Gaming Forums => Nintendo Gaming => Topic started by: Ian Sane on July 29, 2008, 06:02:42 PM
Title: Theory about third party support
Post by: Ian Sane on July 29, 2008, 06:02:42 PM
This theory was inspired by the most recent mailbag as the last part talked about the Wii's third party support. I think the third party support absolutely sucks and that's a pretty common opinion. It all seems so strange because the Wii is the clear market leader. That's supposed to be how it works isn't it? Atari, NES, SNES, PS1, PS2 - the market leader gets the most games. The Wii is the exception and it seems very strange that third parties would not want to support it when it has the largest userbase to potentially sell to.
I suspect the reason is because Nintendo's attitude regarding the Wii clashes with that of the best developers. Videogames becoming more complex over time was a natural end result. It makes sense because creative people make videogames and creative people always want to move forward. Now obviously there are dev teams that make nothing but junk but the best developers, the ones that influence the entire industry, want to push the envelope. You can see the pride of the devs shine though in the greatest games. Not all of this is in a good way but it's very much a "bigger is better" attitude. Better graphics, bigger levels, more levels, more characters, more items, more moves, more options. With the best devs you can often see the "wouldn't it be cool if we did this" effect. There's this desire to top their previous game and top competing games.
The Wii is totally the opposite of this. It's about intentional restraint. It's about intentionally simplifying a game for a mainstream audience. The console itself has glorified last gen specs. How does one push the envelope with the Wii unless their idea very specifically requires the remote? The "bigger is better" mantra doesn't apply. So I think it's no surprise that we don't get the "real" third party projects and instead get thrown together spin-offs and last gen games - the sort of stuff the publishers will assign the rookie devs. Meanwhile the big talent isn't interested.
You can argue that this attitude of more, more, MORE and going bigger each time isn't good for business. But it is what a creative dev wants to do. And that makes sense. Remember that videogame developers are not non-gamers. How could they be? They're like the hardest of the hardcore for they make their OWN games. So why would they be all ga ga over Nintendo's blue ocean stuff? Businessmen and stockholders sure but why would someone who wants to make the greatest game ever care? The Wii is a very blatantly corporate console so we're getting corporate games.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Deguello on July 29, 2008, 06:50:58 PM
Quote
So why would they be all ga ga over Nintendo's blue ocean stuff? Businessmen and stockholders sure but why would someone who wants to make the greatest game ever care? The Wii is a very blatantly corporate console so we're getting corporate games.
Because Michelangelo still had to eat? Because Leonardo daVinci's work survived the Renaissance due to his patron?
WARNING! WARNING! THE FOLLOWING YOU ARE ABOUT TO READ MAY CAUSE SUDDEN HEAD EXPLOSIONS AMONG THOSE WITH A "CORPORATE SELL-OUT" ATTITUDE. THOSE WITH PRETENTIOUS MINDS PLEASE AVERT YOUR EYES.
Shakespeare's work was originally derided as awful plays geared towards "morons." The Beatles never got popular with anybody until teenage girls swooned over them. The only surviving Renaissance artists were those financially backed by patrons. Outside of Star Wars, the movies most-revered are those with much lower budgets and very little in the way of special effects, intended for non-movie-goers. Most of these movies received support from corporate Hollywood studios. Your favorite game was a result of a company investing corporate funds to a team and then selling that game for a profit. Your favorite movie is the same way. Your favorite television show still pauses for commercial. Your favorite band is signed to a record label.
THE PRECEDING WAS ONLY A TEST. IF THIS HAD BEEN A REAL PRETENTIOUS MIND ALERT, ARTISTIC VISION CONTROL OFFICERS WOULD BE DISPATCHED TO ELIMINATE THESE CORPORATE ATROCITIES. AND MAYBE BREAK A FEW BACH AND MOZART CDS, TOO. RICH WANKERS.
The real artists work with whatever limitations are there and try to reach the largest audience they can. Such as the Renaissance Masters, who were limited with paint on canvas. The most revered SNES games came after the system's graphical peak with Starfox, such as Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy VI, Yoshi's Island, and DKC2.
And this laugh-out-loud idea of "corporate console." Seriously, there have been so many corporate games on other consoles it was actually starting to make me sick. Like MGS4's surprise cacophony of ridiculous product placement. So much for "artistic vision." Sell-outs. Oh and let's not forget the biggest case of product placement ever. Gran Turismo.
Please do not go with this argument, Ian. YOU WILL LOSE IT. I guarantee it.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on July 29, 2008, 07:14:06 PM
Quote
This theory was inspired by the most recent mailbag as the last part talked about the Wii's third party support. I think the third party support absolutely sucks and that's a pretty common opinion. It all seems so strange because the Wii is the clear market leader. That's supposed to be how it works isn't it? Atari, NES, SNES, PS1, PS2 - the market leader gets the most games. The Wii is the exception and it seems very strange that third parties would not want to support it when it has the largest userbase to potentially sell to.
Actually I think Wii's third party support is awesome, Wii is getting some of the most unique games this generation, Hudson became a publisher again and are primary supporting the Wii and DS, Aksys which imports all games from Arc Systems are publishing a lot of Wii, SNK and Atlus seem to be a strong Wii publisher for your niche and old school needs. Sure they may not be super impressive technically but the games are awesome. And Wii is getting more support from traditional publishers that barely published anything on the Gamecube. Just wait fall 2008 - 2009 should be an amazing time for 3rd parties on Wii.
