Ouch.

I've been trying to teach my 9-year-old some guitar, and 100 percent of the satisfaction for him is rising to the challenge and hitting the right notes at the right time (like playing the piano in Brain Age). I just do not see the appeal of this at all.

Haha, I don't think I'll be able to find a pole long enough to touch this with.

This is a title with HEAVY Miyamoto involvement.
I can almost guarantee it will end up being brilliant even if a single sitting with a dumbed down demo version is pretty horrible.

The scoring, grading, and evaluation will probably be in the finished product.
The game will almost certainly have a way of rewarding proper playing, it just won't beat you over the head every time you miss a note like other rhythm titles.

As for the "cheesy karate screams". Reminds me of the horrible alternative sound effects available in Donkey Konga. No one in their right mind uses them, and those who aren't in their right mind seem to enjoy them quite a bit.

Hmm, I don't know, with the everyone can play with smiles focus I'd expect: "You are all fantastic, have cookies, many cookies."

I probably won't get this game but what is wrong with being able to choose cheesy karate screams?  Having fun with wacky things always increases my enjoyment.  It is why I always I played in a panda suit while killing terrorists in Ghost Squad revolution.

It is a game with no stated goal, just to have fun.  That itself goes far away from the current mold of games.  It isn't for anyone looking to be graded, scored or unlock content it is just to have some quick fun.  This game isn't for me but I can see people liking it.  As much as I like Guitar Hero, it and Rock Band are only for the whole family if everyone happens to like rock music, want to dedicate time to practice so they can pass the next level or even play the current one without it stopping halfway, and want to plop down a huge sum for all those instruments.  A lot of people don't.

Wii Music is the new Wii Chess.

No child gamer left behind, or ALL children gamers left behind?! You be the judge...

Never thought I'd see a music game WORSE than "Battle of The Bands".

You haven't...

You've only seen impressions of a music game. That's hardly SEEING at all.

I suppose this lackluster E3 coupled with the announcement of WiiMusic have put people, err scratch that, the HARDC0R3 in a cynical mood. This is still Nintendo....and more importantly, this is still MIYAMOTO. Where's the faith?

Name any game he has had full control over that sucked?

Given the fact that Nintendo was able to 1up the Rick Roll in one fail swoop is all the proof I need to cast judgement.  --> http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=RgRriCJARvU

Yeah, a video that makes fun of potentially the coolest part of the game is certainly enough to pass judgment...

Are you purposely trying to look stupid?

I am interested in seeing if Disney's Ultimate Band somehow outdoes this game since it seems to encompass the same idea, but with currently-popular music.

I love how the tags on that include: "xxx, hot, horny, teen."

Look, maybe there's a lot more to this game than the E3 demo suggests. However, Nintendo's presentation of responses to questions about the game suggest what I played is representative of the final product. Blind optimism because Miyamoto is involved doesn't seem wise.

I don't think that having karate screams is necessarily a bad thing. The point is that it isn't incorporated in any sort of coherent fashion. Selecting the lead melody part, then assigning karate screams (which have pitch, but aren't really notes) as the instrument, does not make sense.

It's hardly blind optimism when you consider his track record. It's like saying Martin Scorsese's next film is going to suck because the trailer was about a blind man. What's even more preposterous is that Miyamoto is working with a far greater system than anyone one of its kind. He's been given a laser cutter in place of his old pick axe.

So no, it's not "blind optimism." It's respect and admiration for a genius in our time.

And you have still to name a videogame he has made that has sucked. All I need is one.......just one.......

Miyamoto oversees many, many video games that Nintendo makes. Unfortunately, Nintendo is usually vague about how much involvement Miyamoto has in any given title, and it's easy to point the blame on someone else when something goes wrong. After all, he hasn't been credited as Director in years.

There are Nintendo third party-developed titles that he has overseen which have been sub-par, but that wouldn't really answer your call.  Personally, I thought Nintendogs was trash, and he was General Producer for that, but you may not care for that example. Yoshi's Story? He was a supervisor on that. Perhaps my best example is his role as GP for the Pokemon Channel.

