example.  3d will let it really be there.

On the thread topic, for what it's worth, I know a couple people that have been hip deep in development on next gen titles.  One was an environmental artist on Dead Space.

I'd be pissed too if I were moved to an obvious c grade effort and apparently moved to an entirely new development team.

[Pale]

It wasn't a 100% new development team.  On the art side a few key Dead Space artists managed an overseas group.


You guys missed the point though.  People were pissed because all the sudden they had a motherload of new constraints to fall under yet us assholes beat them up if the game isn't as pretty as we arbitrarily think is possible on the system.


It isn't a good situation and it could all be solved if Nintendo put a little more money into the specs of their systems.




I mean, Dead Space was wildly successful on the platforms it released on.  Wii current has a massive market lead on those consoles.  Who cares about that massive lead if they can still be successful on the consoles where they can push the limits as opposed to working in a box?

[Pale]

If Nintendo hardware isn't capable of running your re-imangined port of an HD system's game, then don't try to jam it in there.  Create us something that is fun and will run on the Wii.

It's not a question of a Nintendo system being able to run a re-imagined port.  It's a question of whether or not a Nintendo system is something developers WANT to make games for... period.

[UncleBob]

It's not a question of a Nintendo system being able to run a re-imagined port.  It's a question of whether or not a Nintendo system is something developers WANT to make games for... period.

If developers don't want to make games for Nintendo systems, then they don't really have an argument when their games don't sell on Nintendo systems.

Dead Space was "successful" on the PS3/360.  Now, let's pretend that the original Dead Space was an on-rails shooter, but still "looked as pretty" as it did.  Think it still would have been as "successful"?

[SixthAngel]

You guys missed the point though.  People were pissed because all the sudden they had a motherload of new constraints to fall under yet us assholes beat them up if the game isn't as pretty as we arbitrarily think is possible on the system.

No one beats up DS:E because it looks bad.  I beat it up because it is a terrible light gun shooter beaten by pretty much every other one on the system.  They gave a point and shoot game a tutorial for god's sake.


Lets go back to 3DS.  I would love an original Zelda in 3d just for those propeller guys to actually fly.

[Ian Sane]

  If Nintendo hardware isn't capable of running your re-imangined port of an HD system's game, then don't try to jam it in there.  Create us something that is fun and will run on the Wii. 

I think there's going to be a publisher/developer conflict here.  I, the developer, may prefer to make something new on the Wii but the publisher says to me "bring Dead Space to the Wii" and now I'm stuck trying to figure out how to do that.  And in that situation obviously I'm not going to have much enthusiasm for what I'm doing.
 
It would be nice to avoid that on the 3DS.  Surely Nintendo sees the lousy third party support on the Wii and would not consider that a good thing.  I think there's a tendency to look at something that was successful and assume that that's the formula and if you do the exact same stuff you'll find success again.  But the Wii is not a 100% success.  Nothing is.  The DS, Game Boy, NES, SNES, PS1 and PS2 were not perfect and even with their success there was clearly things to improve on.  So I hope Nintendo doesn't figure they should approach the 3DS exactly like they approached the Wii or the DS for that matter.  Because not EVERYTHING to do with those systems was a good idea.  There are always some things that you succeeded DESPITE them and you have to acknowledge what those are.

[Pale]

It's not a question of a Nintendo system being able to run a re-imagined port.  It's a question of whether or not a Nintendo system is something developers WANT to make games for... period.

If developers don't want to make games for Nintendo systems, then they don't really have an argument when their games don't sell on Nintendo systems.

Dead Space was "successful" on the PS3/360.  Now, let's pretend that the original Dead Space was an on-rails shooter, but still "looked as pretty" as it did.  Think it still would have been as "successful"?

Hey, I'm not trying to make a case for whether or not developers have the right to complain about anything.  I'm just saying that if Nintendo wants to truly encourage ground breaking development on their consoles, they need to have high end tech along with a new idea (motion controller/3D screens/etc.)


Imagine what would happen in the magical world where the Wii had the specs of the PS3, but still launched at 250 with the motion controller.  Think about what the state of games on the system would be like now.


Now before you say "But that would cause Nintendo to take so much of a loss they would go out of business."  I recognize that potential issue... but potential issues are worth attempting to work through.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

There would be an industry crash.  $60 games everywhere, all the time, for THREE expensive-to-develop consoles.  A casual HD game would be even costlier to produce, given the inexperience with motion development and "figuring out" the casual solution despite your best efforts to lure them with high-end visuals at the baseline.  More game makers would go out of business (or severely gutted), faster than what we've already seen.  Handhelds would be the only medium for prosperous, sustainable game development.

This is not the industry crash that I want.

EDIT: Wii would also be a huge ugly turd of a console, to house that hardware.  Appeal: -50.

[Pale]

So I'm confused. How do third parties make high end games that meet your standards without having a higher budget that could in turn drive game prices?

Also, the entire notion that development on other consoles is not "prosperous" or "sustainable" is insane.  Look at the great small scale games coming out on PSN and Live Arcade.  Look at insane high budget successes like MW2 and Uncharted.  There is success in both ends on those platforms.  They aren't failing no matter how you try and spin it like they are.