Quote
I suspect the reason is because Nintendo's attitude regarding the Wii clashes with that of the best developers. Videogames becoming more complex over time was a natural end result. It makes sense because creative people make videogames and creative people always want to move forward. Now obviously there are dev teams that make nothing but junk but the best developers, the ones that influence the entire industry, want to push the envelope. You can see the pride of the devs shine though in the greatest games. Not all of this is in a good way but it's very much a "bigger is better" attitude. Better graphics, bigger levels, more levels, more characters, more items, more moves, more options. With the best devs you can often see the "wouldn't it be cool if we did this" effect. There's this desire to top their previous game and top competing games.
I'd like to start this reply by stating that more MHz =/= better games, a game can have the shittiest graphics ever but the best game play experience in the world. Western developers probably more accustomed to a cyclical evolution of just more processor power. Wii is pushing the envelope in interface and bringing in the most complex controller in the home console biz, like you saw at E3 the wii remote can essentially evolve and become better and better just by a simple cheap attachment instead of Nintendo forcing us to buy a whole new set of controllers. But just give the game to a really good team in the company and just look what can happen. A lot of games on 360 and PS3 suck and most of the time for the same reason why an average Wii game sucks.
Quote
The Wii is totally the opposite of this. It's about intentional restraint. It's about intentionally simplifying a game for a mainstream audience. The console itself has glorified last gen specs. How does one push the envelope with the Wii unless their idea very specifically requires the remote? The "bigger is better" mantra doesn't apply. So I think it's no surprise that we don't get the "real" third party projects and instead get thrown together spin-offs and last gen games - the sort of stuff the publishers will assign the rookie devs. Meanwhile the big talent isn't interested.
I think Nintendo is trying to restrain themselves on the games front because I really think they want to give 3rd parties a shot, good games take good time in order to make they don't just pop up overtime. While there are a lot of "spin offs" and mini-game compilations the same can be said about the glut of FPS and generic games on 360 and PS3 every system has their fair share of bad games.
Quote
You can argue that this attitude of more, more, MORE and going bigger each time isn't good for business. But it is what a creative dev wants to do. And that makes sense. Remember that videogame developers are not non-gamers. How could they be? They're like the hardest of the hardcore for they make their OWN games. So why would they be all ga ga over Nintendo's blue ocean stuff? Businessmen and stockholders sure but why would someone who wants to make the greatest game ever care? The Wii is a very blatantly corporate console so we're getting corporate games.
Great hyped games = high sales, also brand recognition helps a lot hence why Wii ___, mario, zelda, halo, GTA, Resident Evil, Metal Gear Solid, Super Smash Bros, Gears of War sell while games like boom blox, culdcept, "insert obscure game here" don't sell because there don't sell because no brand recognition, no hype, no word of mouth, no advertisement = no sale. And why go ga ga over Nintendo's "Blue Ocean" stuff because the Blue Ocean stuff brings in a whole new audience that's not tapped and can be quite interested in the game specifically targeted for that audience.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Adrock on July 29, 2008, 07:23:49 PM
Apparently, Nintendo didn't tell developers about Motion Plus until just before E3. That complete lack of communication between Nintendo and 3rd parties is probably a big reason why support sucks such a wide variety of ass.
3rd party support isn't great, but it's been worse..... much worse. If it's ever going to change, both sides need to make some changes.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 29, 2008, 07:39:31 PM
lolz, when "they" cry a river, expect the Great Flood.
they're smothered in the Blue Ocean all the same
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Deguello on July 29, 2008, 07:42:31 PM
Quote
Apparently, Nintendo didn't tell developers about Motion Plus until just before E3. That complete lack of communication between Nintendo and 3rd parties is probably a big reason why support sucks such a wide variety of ass.
Oh that is a problem. I suppose 3rd parties may need another 2 years or so to get over the shock. More garbage shovelware incoming. Oh well.. at least third parties are making boatloads of money el-
Oh... maybe not. Maybe I guess they should acknowledge the Wii as the market leader and cowboy the hell up. Maybe they could have some of that Wii blue, instead of fighting over the rest combined, which is a negative figure.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Ian Sane on July 29, 2008, 07:43:52 PM
I'm not acting like the best videogames are devoid of corporate involvement. Videogames are a business. I know that. Everyone knows that. And I don't care provided the results are still good.
But not every dev team is a bunch of corporate shills. It is an artform. Yeah someone is footing the bill with intention of making some dough but there has always been a difference between making something exceptional, good, "good enough", or not caring whatsoever provided you can con people into buying it. Not all devs are equal, some make better games than others. Some prefer to make better games than others. There has definitely been a "bigger is better" attitude. It's very rare that a development team of any notable recognition does not appear to try to push things forward. Everything gets bigger.
Maybe that's just because it's an old business strategy. Maybe it's just because "bigger" is an easy way to stay fresh enough to not bore customers. It's easier to just throw more stuff in. That is likely the biggest obstacle on the Wii. If you can't just make it bigger then what do you do? Well if you don't know why bother? Release junk, watch it sell with the rubes and call it a day. Meanwhile use the "bigger is better" method on the Xbox 360 where it's still possible.