You're right, I don't have any really definitive examples. But frankly, it's unrealistic to think that even the best game designer will always make a winner. All I know for sure is that what I played was horrible and many others who played it agree with me. And guess what: that's what game impressions are all about--what the writer played. There better be a lot more to the game when I see it in stores if Nintendo wants me to change my tune.

Fair enough. The demo (and game) may not be for you. I'm just seriously pissed off by the lack of tolerance people have with the game. WiiTard Music; RaviRolling; WTF?

This man brought us Mario Galaxy; the greatest reinvention of a series since OOT (which is his to credit as well). It's a little too early to be dismissing it outright.

I've been looking forward to this game since the Wii was known as the revolution; no one will be more disappointed by it's lack of fun and appeal than I. But even I have patience...

Plus what game could be so "Horrible" if this is one of the options of gameplay?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6bilS8W3HKM

Yoshi's Story was the first EAD game which was not produced or directed by Miyamoto. He basically had no involvement in it.. and it showed.

The game's sounding good to me. Everyone's complaining it doesn't allow failure, but that isn't true. According to these impressions, you can play badly. Yes, the game doesn't evaluate your playing, but what's wrong with that? You and your friends can judge yourselves - just like you do when you sing karaoke or freestyle rap. Why would you want it any different? A computer can't tell good sounding music from bad.

I'm trying to think of a game that totally bombed with critics at E3 that later went on to be a really cool game.  I can think of one: Halo.  Metroid Prime was a little iffy because of all the drama going on at Retro but I recall the initial impressions of the playable game being positive; it was the first person reveal that was causing skepticism.  But a complete turn around from total crap to classic is rare.  I remember Luigi's Mansion was criticized for being too short and lacking replay value at E3 and in the end that was exactly what the final game was.  That was Nintendo and was EAD.

I figure if Wii Music really was much more than this Nintendo would be quick to point it out.  I figure they would see the negative reactions and react to it.  I figure if this wasn't it Nintendo wouldn't want to show off a game so unfinished.  No one wants to bomb at E3.  No one wants to show off a new product and have it get sh!t on immediately.  No one would show off this joke of a game "mode" if they had something better in mind for the final product.

This is Wii Music and Nintendo is proud of it.  They wouldn't be so anxious to show it off and focus on it so much if this was just part of something bigger.  Hell they're emphasizing no skill being required.

For me Jonny's impressions are enough proof for me that this is Nintendo's E.T.  I trust NWR's judgment and they've been unbiased in the past.  If this was a true gem being unfairly slagged by observers who haven't got a chance to play it, NWR would defend it.

Hmm... sounds like I need to write-up my impressions...

Ian, I'll take it as a compliment that you thought these imps were Jonny's :)

Ooops.  You're right.  Sorry.  Why did I think TYP was Jonny?  Anyway I still trust NWR's opinion.

I'd love to hear them :)

I think MadCatz is coming out with a white plastic 20-foot pole peripheral just for this game.

Alot of critics were down on the WiiSports after playing it too.  And you see how WiiSports has ended up doing.

I think some folks are missing the point of Wii Music.  It seems like a big complaint is that it sounded horrible when a bunch of people got together and played, but I think that's a complement.  It's supposed to be a toy of sorts.  A toy instrument and not just a controller.  Hence you can play bad and good music.

I think the point of the demo was to show this, but it was lost on the entire core gamer crowd.  By controlling the tempo and the arrangement you can come up with your own versions of songs.  And like an instrument (and a game) you're bound to get better the more play.  And there's seems to be few limits to your creativity.

Plus I'm not sure why the core crowd wasn't wowed by the drums and the virtual drum machine this game will have.  The professional sounded great to me.  And, for me, there's quite a bit of appeal to the mode where you can learn to play some drums.  (I heard there's a 2-wk lesson mode or something.)

Combine that whatever else the game offers (I understood there were modes) and it looks like a winner.  I'm sure it will have the most appeal to families, but I don't see why it wouldn't be a fun party game either. 

Also keep in mind that Nintendo hadn't gotten the sensitivity settings down when they first presented Wii Sports.  Things turned out a lot better than what we were shown at E3 2006.

