Author Topic: Original VC content (Read 11977 times)

NeoThunder · « **Reply #25 on:** January 21, 2007, 07:29:40 AM »

Ok, Well if i'm wrong then how are you going to buy an original game for VC when all you have to go by is 2 small pics and a small description.

If it were me I would want at least a demo to see if I like it, at least with games you buy in the store you can sell them and get some of your money back, NO DICE on VC......which I hate BTW.

Artimus · « **Reply #26 on:** January 21, 2007, 10:29:17 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Plus if you check my previous post you'll see the first such game has already gone through the ESRB.

Is it marked as "Wii Virtual Console" at the ESRB or how do you know it's downloadable?

Because it hasn't been announced otherwise. I suppose it is possible it's a DVD title, but that seems absurd considering what it is. Every single indicator points to original download (not that the game is original).

Neo, stop being a crybaby. You pay $50 for a game new from the stores, you pay $10 or less for VC games. You do not have a right to do whatever you want, so stop whining. There are people who have to feed themselves behind these games, not robots.

MaryJane · « **Reply #27 on:** January 21, 2007, 11:46:06 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Strell
I'd like links on the call for original VC content.

'Cuz I seem to remember it as a "well we could do it if we want" sort of thing.

more like a why wouldn't we sort of thing.

BiLdItUp1 · « **Reply #28 on:** January 21, 2007, 12:47:45 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
Neo, stop being a crybaby. You pay $50 for a game new from the stores, you pay $10 or less for VC games. You do not have a right to do whatever you want, so stop whining. There are people who have to feed themselves behind these games, not robots.

Sorry, invalid argument. No reason that one level/stage demos - at least - are impossible so that the two or three programmers that Nintendo spared to 'port' the game don't starve...

Strell · « **Reply #29 on:** January 21, 2007, 12:56:39 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: MaryJane
Quote
Originally posted by: Strell
I'd like links on the call for original VC content.

'Cuz I seem to remember it as a "well we could do it if we want" sort of thing.

more like a why wouldn't we sort of thing.

Cuz it takes time/money/resources/etc on something that may or may not give a sizeable return.

Though I'd still like links to see what they said exactly.

Artimus · « **Reply #30 on:** January 21, 2007, 05:32:18 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: BiLdItUp1
Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
Neo, stop being a crybaby. You pay $50 for a game new from the stores, you pay $10 or less for VC games. You do not have a right to do whatever you want, so stop whining. There are people who have to feed themselves behind these games, not robots.

Sorry, invalid argument. No reason that one level/stage demos - at least - are impossible so that the two or three programmers that Nintendo spared to 'port' the game don't starve...

For original games that may not be fair. And for virtual console games its absurd. You don't get demos for all retail games and you still buy plenty of them (and lose a lot more then $5-10 on the resell). I don't understand people nowadays expecting to have games prove themselves before being bought. Ridiculous.

NeoThunder · « **Reply #31 on:** January 21, 2007, 05:52:18 PM »

but for retail games you can get a lot more video, pics, previews and information on games. As well as you can probley rent it somewhere first to try it out if your not sure. Thats why I said it's fine if you played the game back in the day and remember what it was like. Not so great if you never played it. I can can assure you with all the VC games on there currently that i've never played before. Chances are high that I wouldn't be pleased with many of them. So when I think about it, I feel if i bought more games on VC I would be more disappointed than retail games. The fact that I can't demo these games first, and can't sell them after I buy them is my arguement verses a retail game.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #32 on:** January 21, 2007, 07:29:24 PM »

Because it hasn't been announced otherwise. I suppose it is possible it's a DVD title, but that seems absurd considering what it is.

Super Fruit Fall...

For original games that may not be fair. And for virtual console games its absurd. You don't get demos for all retail games and you still buy plenty of them (and lose a lot more then $5-10 on the resell). I don't understand people nowadays expecting to have games prove themselves before being bought. Ridiculous.

Yes but they're competing with big name franchises that everyone knows. If you'd have to decide between an older game everyone says is awesome or a new game you don't know anything about, which one do you choose? There's a reason sequels and licensed games are ubiquitous, it's because most people know nothing about the games and do a first sort based on which names they recognize. The small indie dev will most likely not have a big name license for his game. Realistically I wouldn't have bought Melty Blood or Bunny Must Die had I not played demos of both to see that they're better than the noise (because many indie games are just crap). While I do recall an informal study showing that people are more likely to buy a game without a demo it was on an indie games site which would obviously attract people willing to buy indie games in first place. The VC attracts people looking for Mario games and the like, an indie game will have a hard time even grabbing their attention long enough to make them look at the game description.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #33 on:** January 22, 2007, 04:23:44 AM »

"I don't understand people nowadays expecting to have games prove themselves before being bought. Ridiculous."