My argument is that the Wii is a big annoying limitation: last gen hardware and wacky controller. So no wonder the enthusiasm from third parties isn't there. No wonder we just get crap. At least with the other consoles that "cap" isn't there. A developer can at least just go nuts and make it bigger and that still results in better games than waggle controls. It's really no different than Square jumping to the PS2 so that Final Fantasy VII could have FMV and redbook audio. They couldn't do what they wanted on the N64. If you can't do what you want on the Wii you're not going to make it on the Wii because you can still make a profit releasing the game on the PS3 and Xbox 360.
Nintendo's whole plan very specifically is to restrict videogame design. Sony may be using the PS3 to push Blu-Ray and MS is, well, MS but no one is actively promoting intentional restraint. Even from a business perspective if your whole thing is making BIG games and Nintendo is moving in a direction where your product has no market why would you support their console? Might as well back the competitor in hope of survival.
It is a business but can you not tell which games the developers clearly had pride in making and which ones they were just collecting a paycheque? I think it's often clear as day. Not every game is rushed to release. There is always money riding on it but you can tell that certain devs want to really go nuts and do what they can within the scope their backer allows.
Do you prefer the theory that Nintendo has just created a console where crap sells and thus no one bothers to make anything but crap? But if that's all there is why is ANYONE making games for the other consoles at all? Might as well just dump everything on the Wii and not even bother to make decent games. Yet somehow these games exist and are being made for a console other than the Wii. That suggests to me a desire somewhere in the pipeline to make a decent game. If everyone only cared about money then every game would only be "good enough" to get the sale. It would all be like EA.
And off topic but I would seriously question Star Fox as the SNES graphical peak. I would consider all the games you mentioned as crushing Star Fox's graphics like an ant. They certainly all looked cutting edge at the time and wowed the pants off everyone.
Making money off something creative doesn't make you a sell out. That's just the reality of not starving to death. It's not caring at all about the product you make that makes you a sell out. If it's a just a job for you then you're a sell out. With most Wii third party games it appears the dev makes videogames entirely because it's a job for them. Those who actually put some pride in their work are on the other consoles, which coincidentally don't have a big annoying hardware restriction or a company actively promoting toning back games to provide mainstream appeal.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Plugabugz on July 29, 2008, 07:47:47 PM
It's true but at the same time it's not.
Truly creative people make do with what they have to make something good. On the other hand, if i gave you the fastest car on earth (Bugatti Veyron please), eventually you'd just want a faster one.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Deguello on July 29, 2008, 07:52:39 PM
Gah WORDSWORDSWORDS.
Quote
A developer can at least just go nuts and make it bigger and that still results in better games than waggle controls. It's really no different than Square jumping to the PS2 so that Final Fantasy VII could have FMV and redbook audio. They couldn't do what they wanted on the N64.
Yeah and the skyrocketing userbase of the PS1 had absolutely zero to do with it. And I assuredly hope you meant PS1.
Quote
Do you prefer the theory that Nintendo has just created a console where crap sells and thus no one bothers to make anything but crap?
Crap sold on the PS2. Crap sold on the PS1. The PS1 even launched with crap.
Quote
Nintendo's whole plan very specifically is to restrict videogame design.
Ugh oh god shut up.
Man most of that post was terrible. You keep thinking like these developers are ENTITLED to have what they want. It's business. IF they don't want to join the Wii, they can sit over there with the people in the red on that chart. Or they can step into profit by real attempts at software, the kind Nintendo actually makes.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Bill Aurion on July 29, 2008, 07:55:09 PM
"My argument is that the Wii is a big annoying limitation: last gen hardware and wacky controller."
I don't recall anyone complaining about quality of games last generation, so why the hell can people not make good games on more powerful hardware NOW?
"At least with the other consoles that "cap" isn't there. A developer can at least just go nuts and make it bigger and that still results in better games than waggle controls."
You keep on crying wolf with this whole "art" argument when if you actually cared about games as an art form you'd realize that it IS the cap on a system that forces developers to be creative and to actually focus on the game instead of just the visuals...And developers CAN'T just go nuts anyway, or at least not for very long, considering increasing development costs and decreasing revenues...
"Nintendo's whole plan very specifically is to restrict videogame design."
Yeah, games like Super Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Brothers Brawl, Metroid Prime 3, Super Paper Mario, etc, sure are restricted...Anyone can see that they are low-quality compared to their last generation efforts...Are you done making up arguments yet?
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Ian Sane on July 29, 2008, 08:05:11 PM
Quote
You keep thinking like these developers are ENTITLED to have what they want. It's business. IF they don't want to join the Wii, they can sit over there with the people in the red on that chart. Or they can step into profit by real attempts at software, the kind Nintendo actually makes.
Then why the hell haven't they joined the Wii after all this time? That's what I'm trying to figure out. They aren't jumping to the Wii. They're making the real efforts on the other consoles while the shovelware goes on the Wii. And I think the Wii has been on the market long enough that they old blind optimistic "well they just didn't expect the Wii to catch on" excuse no longer flies.
Quote
if you actually cared about games as an art form you'd realize that it IS the cap on a system that forces developers to be creative and to actually focus on the game instead of just the visuals
No one is forced to be creative when they have an alternative. It's only a cap on Wii development not ALL videogames. No one has to put up with the Wii's restrictions if the other consoles aren't as restrictive.