It wasn't the sensitivity issues people had a problem with it was the concept of the game. I remember clearly all the whining pre-Wii sports, not soley because of some control issues but that it was "blah blah tech demo. Nintendo is stoopid for packing it in".

Ladies and gentlemen, we have another Wii Play in our hands...

Frankly, it looks like it could provide moments of fun, to the right audience of course.

If you look at all the cynical and harsh impressions, they all come from gaming journalists who come to expect more. Wii Music is never intended to be a very detailed, hardcore and even harsh music program. It aims to be a fun music simulator.

Instruments and lessons are extremely expensive, but kids and some adults want to play an instrument for the hell of it. Wii Music looks to do that and then some.

So to the optimists who think people are being harsh on this, take note. Its not their fault. This is a game designed with children and families in mind, not the uber leet gamer.

Imagine for a second that a very famous Broadway critic goes to see a Children's play. Of course he will bash it to death because he is used to seeing lavish and professional play, and what he is seeing is a humble play. But I'm sure the parents, the people involved and the kids will enjoy it likewise because it was a well made effort by them and everyone got to enjoy it.

This is how Wii Music is to me; a game that the hardcore will despise, but the casual, and even some open minded core gamers, will enjoy.

It does hurt that Miyamoto is the one behind this, but to both the core and the optimists. Simply because Miyamoto is one of the greatest geniuses ever it doesn't mean that he can't tackle fun and silly projects like this. Do I need to remind you whose name is on the Boom Blox cover, and on Tiny Toons and Animaniacs for that matter?

Also, I do expect this to be better than expected. Not because of blind optimism, but because the Wii franchise games always seem to leave a bad impression at first, but end up being fun and at times very compelling experiences.

Midway's Game Party is a million seller, after all.

What the hell is wrong with being an "uber leet gamer"?  It's like people are trying to distance themselves from the hardcore just to defend Nintendo.

I don't want toys, I want games, dammit!  Nintendo is welcome to make toys, but give those of us that don't want that some love as well.  Right now we're getting no love, which is the crux of the issue.

Games are toys.  Wake up.

Says the man with Snow White as his icon ;) .

And really, the term "hardcore" has lost its meaning in this debacle.

To me, a hardcore gamers is someone who plays a lot of games, enjoys them greatly and spends a lot of money on them. A gaming fanatic.

Now, there's hardcore, the gamer who plays nothing but uber manly games like Halo, Gears of War and Team Fortress 2 and associates himself with the toughest gaming companies.

Are you hardcore, or are you HARDCORE?

I think Nintendo has become an extension of gamer's quarter life crisis. Duck hunt would get scores of 1.0 if released today.

Thank you.

"Hardcore" is a bullsh!t term abused by different people to the point that it has no clear meaning anymore.

Hardcore gamer really is a good term to describe someone who sets world record scores in old arcade games or beats all their games on the highest difficulty.  Though the term often extended to just mean people with a strong interest in games.  The "smart" gamers so to speak.  Those that were good at avoiding crap.

However MS started using the terms to refer to their target demo so suddenly people started associating first person shooters and HD as hardcore gamer stuff.  Microsoft's target demo with the Xbox was 13-25 males and if anything relied more on image than even Sony.  MS sure as hell didn't target kids and was very North American focused which doesn't fit the image of the "gamer enthusiast" type of "hardcore gamer".

Nintendo then created a strong divide between the old market and the new.  "Hardcore gamer" came about as a label to describe anyone who wasn't part of the blue ocean group.

Maybe we should just say "gamer".  If the other group is non-gamer I think that would fit.  "Gamer" is a common term to describe someone with a serious interest in videogames.  Someone who just buys a Wii to play Wii Sports every once in a while would never describe themselves as such.

Nintendo however would probably get confused as hell if you asked them "what are you working on for gamers?"

Heh. Reminds me of when they redefined the word "competition" based on having a DVD player or not?