Nowadays? People have been renting videogames for over 20 years! This isn't a new thing. In a way the VC is really just denying us something we had before. In the past you could always rent and if it was a PC game often you could get a demo. Now that is taken away from us so I think it is totally justifiable to complain about that or to avoid an unfamiliar game because of it. If you're going to take away my ability to try a game before I buy it then don't complain if I completely avoid it altogether.

Artimus · « **Reply #34 on:** January 22, 2007, 07:00:20 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"I don't understand people nowadays expecting to have games prove themselves before being bought. Ridiculous."

Nowadays? People have been renting videogames for over 20 years! This isn't a new thing. In a way the VC is really just denying us something we had before. In the past you could always rent and if it was a PC game often you could get a demo. Now that is taken away from us so I think it is totally justifiable to complain about that or to avoid an unfamiliar game because of it. If you're going to take away my ability to try a game before I buy it then don't complain if I completely avoid it altogether.

Renting you pay for. PC games did not have demos in the days of the NES.

And goodness, how can you complain about there not being enough videos and impressions online for you to make your decision? GameFaqs alone has several reviews for most VC titles. Not to mention sites like PGC and 1UP have retro reviews where they tell you the quality of all the new VC release. And, let's be frank, it's not like you can't try the game out if you want to. ROMs are very easy to find.

I have no issue with demos of new games, I think that's fair, but I think it's absurd to expect demos of emulated games. Remember that they are indeed emulated, they're not built directly from source coding. Plus, it's one thing for a team of developers to take two weeks and make a demo from their vast resources and another thing altogether to do the same 15 years later with two people and none of the original resources.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #35 on:** January 22, 2007, 08:32:12 AM »

"I have no issue with demos of new games, I think that's fair, but I think it's absurd to expect demos of emulated games."

Aren't we talking about new games? Of course I can just use the e-word for older games.

SixthAngel · « **Reply #36 on:** January 22, 2007, 08:41:51 AM »

Is everyone already bitching about having no demos for new vc games when I don't even think a new vc game has been announced?

New games will not be big adventures like on past consoles. When they are released they will most likely be small games with a neat idea. Don't expect these games to be rival the good vc ones.

JonLeung · « **Reply #37 on:** January 26, 2007, 06:35:05 AM »

(I originally posted this in another thread but I think it fits much better in this one.)
---

I also worry about "new content".

"Old content" was once new and so we had NES and Super NES games that were as epic as they could be at the time. Now we look back on them with nostalgia, and even if we haven't played some of the specific games at the time of their original release, they would still recall good times.

I really can't help but keep thinking that developers of "new content" for the VC will want them to be graphically boosted since they can. And with the Wii's power, it would be easy to use a mere fraction of that and make some games that could visually put the best Super NES games to shame (again, I'm only talking visually). The problem is that the download will be larger, so graphics might take up a lot of time to download, or the game will be made simple to compensate. I can't help but think that new VC games will often be fancy-looking puzzle games, and even if some use the Wii Remote, I won't care. I want a meatier experience, and a real NES game will beat any fancy PopCap game that I could play in an Internet browser.

Is the VC for "real" games or just diversions? If you ask me, I would much rather buy something like the original Final Fantasy and Dragon Warrior on the NES than a Wii Remote-enabled, fancy-pants-effects BeJeweled clone.

Artimus · « **Reply #38 on:** January 26, 2007, 07:01:05 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: JonLeung
(I originally posted this in another thread but I think it fits much better in this one.)
---

I also worry about "new content".

"Old content" was once new and so we had NES and Super NES games that were as epic as they could be at the time. Now we look back on them with nostalgia, and even if we haven't played some of the specific games at the time of their original release, they would still recall good times.

I really can't help but keep thinking that developers of "new content" for the VC will want them to be graphically boosted since they can. And with the Wii's power, it would be easy to use a mere fraction of that and make some games that could visually put the best Super NES games to shame (again, I'm only talking visually). The problem is that the download will be larger, so graphics might take up a lot of time to download, or the game will be made simple to compensate. I can't help but think that new VC games will often be fancy-looking puzzle games, and even if some use the Wii Remote, I won't care. I want a meatier experience, and a real NES game will beat any fancy PopCap game that I could play in an Internet browser.