Quote
I don't recall anyone complaining about quality of games last generation, so why the hell can people not make good games on more powerful hardware NOW?
Well sh!t how come no one is making Atari 2600 games? No one complained about the quality of those back in 1981. That's just the nature of the "bigger is better" attitude.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: IceCold on July 29, 2008, 08:08:16 PM
1) The industry doesn't treat videogames as art. Publishers have more say than developers when it comes to third party support. So all this **** about "pushing the envelope" is ridiculous. Games go where they make more money. Which is clearly the Wii. The only reason I can think of why this isn't happening is the conspiracy.
2) What do you mean, the "only" way to be creative is if the game requires the remote? Aside from better graphics, how exactly can developers be creative with the 360 and PS3? Please don't bring up AI, physics and number of enemies onscreen, as you usually do.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Deguello on July 29, 2008, 08:15:58 PM
Quote
No one is forced to be creative when they have an alternative. It's only a cap on Wii development not ALL videogames. No one has to put up with the Wii's restrictions if the other consoles aren't as restrictive.
Nobody has to put up with CONSOLE restrictions when they have the much more powerful PC platform to work with.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Adrock on July 29, 2008, 08:33:46 PM
Oh that is a problem. I suppose 3rd parties may need another 2 years or so to get over the shock.
Or....... instead of giving 3rd parties a headstart, Nintendo made it that much harder for them to implement the peripheral's capabilities into their games. So 3rd parties, most of whom have barely embraced the Wii remote, are now even further behind the curve. That sucks for everyone, including Nintendo.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: DAaaMan64 on July 29, 2008, 08:46:17 PM
Damn, I take a nap for an hour and BAM
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Bill Aurion on July 29, 2008, 09:12:13 PM
Well sh!t how come no one is making Atari 2600 games? No one complained about the quality of those back in 1981. That's just the nature of the "bigger is better" attitude.
If "bigger is better," then why didn't everyone move over to XBox and GC when they came out? The difference between them and PS2 is pretty noticeable, but no one seemed to care...Oh yeah, the whole money/market share issue...It's a shame that it doesn't seem to make a difference anymore...
Then why the hell haven't they joined the Wii after all this time? That's what I'm trying to figure out. They aren't jumping to the Wii. They're making the real efforts on the other consoles while the shovelware goes on the Wii. And I think the Wii has been on the market long enough that they old blind optimistic "well they just didn't expect the Wii to catch on" excuse no longer flies.
Bias or stupidity...Or perhaps both...The graph that Deg posted above pretty much proves that, yes?
Or....... instead of giving 3rd parties a headstart, Nintendo made it that much harder for them to implement the peripheral's capabilities into their games. So 3rd parties, most of whom have barely embraced the Wii remote, are now even further behind the curve. That sucks for everyone, including Nintendo.
That would also most likely be giving MS and Sony a head-start, as leaks are most certainly likely...It's the reality of business...
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Deguello on July 29, 2008, 09:14:22 PM
Quote
Or....... instead of giving 3rd parties a headstart, Nintendo made it that much harder for them to implement the peripheral's capabilities into their games. So 3rd parties, most of whom have barely embraced the Wii remote, are now even further behind the curve. That sucks for everyone, including Nintendo.
*points to graph*... Nah I'm not seeing how it sucks for Nintendo. It sucks for third parties who wrote Nintendo off, invested in HD since 2005, wrote off the Wii, were surprised by Wii, were continually surprisied by Wii, were morbidly and stupidly still surprised by Wii, and Then Nintendo announces a new expansion peripheral that they don't have to use and they whine, have a cry about it, and continue to be surprised.
It's like a customer in a restaurant who doesn't order anything and complains when the guy next to him gets served. It is no longer Nintendo's fault that 3rd parties fail on Nintendo's systems. This holds true for the DS as well. They can either get with the program, get on the gravy train with humility, or they can bitch, whine, and moan until they die. It is their choice.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 29, 2008, 09:21:15 PM
Wii/DS changed the way games are played, and they've changed the way the gaming business is run (or rather, a modern presentation of the classical business values).
Devs and Publishers, just like gamers, can either adjust, or shrink their way into niche status. The inability to adjust depends on the individual parties, either by lack of motivation or understanding.
The game makers who aren't catching up to the Wii could be going through a number of things. - they're too deeply rooted in "themselves", making games for their traditional selves, strictly sticking to what's familiar as far as business goes -- if they're not drivings sales, you have to wonder if they know who the customers really are, and how many of them there are. - maybe they're not that talented anyway, and aren't brave enough to try even adapting a TRADITIONAL kind of play on the Wii -- the quality of games hasn't increased if the forecast is driven by yesterdecade's gameplay wrapped in tomorrow's HD skins. - Considering the atmosphere (that i made-up) of commercial shooters headlining consoles rather than PCs is probably just an indication of the general migration of would-be-PC-devs converting their business to console gaming. They're obviously twitch-twitch-bang-bang game makers, and are pretty much stuck where they are, simply catering a genre and hugging onto increased hardware power -- they're not necessarily the devs you'd expect to motivate themselves with new experiences on new platforms. - The publishers might be just as clueless as a the devs, but instead of clinging to gaming values, they're stuck with their HD investments (pre-Wii) and traditional formulas for success. They might not even be as adventurous as the "Birdmen". - blah blah blah
Bill sez: "Bias or stupidity...Or perhaps both"
I'll be glad to see them die off.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Mario on July 29, 2008, 10:18:02 PM
In my opinion you shouldn't even be allowed to open your mouth about any third party "issue" if you haven't even tried the best third party Wii offerings. Kororinpa, Eledees, Boom Blox, No More Heroes. They aren't B titles. Lock the thread until Ian can give a review of each title.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Djunknown on July 29, 2008, 10:26:22 PM
Ian, read these articles. (http://malstrom.50webs.com/theblueoceanarticles.htm)
If you have time, check these out too. (http://malstrom.50webs.com/disruptionchronicles.htm) What's your take?