You just have to inoculate yourself from new PR-speak every five years

From the impressions, I can't believe Nintendo says this should be used as a music education device for children. When the thing doesn't encourages you AT ALL to get better and doesn't even grade you how in the hell are you going to teach anything with that? I'm now so curious about the input I'm hoping they have from actual musicians, what would Kondo think about this thing? ALso, does this has any sort of create your own melody mode? was it shown at E3?

edit:

oh I forgot, is there any sense of control over the music? I still don't understand how can you not fail but at the same time control an instrument. If I have input over the instrument I should be able to fail if I wanted to, right?

What is wrong with it is that it is a way of pitting "them against us", I've always hated the term hardcore, it is a sily and frankly stupid term. A "hardcore" gamer if ANYTHING is a gamer who loves to play all different kinds of games both casual and traditional. It would be like someone saying "Oh I'm a hardcore movie goer but I only watch war movies and sci-fi movies" that would make no sense. Now you can be a hardcore fan of a particular genre, but please don't call yourself a hardcore gamer. I think Pap said it perfectly in a previous thread, play what you love to play, don't try to slap labels on people to make yourself feel better. It comes across as arrogant when you do that.

Guess what? I like GAMES, that includes casual and traditional games. I enjoy playing what I, well, enjoy playing! I'll give anything a fair chance unless it has obvious quality issues and even then it depends. It seems people have become so jaded that they cannot enjoy themselves anymore or appreciate that this is an expanding market. I personally have found it amazing to actually be able to play fun games with people who would have NEVER thought of playing a game before. Wii Music may be yet another addition to my library for just this purpose.

The way I see it, this thing is implemented as such: there is an active current note or chord at any given time. when you flick your remote or whatever it takes to make a sound, that active note/chord is played. In theory, that means that you'lll always play a "correct" note or no note at all. But it didn't sound all that good in my opinion, even when people tried to play as you'd expect if you knew the song. (God forbid you play a song you don't know, because there aren't obvious visual cues.)

This statement is wrong on academic, literal, and practical levels.  Toys are tools for entertainment.  Games are abstract constructs with goals and rules, sometimes defined by the player.  Wii Music is an electronic toy.  If I play Wii Music with the goal of creating the most obnoxious sounds I possibly can, then I have created a game based on the toy.  It's the difference between G.I. Joes themselves and playing war with them.

But that doesn't mean games can be toys.

For instance, Bop-it is a game that is a toy as well. And besides, can't having as much fun as possible be a "rule" for a game? Then aren't all toys, games and vice versa?

This is getting into pretty ridiculous semantics, but if we accept Jonny's definition of toys as tools for entertainment, all games fit that defintion as well, so all games are toys.  But not all toys are games.  Games are a subset of toys.  So saying "I don't want toys, I want games" is like saying "I don't want games, I want first-person shooters."  Which doesn't make much sense because if you have a first-person shooter, you have a game, and if you have a game, you have a toy.

Wii Music is an electronic toy, but so is Resistance or any other Serious Game.  Resistance may have more goals or rules, but in the end they're both just ways of entaining yourself* and killing time.

* Insert your own snide remark about how Wii Music isn't entertaining here.

Discussion forums are software toys. All forms of communication is just mental toys that we play with.

So its right to say you control the timing? All I can really do with the Mario song is to make it sound really fast or really slow? I seriously can't wrap my head about this, what kind of idea they had in mind, after all this are the same people that madethe ocarina in OoT, its hard to understand why they didn't follow such obvious example about making music.

This is such a reductive argument. It's like you don't even appreciate your own hobby. Why go head over heels to define games as meaningless, purposeless, useless - merely to justify a game company making a shit game?

Saying toys are tools for entertainment may miss the boat. All the posters here are right to compare toys and games because both involve "play." Games, though, structured and organize "play" into goals and restrictions. They often have real world counterparts, origins, or application. Games tell us about our culture's way of thinking, because games are a mental process. Toys are "create your own play" with absolutely no rules at all; they exist on a distractive level rather than an engaging one. Games can USE toys (ROB for instance). Wii Music, for all intents and purposes, is not a game. When we say "casual game" we're still referring to the typical definition of structured play: Wii Sports, Brain Age, Wii Fit all have the elements we define as "game." From the sounds of it, this has none of those elements.