[Urkel]

Also, the entire notion that development on other consoles is not "prosperous" or "sustainable" is insane.

You don't say...

[NWR_insanolord]

There are big hits like that, but there are also the companies in the Game Industry Death Thread. The stakes are much higher on the other consoles; you can be a huge succcess, but one mistake could screw you over big time. Sustained prosperity is possible, but very difficult.

[Pale]

It's quite aggravating to see this argument being made. So because your system is capable of huge budget games, all games on there have to be maximum budget?

Like Q-Games and all the money they are piling up on the PS3?


I'll drop it though, it's definitely better to have everyone work on ancient technology so they supposedly don't have to spend as much money making games.

[Mop it up]

The same could be said about a Mario game.  Use your imaginations on how it could work, and you can see that it is not just a visual improvement but actually a deep gameplay mechanic. 

I don't want to use my imagination. That's the job of game developers. I'll just wait and see what they come up with.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

"all games on there have to be maximum budget?"

That's what the "future of gaming" looked like when you subtract Nintendo from E3 2006.

[BlackNMild2k1]

It's quite aggravating to see this argument being made. So because your system is capable of huge budget games, all games on there have to be maximum budget?

Tell that to the devs and the pubs, they are the ones spending 4-10x the money to get the graphical assets needed to push the systems to the limits since they are the ones trying to one-up the last effort that was catering to the HD crowd.

[Ian Sane]

  "all games on there have to be maximum budget?"

That's what the "future of gaming" looked like when you subtract Nintendo from E3 2006. 

To be fair we see this stuff outside the game industry as well.  Every year movie studios will go nuts on a big budget blockbuster with big stars and big set pieces and big special effects.  And they'll try to top each other.  Avatar comes out and it costs around $300 milltion and it's a success and now everyone is all batshit for 3D - including Nintendo with THIS very system.  One movie comes out where the concept is really successful and everyone wants the next Avatar.  Meanwhile tons of films would have no need to go to that level.  They don't need 3D or tons of CG.  But the big projects by the studios that get the hype machine are going to be the big blockbusters.
 
And if a videogame company wants to go to the max every time and goes broke, let them.  Nintendo for example could always choose to not push it to the max.  Hell, they don't even push the Wii to the max with the Mii games.
 
I see the PS360 approach as true freedom while the Wii approach is more like a police state FOR THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE.  It's a free market so let's let these companies succeed or fail on their own merits and by their own decisions.  Nintendo can provide that big canvas for the 3DS and choose just to paint in one corner and let whoever else make whatever size painting they want - and everyone lives or dies by the choice they make.  That's how the videogame industry works anyway.  Those that wanted the big canvas just rejected Nintendo's intentional restriction anyway.  Might as well get those games on your system since they're going to be made anyway.  The Wii did nothing to stop the creation of these games and the only company that truly benefitted from it was Nintendo themselves.  Any idealistic "saving" of the game industry is an illusion.
 
And Nintendo has sold big numbers with games that don't go for broke.  And really all games compete with each other.  The sheer fact that the Wii has big hits that sell better than big hits on the HD consoles shows that if the game has got the stuff it can carry it's own.  It isn't like if Modern Warfare 2 was on the Wii that NSMB Wii would not have been able to compete.  If this forced restriction wasn't here would Nintendo be forced to match the graphics of HD games?  To assume so is to give Nintendo no credit.  Supporting the forced restriction, to me, is like saying that Nintendo's Wii games are only exceptional by Wii standards.  If hypothetically the Wii had been comparible to the other consoles in terms of hardware (assuming the console price isn't an issue) couldn't Nintendo have made Wii Sports and Super Mario Galaxy and NSMB Wii exactly the same as they did on the Wii and have those games still be successful?

[BlackNMild2k1]

I think you've got it wrong. The HD systems are like Dubai where all these things are happening, HUGE projects that cost way too much, and most of it is completely unnecessary or not asked for and no one can really afford to enjoy it.

While Nintendo is the rest of the world that's based in reality during a recession. We are making due with whats readily available in the price range we can afford.

It's an incomplete thought, but i think you see where it's headed.

[NWR_insanolord]

It's quite aggravating to see this argument being made. So because your system is capable of huge budget games, all games on there have to be maximum budget?

Like Q-Games and all the money they are piling up on the PS3?


I'll drop it though, it's definitely better to have everyone work on ancient technology so they supposedly don't have to spend as much money making games.

They don't have to do it that way, but that's how they do it. Just think, even on the Wii people complain when a 2D game is a retail game and not on WiiWare. There's a huge gulf between things that work on the download services and games that will sell (or at least that publishers think can sell) on the other consoles. The risk is lower on the Wii.

Remember here, I own all three consoles and have games that I love on all of them; I know that there's a lot of great stuff on the other consoles, and a good portion of it couldn't be done on the Wii. I'm just trying to convey why I don't hate Nintendo for doing what they did and that I understand the logic to an extent, and that there are some benefits to their approach.

[Urkel]

So because your system is capable of huge budget games, all games on there have to be maximum budget?

If you launch a console for six hundred bucks, then the kind of people who buy it will likely be expecting big budget games.