[/slightly off topic]
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on July 29, 2008, 10:42:21 PM
No offense DJU but malstrom is full of **** with how he tries to explain things.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Deguello on July 29, 2008, 10:46:21 PM
How he tries to explain things? That's a pretty nuanced thing the get huffy about. Most people just claim he's wrong.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 29, 2008, 10:48:10 PM
Regardless of how they're explained, they're explained. Sorry it's too casual for the hardcore elitist website readers out there.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NWR_pap64 on July 29, 2008, 10:48:51 PM
I was thinking of putting my two cents on the matter...but I decided to back away. Why? This is an issue that will never be solved among the fans and it will go on and on...even if a clear solution presents itself.
Long story short; third party support is better than what we got during the N64 and GC years, but developers need to treat the system with a tad more respect.
Agree or disagree, that's pretty much the deal.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Peachylala on July 30, 2008, 12:06:49 AM
Nintendo consoles and Third Parties, whether the support was solid or shitty, have never been best friends with each other, ever. Third parties bitch and complain that hardcore games don't sell on the Wii. The Big N's core audience bitch and whine that third parties don't support the Wii. Hell, it's been like this since the N64 days. We N fans can hardly forgive or forget.
I'm off to play hard mode on Sin & Punishment now.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 30, 2008, 12:12:53 AM
I dislike how excellent "hardcore" games on the Wii are conveniently placed outside of the known universe for these discussions.
Ian, do you even own No More Heroes?
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: IceCold on July 30, 2008, 12:21:49 AM
He didn't own RE4 on the Cube, after years and years of whining about needing mature third party exclusives.
I think that about sums up Ian.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 30, 2008, 12:33:36 AM
Wow...
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Khushrenada on July 30, 2008, 12:44:29 AM
I like this thread. After a rousing game of mafia, I'm in the mood for more arguements. And for the sake of fun, I'm going to take Ian's side. Who wants me to start attacking their arguement first?
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on July 30, 2008, 12:48:29 AM
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Khushrenada on July 30, 2008, 01:03:03 AM
What kind of mat is that? If you're jumping to conclusions, shouldn't one of the options be "Ask Questions Later" or "Insult Somebody". That mat sucks. And that is a conclusion I jumped to along with "What the....?" and some other rather insulting stuff about the poster.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on July 30, 2008, 01:07:43 AM
What kind of mat is that? If you're jumping to conclusions, shouldn't one of the options be "Ask Questions Later" or "Insult Somebody". That mat sucks. And that is a conclusion I jumped to along with "What the....?" and some other rather insulting stuff about the poster.
That's the jump to conclusions mat from the movie Office Space.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Khushrenada on July 30, 2008, 01:10:25 AM
Were you even arguing with me?
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on July 30, 2008, 01:23:26 AM
trying to point out the topic is pointless and frivolous, I already made my rebuttals on Ian's ideas on the 3rd post of this thread.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Khushrenada on July 30, 2008, 01:29:32 AM
Yeah and now I am playing the role of the defense lawyer for Ian and am willing to rebutt any arguements directed against him. I'm playing the Pro-Ian role.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NWR_pap64 on July 30, 2008, 02:25:24 AM
He didn't own RE4 on the Cube, after years and years of whining about needing mature third party exclusives.
I think that about sums up Ian.
I think I can figure out his excuse...
RE 4 was part of the infamous Capcom 5, games that were going to be GC exclusives. Fans got excited because Capcom was providing the GC great games. But then Capcom announced that 3 of them would go multiplatform, RE 4 being one of them. Worst of all, the PS2 port was announced mere months before the GC release (if I am not mistaken).
Many fans took this as a sign that Capcom gave a sh*t about Nintendo, then they said f*ck it and decided to spite Capcom by NOT buying either version.
Years later, Capcom rectified this by releasing RE 4 Wii edition with content from the PS2 version along with rock solid Wii controls and a budget price.
The excuse this time? That its a cheap port created to make a quick buck.
This is why I said these type of arguments never end; people will come up with ideas, excuses and opinions that just make the thread go to hell, and makes everyone look retarded in the end.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Urkel on July 30, 2008, 03:54:07 AM
After all these years and all his rantings, I can't for the life of me even guess as to what sort of games appeal to Ian.