My favorite thing about E3 is the reporting of impressions. No matter what we say, the audience here will retort "you're playing a demo, ergo you have no right to an opinion." Those who play the games are never trusted because "Nintendo/Miyamoto can do no wrong." Nevermind that Nintendo has been developing this thing for over 2 years, and they chose this moment to show it to us, and it plays as TYP has reported. Remember, E3 is the opportunity to show the best of what you have at the moment, and if TYP, a veteran of E3, says its the worst thing he's played at any E3 ever, I believe him.

Well, when we get to play the game six months later and have a positive experience that is completely contrary to what was reported at E3, should we continue to trust them?

Depends. If on most occasions you agree with them on games, then sure, it just happens to be an anomaly. If most of the time you don't level with their opinions, then of course not, but you should already know that by now.

I trust Miyamoto more than the NWR staff. If I have to choose TYP's word or Miyamoto's word. I choose Miyamoto's.

Even as the company moves steadily in a direction contrary to its decades long success? With Miyamoto at the helm?

Our negative impressions of Zelda, if that's what you're referring to, were COMPLETELY justified. You didn't play that demo. It looked like an awesome Zelda game, but with bad controls, and guess what, after all the negative buzz from the press, they changed the controls (and they still weren't perfect in the final release).

Steady direction contrary to it's decades of success. I think that is an incorrect evaluation of Nintendo's modern history and it glosses over the complaining of the enthusiast press the last two generations in regards to their "direction."

Come on guys, seriously?  Wii Music?  I can't believe we're arguing about this.  I'll tell you what, I trust their impressions so much that if Wii Music receives a Metacritic score of even 65 or above, I'll use "Ravi Drums" as my avatar!

So let me get this straight: you trust Miyamoto, a guy that gets PAID by Nintendo and has a vested interest in not giving it to you straight, over the NWR Staff, who give you their opinions for FREE only for the sake of informing you?

Who is more likely to give you an unfiltered, honest response to a question, Miyamoto or NWR?  We aren't trying to sell you a product, and we don't want anything from you.

I'm actually waiting for an editorial to be edited about how Wii Fit is thoroughly a "game" and the casual game moniker is overly negative. But I wrote the editorial pre-E3 08, and I'm wondering if it's worth publishing now.

What?  I didn't do any of those things.  I like toys, and I don't think you're giving them enough credit.  Look at something like Legos or Play-Doh.  Those are "create your own play" with no rules, but it would be hard to convince me that building things with them isn't an engaging mental process.  Even less "constructive" toys, like, say, action figures or dolls, depend entirely on your imagination and creativity for you to get anything out of them.  Maybe that's not engaging in the sense you were using it, but I think there is value in it.  And of course toys often have real world counterparts, origins, or application too -- a quick and dirty example might be the famous "drinking bird" toy, which has no practical use, but demonstrates several laws of physics.  When I say that games are toys, it's not meant to disparage either of them.

Also please note that I haven't made any claim that Wii Music is a game, or that Wii Music is good (even as a toy).  I haven't played it, so I don't know, and I don't have any particular interest in justifying its existence.  I'm just sayin' -- games are a kind of toy.

I don't know a single person (other than Nintendo employees) who played Wii Music at E3 and had any substantial praise for it.  Yes, it's anecdotal evidence, but that's the best you can get out of E3.  I played it myself and thought it was totally lame and boring.  If the final product turns out great, the current negativity will be Nintendo's fault for creating a bad demo that misrepresents the product.

I also played Wii Music two years ago, at E3 2006.  I also thought it was stupid back then, while I greatly enjoyed the demos for Wii Sports, Rayman Raving Rabbids, etc.  I don't think they have improved Wii Music very much since then except to add Balance Board support and increase the number of instruments.  The "Jam Session" mode is basically the same as conducting the orchestra.

If you want to get hyped up for Wii Music based on heuristics or whatever, be my guest.  But keep in mind that we love Nintendo just as much as you, and have played just as many of their games, and we all thought Wii Music was stupid.  The only difference between us and you is that we actually played the game.

Um... what?  The N64 and Cube were both flops.