Is the VC for "real" games or just diversions? If you ask me, I would much rather buy something like the original Final Fantasy and Dragon Warrior on the NES than a Wii Remote-enabled, fancy-pants-effects BeJeweled clone.

Well, there will obviously be BeJeweled and crap. That's natural. But then there can also be (if properly nurtured) treasures like Geometry Wars and other games that are distributed online. If Nintendo helps developers they can really create an indie scene where tiny developers can make money off of well executed indie games. Not to mention the possibility of episodic content such as Sam and Max (already mentioned as possible for the Wii).

The Omen · « **Reply #39 on:** January 26, 2007, 09:03:00 AM »

Point and click games need to make a comeback. This is the perfect platform for it.

Kairon · « **Reply #40 on:** January 26, 2007, 09:53:23 AM »

Is... is this on? testing testing 1, 2, 3...

... indies...

That is all.

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

JonLeung · « **Reply #41 on:** January 26, 2007, 10:04:02 AM »

I guess everyone's going to call me a snob but I don't usually make time for indie games. I guess I should support the movement, there are probably good games out there, by good people trying to make it in the industry, but I feel like I ought to spend my free time playing big-name published games.

It's like I'm putting notches on my belt or whatever the term is, and claiming that I finished The Legend Of Zelda: Twilight Princess has more "weight" than, say, finishing Gish or Mr. Robot or Starscape. (It's kind of like how in porn, I'm totally turned off by amateurs.) I guess it's the snobbish or elitist attitude that you have to be good to be under a big name; if you're still making indie games that there must be something wrong with your games. I'm sure I'm wrong, I won't deny it. And big-name publishers can put out crappy games too.

It's really ironic because I wanted to be a film director, and I know that it's unlikely to start off as a Hollywood director right off the bat. Indie films are the standard beginning for would-be Hollywood bigwigs. And yet I can't bring myself to spend time looking at indie games.

MaryJane · « **Reply #42 on:** January 26, 2007, 10:09:45 AM »

it's not only going to be indie devs, tho. Konami is far from indie, you can also bet Nintendo themselves will also be making their own content.

Another thing that needs to be realized is that the Wii is made to be a social console, pick up and play, and really there's nothing easier to pick up and play than puzzles games. also a survey in the not too distant past revealed that women over 40 are the ones who most play those free puzzlers on Yahoo!, and the same people are also the ones who download/pay for them most often as well. Why wouldn't Nintendo want to tap into this market, much like how the DS has many puzzlers, and my mom keeps buying them up. She's one of those over 40 women who play the Yahoo! and MSN games, although I stricly forbid her to pay and download them, since she has a DS already. (she's only barely not computer illiterate and would need me to download the games for her, which is how i can forbid her).
Puzzlers fall directly in with Nintendo over-stated philosophy of tapping the casual gamer, those they are going to produce and develop a lot of casual games, JUST LIKE THE DS!! The Wii is the DS on T.V (except T.V's don't have dual screens).

Anyway, there is also going to be a fair amount of non-casual games, hopefully we see a lot of typical freeware developers making games for the Wii to make a buck, and provide us with entertainment, there are a lot of good free to start, pay to continue games on the web, and the Wii would be a good market for them. I would name a few but I haven't played since I got the Wii (actually I should say since my brother got the Wii since I still can't find my own to buy) but if they were on the Wii, I would find the time.

Edit: Since these games are likely going to have their own channel, and not work the same way as the VC games, I have to admit I was wrong, and I've changed the title to reflect this.

Kairon · « **Reply #43 on:** January 26, 2007, 10:38:44 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: JonLeung
It's really ironic because I wanted to be a film director, and I know that it's unlikely to start off as a Hollywood director right off the bat. Indie films are the standard beginning for would-be Hollywood bigwigs. And yet I can't bring myself to spend time looking at indie games.

You mean you never bought Cubivore? or Cooking Mama? /sad

I weep for you. Please use netflix. Easiest and cheapest way to rent movies, and utterly painless because all you have to do with movies is open your mail, weatch 'em, and mail 'em back. You don't have to lift a finger except to populate your queue with the recommendations of friends... I just watched Hard Candy (an awesome suspense thriller with an awesome premise) for instance!!! <3 <3 <3

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

Ian Sane · « **Reply #44 on:** January 26, 2007, 11:02:31 AM »

"I guess everyone's going to call me a snob but I don't usually make time for indie games. "

I don't spend much time with indie games either but that's mostly because it's hard to find the good stuff. Indie ANYTHING usually has two things going against it.