You can recommend No More Heroes and Boom Blox and Zack and Wiki till your blue in the face, he ain't gonna buy them.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NWR_insanolord on July 30, 2008, 04:31:49 AM
Third party support may still be coming. Some Nintendo person pointed out that good traditional game take a couple years to make. Let's say some third party realized the Wii was a success in the second half of last year and started development of a game then. It wouldn't be coming out until probably holiday season of next year, which would probably mean we haven't heard of it yet.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Chozo Ghost on July 30, 2008, 07:39:48 AM
Seriously Ian, get No More Heroes like everyone here is recommending you to. It's an excellent game, and it now comes at a lower price so you won't be disappointed with it. Plus by buying it you will help spur the development of more 3rd party games as well.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: KDR_11k on July 30, 2008, 07:41:32 AM
I think one problem with those A level third party games is that they failed to sell. Realistically they aren't the kinds of games that sell on any system, too niche in their appeal.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Chozo Ghost on July 30, 2008, 07:45:03 AM
Third party support may still be coming. Some Nintendo person pointed out that good traditional game take a couple years to make. Let's say some third party realized the Wii was a success in the second half of last year and started development of a game then. It wouldn't be coming out until probably holiday season of next year, which would probably mean we haven't heard of it yet.
I've said the same thing before. You can't release a new video game (or at least a quality one anyway) overnight. As you said, it takes months or even years to get polished to a high degree of quality. Maybe the reason we are seeing all the crap games coming out now for the Wii is because these are the fastest things the 3rd parties could throw together on such short notice. So I would guess the quality stuff is lagging behind, because it has a longer gestation cycle.
Probably between Summer and the holiday season of 2009 is when we will finally see a real big explosion of quality Wii games. Until then, we may have to just continue to rely on Nintendo and the handful of other companies who were wise enough to give support to the Wii right from the beginning.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Peachylala on July 30, 2008, 11:46:17 AM
Oh good lord, the Capcom 5... never did I see so much back lash towards a third party compeny. While Capcom did somewhat screw us N-fans over, Capcom was basically getting screwed over with bad sales for games not on Nintendo systems.
On the subject of Capcom itself, and third parties in general, I'll go out on a limb and say to everyone that no third party, no matter the support, is completely bull-**** free. This also goes for Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft. There is always a dark story to tell, and this generation has seen alot of **** hitting the fan. Itagaki and Team Ninja splitting from Tecmo due to unpaid bonuses, American third parties banning game magazines from reviewing their games because of mediocure scores, and whatever insane news story these third parties can pull out of their asses.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Sarail on July 30, 2008, 12:40:50 PM
Ian isn't hardcore until he plays, beats, and annihilates Fire Emblem 10 on Wii. ;)
That was a great 90 hours of my life spent. :)
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: DAaaMan64 on July 30, 2008, 12:58:19 PM
Yes FE10 is quite yuum
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Ian Sane on July 30, 2008, 01:03:12 PM
Quote
I've said the same thing before. You can't release a new video game (or at least a quality one anyway) overnight. As you said, it takes months or even years to get polished to a high degree of quality. Maybe the reason we are seeing all the crap games coming out now for the Wii is because these are the fastest things the 3rd parties could throw together on such short notice. So I would guess the quality stuff is lagging behind, because it has a longer gestation cycle.
People were making this argument last year. How long should we wait before we realize we're waiting in vain? Nintendo specifically tried to show off some third party games during their E3 conference and what they showed was some real lame ass stuff. If there were all these really awesome third party games in development still don't you think Nintendo would rather have shown THOSE off instead? Why wouldn't they want to put their best foot forward? Nintendo is not so dumb that they would talk about E3 pleasing core gamers and emphasize third party support in their conference only to bomb big time on both items if they didn't have to.
I don't understand how my argument that third parties can't make the games they want to on the Wii is any less believable than
- they're all stupid - it's a conspiracy against Nintendo
While incompetence is not uncommon with big companies it seems rather unlikely that 99% of console third parties are so dumb as to virtually ignore a market leading console for THIS long. And the conspiracy argument is, you know, suggesting a conspiracy which is almost always pretty kooky stuff by definition.
Every console seems to have those interviews with developers that are just raving about the console they're working on. They're probably full of it but they sound excited to be working on the hardware. Even a relatively unsuccessful console like the Cube had it's share of devs praising it. I don't see that enthusiasm for the Wii, despite it being the market leader. That's what I picked up on from the mailbag - a lack of enthusiasm for developing for it. There's no one who seems to be all "YAY!! I'm making Wii games!"
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: KDR_11k on July 30, 2008, 01:30:32 PM
Well, the games theay want are profitable games, they just don't know how to make those on the Wii (as they work mostly by copying), the other consoles use old formulas that you just have to clone to get some sales, on the Wii the formulas haven't been defined yet and they aren't willing to go exploring, even less with a big budget game (all they think they know how to make is shovelware...). Problem is to stay competitive with those clones on the other systems you need to make massive investments into the graphics without getting more revenue in return. I think what they're waiting for is someone to show them a successful game concept on the Wii so they can copy it.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on July 30, 2008, 01:41:11 PM
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 30, 2008, 07:55:14 PM
"I think what they're waiting for is someone to show them a successful game concept on the Wii so they can copy it."
That's an interesting idea. Somehow the third parties aren't bringing over the "good games" -- good games that are simply good games regardless of the platform. On top of that, they're not even cloning those "good games" in some form for the Wii (at least in the volumes seen on the other platforms).