I hope Silks isn't still perma-ignoring me, but this is a false dichotomy.  The correct answer to the question of who will give you an unfiltered opinion is actually a non-gamer, who has not set his gaming preferences yet.  And the usage of "likely" is weak, because it leaves open the possibility that he is speaking an unfiltered truth, and you are being shaded by your preferences.

Also, please, we shouldn't be naive about our internet profession. Journalists also sell products, packaged as slightly dramatic interpretations of events, along with society-rupturing opinions, in order to sell advertising.  Miyamoto may not have a vested interest in openly criticizing his own product, but likewise we aren't vested in the truth of it, good or bad.  But were are interested in conflict, because every good story needs one.  This I notice as my most read, loved, prized reviews are of garbage games GBA/DS that I rip a new asshole.  So we shouldn't argue from the standpoint of objective ombudsmen as if there is nothing that could possibly influence our opinions, ever.

Deguello beat me to the response for Lindy's argument. (and did a good job of it too)

I personally have no interest in playing any music game; Not DDR, not Elite Beat Agents, not Guitar Hero. But the fact that this is a Miyamoto project (a game creator who has only disappointed me once) I'm willing to give the game a try, despite impressions for NWR, IGN, 1up, or whoever.

I'm sure it will be a PAX next month so I will see what I think then.  I think I may ask the attendant if the game is the same build that was shown at E3.

And I am genuinely starting to get sick of hearing what everybody thinks is a "game" and their own definition of it and what ISN'T a game and why the people who play the non/casual games are stupid brainless retards who don't deserve to exist.  Is it 2005?  Is Nintendogs still popular?  Is the DS the "Nintendogs-only" console?  Is this argument still being used?  Seriously?

Here's another chestnut that probably needs to be taken out with a SCUD missile.  Nintendo hasn't abandoned anybody.  That's simply more drama to sell.  What they HAVE done is catered to that mainstream audience that every journalist and Ian-type forumer told them to do for about 8 years.  So Nintendo does so and all of a sudden there's a big problem as these mainstream gamers are easily pleased by new experiences and every critic recoils in horror and says "UNCLEAN!  UNCLEAN!  GAMES ARE ART!  NON-CASUAL-CORE-MAINSTREAM NOOOOO!!!  THEY SHOULD LIKE THE GAMES WE LIKE AND WHAT WE RATE 9.0!!!"

And you know what?  Let's say Wii Music turns out to be a turkey.  And?  Nintendo's been behind bad games before, hell they gave Urban Champion its own after-school special.  It's not the end of the world, although that would make a good conflict.

And as an attitudinal counter-example Sony did far worse by showcasing Lair and Heavenly Sword and Eight Days and Genji "Massive Damage" II in the last powerful, big-time E3 that meant something.  All those games sucked and one even got canceled.  But other than Massive Damage, you don't hear too much about the conference itself, and somehow hope springs eternal for each Sony show afterward.  Shouldn't Nintendo at least be afforded the same courtesy, especially since they are #1?  Just a thought.

Edit: Oh yeah *laughs* totally forgot about Warhawk at the same conference.

Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Artistic success.

I have a serious problem with the "noble savage" attitude towards art, as if one who has never touched a game before would know the best one ever if he played it. How is it possible for someone to play ONE game and then declare it good or not without any context or other games to compare it to? It's ridiculous: would the person who has never seen a film and has absolutely no knowledge of art history instantly identify Bergman, Fellini, and Kubrick as three of the great directors? (btw that's just a cross-section, don't get hung up on the directors I chose) Why does having no prior knowledge of an art somehow qualify you to judge it more than others? I admit that it's possible to become so immersed in something (anything) that you can't see the forest for the trees, but it's even more ridiculous to ask someone who has never seen a tree before whether it is healthy or not.

Great points. I agree. Everything influences our opinions. We have to cultivate good taste, not glorify perspective "au naturale." I ultimately agree with Lindy's point, but it's true that things do influence game journos just as much as anyone else. However, we at NWR are not paid for our opinions, we just give them. That's more than you can say for Gamespot.

I hope you don't think that's what I'm saying. Re-read what I said: I'm willing to defend any casual game to the ends of the earth. I'm fond of non-games too; I'm afraid Wii Music sounds like a sack of shit. When we say "toy" we're saying something more than "non-game."