1. Lack of quality control. Big companies with the aim of making lots of money usually are a little more picky about what gets released to the public.

2. It's hard to find a good review. Due to the passionate supporters of indie scenes a lot of stuff gets overrated. Something competent often gets praised as being great. Supporters want indie stuff to succeed so they're more forgiving they go nuts over anything half decent. This happens with pretty much anything that has "something to prove". I find underrated games get this sort of ironic overhyping after they're "discovered". If something isn't very popular it's not uncommon for its fans to overhype it so as to feel superior for "getting it" when no one else does. As a result I rarely try out something I've never heard of unless someone I know personally recommends it.

I would classify indie games as games without a major publisher. So this would be mostly stuff you download on your PC. I would not consider an officially licenced console third party game as an indie game because of the costs involved in making one.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #45 on:** January 26, 2007, 08:32:46 PM »

if you're still making indie games that there must be something wrong with your games.

Exactly, you're not spending enough on marketing or aren't using a theme that appeals to the majority of buyers (movie tie-in, WW2, Vietnam, modern war, space marines with huge moon boots). OTOH, considering that indie only means not owned by a big publisher, perhaps you just failed to accept EA's buyout offer.

Lack of quality control. Big companies with the aim of making lots of money usually are a little more picky about what gets released to the public.

That depends greatly on the company. Superman 64, Catwoman and Charlie's Angels did get published...

NeoThunder · « **Reply #46 on:** January 26, 2007, 08:58:56 PM »

I guess I have to eat a little crow here when I said we wouldn't see it cause thats not what VC was ment for....however

I do wana ask, how is anyone going to buy a game that they can't demo first. I'm guessing that is how it will be. Unless the game is free to download, which I really doubt, what makes them think people are going to up and buy a game they know nothing about.

MaryJane · « **Reply #47 on:** January 27, 2007, 04:00:37 AM »

How often do people demo games they pay $50 or more for?

There were a lot of people disappointed in Red Steel, but they still bought it, because they were only disappointed in it after they bought and played it. There are some kiosks to play but they don't feature every game.

Maybe I'm not understanding your point, because from this side of the fence it seems irrelevant... I honestly don't mean that to be insulting.

NeoThunder · « **Reply #48 on:** January 28, 2007, 08:32:32 AM »

ok, I understand what you mean. However, those games have a little bit of weight behind them....thats why people say they were disapointed. Because those games have a reputation that they are going to be good or something worth buying. If I see a game on VC that i've never heard of, I need to demo it somehow if its watch gameplay video, read a preview or review for the game, or the most pratical and helpful, a gameplay demo.

See, big name titles most of us probley don't demo, however, we always buy them with an idea of what it's going to be like

example, well, they made this game, or it's like this game, or it's the sequal to this game, so i'm pretty sure it's going to be good.

we demo 50 dollar games in different ways such as commercials, E3 news, actual gameplay video, actual gameplay pics, early impressions.

Thats all i'm saying is we expect a certain level from some of the games cause we more than likely have heard about them somehow

Edfishy · « **Reply #49 on:** January 29, 2007, 03:26:32 AM »

Wulfram 2 is a perfect example of an indie game that shouldn't be touched by large publishers. The game was developed by only four developers back in 1998, and still to this day the gameplay and team strategy on the game is unrivaled. If a publisher was in the mix as it was being developed, it could have very likely ended up as just another marketing flop and have vanished. But now through the workings of only one developer in his spare time, the game has developed to have a tight community base and a respect that few other games have received.

What the large publishers offer is a big enough check to insure that the game will meet the latest graphical expectations and have the most recent Unreal 3 engine available, so the developers can spit out just another carbon copy <insert popular game genre>.

But in all honesty, all Original Content games will do is keep real video games alive. AAA games are slowly moving towards literal interactive movies, and by the next decade, they won't even be in the same boat as games like Mario, Ocarina of Time, and F-Zero. They'll be less about the controls or your skills and more about the emersion and experience. So allowing a developer to make a simple puzzler for less than a million dollars, and without the Disney characters being prominent throughout, we could have some decent "Retro" games that could continue to be created.

I'm all for that.

News:

Author Topic: Original VC content (Read 11977 times)