On the opposite end, select game makers have been releasing games Ian might view as "half-efforts" that have achieved moderate or greater success despite not being triple-A mega-big-budget blockbusters, whether ports or original, including the likes of: No More Heroes, RE4 Wii, RE Umbrella Chronicles, Okami, Boom Blox, and recently Tales of Rehash: Dawn of the Casuals -- these titles get some attention for simply helping to flesh-out the software library, yet other game makers haven't budged to help fill in the gaps. Sure, Nintendo's perceivably traditional games have been leading the pack in sales, but third parties can't really make the excuse their mega-million blockbuster games can't compete since they have yet to even try -- if traditional "gamers like Ian" are only willing to purchase triple-A third-party games, then sales of the comparatively less successful "half-efforts" cannot reliably predict the performance of a would-be mega-budget-blockbuster and should not determine the release of such mega-budget-blockbusters. (arguably, it would be stupid to gage things that way, but that's the vibe I've gotten from third parties since launch)
Assuming the game makers aren't stupid, are they just SLOW? Maybe they're still taking time to understand the sales dynamics of the audience (see: Boom Blox sales warming up over time, rather than tearing up the charts on release)? Taking time to rethink their platform targeting strategy? One can argue that waiting this long is BAD for the publisher, as they watch the world's cash ride Crystal Caravans into Nintendo's vaults. It's a fact of life that percentages of the customers who gobble up the Mario Galaxies, Smash Brothers, and Karts will look at other games to supplement their game library; but one might not even get the impression third parties are getting their foot in the door to fulfill that purpose.
To be this slow, and without silly conspiracies, maybe they're stupid after all? or just painfully, profit-bleedingly slow
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NWR_Lindy on July 30, 2008, 09:01:23 PM
I think there's a prevailing sentiment that the Wii is the "market leader"....for a different market than that of the 360 and PS3. It's like the 360 and PS3 are viewed as almost a "PC-Lite" market by developers. Since developers like BioWare and Bethesda (for instance) started off on the PC, they naturally gravitate to the 360 and PS3 because they feel like they know that market.
Meanwhile, they don't know what the hell to make of the Wii and its market. They can't predict what that market will like and what will sell to it, so they'd simply rather not take the risk. PC/360/PS3 games may cost more to make, but I think to these developers there is actually LESS risk because they can easily predict how many copies they'll sell.
They can also create a game on PC and then port it across to two other platforms with minimal effort, whereas on the Wii they'd have to do everything - design, creation of art assets, coding - from the ground up, specifically for Wii. And then they can't re-use that code for anything else aside from another Wii game.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Adrock on July 30, 2008, 10:04:38 PM
*points to graph*... Nah I'm not seeing how it sucks for Nintendo. It sucks for third parties who wrote Nintendo off, invested in HD since 2005, wrote off the Wii, were surprised by Wii, were continually surprisied by Wii, were morbidly and stupidly still surprised by Wii, and Then Nintendo announces a new expansion peripheral that they don't have to use and they whine, have a cry about it, and continue to be surprised.
It sucks for Nintendo because they could be making even more money. They BOTH could be making more money hence why it sucks for everyone and why both sides need to make changes. For example, Nintendo needs to stop keeping 3rd parties out of the loop and acting like they don't need to know things (such as the launch of a potentially console changing peripheral) and 3rd parties need to stop acting like the Wii isn't dominating the market. The formula is working for Nintendo at the moment, but how long can Nintendo support their own console mostly by themselves and continue selling at the rate they are?
And the funny thing about that graph is that the 3rd parties in the blue are still profitable without better Wii support. So really, it's not necessarily about the Wii being market leader so much as it is just being a better, smarter publisher that puts out solid, quality games (just look at Ko-ass-Wii-support-nami). Sure, 3rd parties could be making more money by supporting the Wii, but again, it goes both ways. Everyone could be making loads more money off you and I and every other Nintendo fan who's dying for better 3rd party support. So yes, sucks for everyone. Nintendo. 3rd parties. And us, the Wii owners.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 30, 2008, 10:14:29 PM
And the overwhelming result is they strategically niche themselves. What a great way to ensure surviv- WAIT NO THAT'S NOT HOW TO GROW YOUR BUSINESS
Mergers and takeovers, ahoy. Find yer driftwood in the Blue Ocean, if you can. Nintendo's plowing through in its LOVE BOAT to regrow the market.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Deguello on July 30, 2008, 10:25:24 PM
Quote
And the funny thing about that graph is that the 3rd parties in the blue are still profitable without better Wii support.
And they could be making a lot more money, right? They should find a way to include Wii in their forecasts, or they can slowly die.
Quote
For example, Nintendo needs to stop keeping 3rd parties out of the loop and acting like they don't need to know things (such as the launch of a potentially console changing peripheral) and 3rd parties need to stop acting like the Wii isn't dominating the market.
There's actually a very compelling possibility that nobody asked Nintendo what they were doing. IT's sort of like... they wrote them off... or something. And remember when Nintendo debuted the Wii Remote a full year before the system came out? The third parties more or less ignored them. Once bitten and all that.
Quote
I think there's a prevailing sentiment that the Wii is the "market leader"....for a different market than that of the 360 and PS3. It's like the 360 and PS3 are viewed as almost a "PC-Lite" market by developers. Since developers like BioWare and Bethesda (for instance) started off on the PC, they naturally gravitate to the 360 and PS3 because they feel like they know that market.
Hmm... lemme see if I can tinker with this a bit.