I agree. Nintendo has changed, but that's different. I would expect them to change (innovation is what they're known for, on certain levels (but not in Zelda dammit)). Anyways, I'm not making the claim that Nintendo abandoned anyone, I'm just saying that their product is more diversified now. I love casual games. I just also want narrative games, and Nintendo isn't making as many as they used to.

Good points all. I don't want to disparage toys, because I do believe that they're an important part of "play" as a child. However, games last forever in our lives (talking broadly from tic tac toe to poker to monopoly and tetris), and toys last for a shorter period in our lives. There's a point where toys stop being toys (because they stop being a part of "play") and begin to become art supplies.

Of course, that's not concrete evidence for making a giant value claim against toys, but it's enough for me at this moment in the conversation.

I still disagree that games are a kind of toy. Toys, at least until recently, have always been physical objects; games have never been physical because they exist mentally. We create toys with our hands; we create games with our minds. 

Some games behave similarly to toys, and some are not games at all (under a strict game theory definition, which does have purposes in our conversations here, no matter how much some want to stamp detailed discussion and definition out of our forum). Either way, calling games "toys" puts games on a different, and I believe lower, level.

If I recall correctly, Will Wright called Sim City a toy rather than a game. Is it on a lower level?

How do you feel about board games?  Also not toys?  (Not trying to be argumentative; I'm genuinely curious.)  I can see your point about the physical/mental distinction, but I'm not sure where you can draw the line.

I respectfully disagree.  When applied to video games, I interpret "non-game" and "toy" as pretty much synonymous (outside of the "all games are toys" conversation here); the thinking being: it's a video game (all of which are toys), but it doesn't have the rules/objectives/scoring/whatever of a game, so it just ends up being a toy that isn't a game.  I guess it's not a very important distinction, other than to clarify that I don't consider that a "lower" level, just maybe a simpler one.

He hasn't changed his haircut/'stache since 1989

He can't, they're the source of his amazing game design abilities.

I like ya Svevan and these are all good points, but I didn't say he would pick out the BEST GAME.  I said he would give an unfiltered, honest response, which is more unfiltered than a journalist with preferences or a developer wanting to sell it.  It's why we let children get away with saying inappropriate things because we haven't installed etiquette filters in them yet.  And sometimes they do speak an obvious truth.

We may not be paid money but we certainly are paid in free games to review and, despite the ruffling feathers these past years, paid due respect and attention higher than that of a person with a postcount of 1.  It's just something to keep in mind.

It's not aimed at you.  It's just everytime a game runs afoul of the genre boundaries we've so clearly set, the anticipators will anticipate and the detractors will scream "non-game."  While Wii Music's quality is still in question, you have to admit this has become the go-to insult for any game these days.  And it causes havoc whenever someone bursts into a thread and starts calling something casual or a non-game to fans of it.

I think you need to zoom out and look around.  Nintendo hasn't actually released that many non-games... at least not internationally.  Hell by the end of this year they will have released an iteration of almost every popular "core" GC series in two years, IN ADDITION to stuff like Wii Play and Wii Fit.  Similar things were said of the DS in 2005 and early 2006.  If you really want an eye-opener, you should check out the PS1's launch library.  The best game was Rayman, and that was a port.  It took a year and a half before Resident Evil came out and actually made the PS1 worth buying... and that was even a SATURN port.  And this was all happening when the N64 was released and everybody was oogling the 3-D and how it just just stomp the PS1 and Saturn flat.  Funny how that works.

Of course Nintendo is still making core games.  And if Reggie Fils-Aime is to be believed, and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, Nintendo has recently adopted an Apple-ish policy of not showing anything until nearly the final stages of development.  This coupled with the lower-key E3 (Capcom basically wasted jet fuel to come to a GAME show to talk about a MOVIE), led to the conference we saw.  If true, this is to be commended, as Nintendo will probably never have a game make 4 E3's in a row before actually being released like Killzone 2, and it will certainly cut down on "target renders."  They'll take their internet lumps, but they are in a position to for once in a decade.

What's wrong with toys? Toys are cool.

I'll be interested in how Wii Music turns out when it's released, but right now it does sound pretty disappointing.

Why does every discussion about Wii Music have to turn into a philosophical discussion or a big argument about the direction of Nintendo?  This game sucks.  Saying so does not make me anti-Nintendo or anti-casual games or a faux-serious gamer or anything else.  The NWR E3 crew all played it.  We all think it sucks.

My issues with Nintendo's E3 presence and message reach far beyond Wii Music and honestly have little to do with this particular game.

Unfortunately Jonny it becomes difficult to disconnect the two discourses, like abortion and the rights of the unborn.

It'll just have to come with the territory until one of the discourses tires out (hopefully the philosophical one.)

Of course we all have our biases, but I think the trust spectrum goes like this:

Miyamoto - great guy, great designer, but first and foremost is a corporate mouthpiece who's job at the end of the day is to say stuff to convince you to buy his product

"Professional" Gaming Site - they make content in order to draw in readers to generate ad revenue.  Supposedly subscribe to a journalistic code of ethics, but you know how that sometimes goes

Enthusiast site - we don't get paid.  Well, in game reviews, but if we get sent a shitty game we'll call it out as a shitty game, because we don't care if we ever get sent shitty games again

I just think it's silly to trust Miyamoto over us, because if the minute chance of unfiltered opinion is going to come from somewhere, it will most likely come from us because we have the least stake in this.  But of course, we have preferences, but you can say that about anyone and anything.

I think the kids who post on GameFAQs have even less of a stake in this. Let's see what they say about Wii Music.

They won't even be on the trust scale until possibly PAX or E4A.

Great post; great read.

I think this can all boil down to this:

Miyamoto > NWR's opinion

Miyamoto doesn't have to say one word and we'll still trust in him more than NWR's opinion of his game. I'm sorry, but it's true.

Miyamoto is a proven genius creator of games and NWR is just a gaming website full of Nintendo fans. So while you all scream "HORRIBLE," (and you might end up being right) nothing will ever dissuade us from at least trying the game and giving it its fair chance.

Besides, if it wasn't for him, I wouldn't be a Nintendo fan; so the least I can do is give him the benefit of the doubt.

After skimming through everyone's posts, all I can say is people are getting a bit more metaphysical than me. I didn't enjoy what I played, and reported as such. You can not trust/agree with my opinion. You can decide to check it out for yourself. But please don't suggest I'm being disingenuous or otherwise am trying to stir the pot for sensationalism, because I'm just not that kind of person. This was the most pitiful E3 hands-on experience I can remember, and I'm not about to sugar-coat that.

Go ahead and try it out when it is released. I hope I'm wrong about the lack of value in this title, because it would be great if *anyone* could *enjoy* playing this title as part of a group.

So if they make a porn game, is it a sex toy?

Sorry to nitpick but Resident Evil was made for the Playstation first and then ported to the Saturn.  And Rayman was the only decent PSX launch game?  What about Tekken or Ridge Racer?  The PS2 however did have a horrible launch so you can always use that as an example and, well, the PS3 sure seems to as well... and the PSP.

Anyone questioning how trustworthy TYP's opinion is... it just seems like if this wasn't a Nintendo game no one would have any issue.  If some third party, and let's say one with a good track record as well, was working on Wii Music and there was some hype for it but then TYP played it, was disappointed, and gave the same impressions it wouldn't be that big of a deal.  It seems because it's almighty Nintendo that TYP's opinion must not be trustworthy.  Be a fan but don't be a fanatic.  This is a company trying to make money off of you.  Why would you trust their opinion over anyone else's?  Would Miyamoto EVER give a Nintendo game that had not been released yet a bad review?  Of course not.

If this was revealed at Microsoft's or Sony's conferences everyone would be making fun of them.

Nintendo has earned trust by consistently putting out good games. The same can't be said for other companies.

Except you are missing the fact that Miyamoto has alot to do with the game and I would give ANY talented and respected game designer the benefit of the doubt. Also is it just me that finds it odd that Ian is calling others fanatical?

No personal attacks please. Everyone that posts here is fanatical.

Someone has been out of the loop for the past month or so!