Quote
I think there's a prevailing sentiment that the DS is the "market leader"....for a different market than that of the PSP. It's like the PSP viewed as almost a "PS2-Lite" market by developers. Since developers like Square-Enix and Konami (for instance) started off on the PS2, they naturally gravitate to the PSP because they feel like they know that market.
Imagine there's no demographics it's easy if you try
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NWR_Lindy on July 30, 2008, 10:51:52 PM
I think there's a prevailing sentiment that the DS is the "market leader"....for a different market than that of the PSP. It's like the PSP viewed as almost a "PS2-Lite" market by developers. Since developers like Square-Enix and Konami (for instance) started off on the PS2, they naturally gravitate to the PSP because they feel like they know that market.
Imagine there's no demographics it's easy if you try
The difference here is that people actually buy PS3/360 games. That makes them a viable alternative to Wii. The PSP isn't nearly as attractive as the DS because the software sales aren't there.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Deguello on July 30, 2008, 11:00:29 PM
360 maybe. The PS3 so far has sold less than the PSP.
Now you're right, they are somehow piling the 360 and the PS3 and the PC combined against Wii, and they've been running strategies as such. And the results are in that chart up there. Nintendo makes a lot, Everybody else less so. I would say more than everybody combined but I'VE made more than everybody combined. (It's a negative number.)
Even EA thinks that they screwed up by ignoring Wii. Some companies are just goign to have to adapt.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Adrock on July 30, 2008, 11:06:09 PM
And they could be making a lot more money, right? They should find a way to include Wii in their forecasts, or they can slowly die.
Yes, they should be supporting the Wii more, that makes sense, but wait, what? Slowly die... hahahahahahaha.... oh, you're not joking. I'm... wow, it's like you don't know how ridiculous what you just said was.
Quote
there's actually a very compelling possibility that nobody asked Nintendo what they were doing. IT's sort of like... they wrote them off... or something.
3rd parties should approach Nintendo about Nintendo's own secret projects? That's some rock solid logic you have there, sir. If Nintendo is working on something that they clearly want to be successful, it's their responsibility to let 3rd parties know so that 3rd parties can get to work on it. The more developers working on software, the better the chances.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Galford on July 30, 2008, 11:07:45 PM
It's funny how many times we've had this conversation.
You have one group bitching and whining about lack of third party support while the other is pretending that Nintendo is not screwing over the market that supported them for years.
That fact of the matter the Wii sells great for Nintendo but not so much for anyone else. Look at the on going threads at neogaf, third parties aren't selling so well in either America or Japan. Part of that is the market Nintendo is catering too the other half is a lot of third parties are pooping out crap.
I think the biggest thing that "hardcore" gamers have against Nintendo is the fact that Nintendo could do a couple of things to cater to the hardcore market, but it absolutely refuses too.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Mario on July 30, 2008, 11:09:13 PM
This thread should be locked after Ians ridiculous avoiding maneuvers of logic, he almost crashed into my house.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Spinnzilla on July 30, 2008, 11:09:29 PM
Even EA thinks that they screwed up by ignoring Wii. Some companies are just going to have to adapt.
yeah, EA even said they were developing a whooping 40 games at the moment for the wii(how many are good, who knows). Some companies like, activision, are really striving for the wii by adding worthwhile DLC when even nintendo has failed to give us any. Capcom, Sega and HVS are also giving good efforts too. I think that 3rd parties are slow, espically to new formats, remember how it took the DS to get the good library it has currently?
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 31, 2008, 12:16:52 AM
"You have one group bitching and whining about lack of third party support while the other is pretending that Nintendo is not screwing over the market that supported them for years."
Where did this MYTH come about? For years Nintendo was surviving on Pokemon, Mario Party, Mario Sports, GBA ports, DS casual grandma non-brain puppy cooking simulators, and a budget-priced non-serious non-fighting kid-dee multiplayer game called Super Smash Brothers Melee (which incidentally sabotaged other games' sales) -- not by the purchasing power of an audience that occasionally yearns for the "good ol' days" of Goldeneye (and somehow didn't buy Perfect Dark).
as wise man once said a few minutes ago
"wii needs more hardcore games like fire emblem and pikmin that don't sell because hardcore gamers want different games the instant they get what they last wanted where's mario first person shooter oh it's out i don't think i'll buy it where's kid icarus that'd be so good"
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Deguello on July 31, 2008, 12:22:40 AM
Quote
3rd parties should approach Nintendo about Nintendo's own secret projects? That's some rock solid logic you have there, sir.
No, it's actually called SHOWING INTEREST.
And aren't you kind of arguing against your own point here? If Nintendo's projects are top secret, why tell a bunch of third parties who'll blab to their moneyhat masters and ruin any surprise Nintendo needs to get one up on their competitors? That's some soft logic there.
No really. If Say... Square enix knocked on Nintendo's door and asked them their plans for their next console and wanted to be in on it from the ground floor and, say promised Final Fantasy... I'm sure Nintendo would find some way to accomoate them. But if they treat Nintendo the same way they treated them at the DS launch AND at the Wii launch, where Nintendo gave them half a year and a whole year lead time, and even gimped the launch of the DS, just for the benefit of the third parties so they wouldn't have low self-esteem having to compete against Nintendo's top-quality, high-selling, attention-grabbing titles, and the third parties wrote them off TWICE, why the hell should Nintendo ever deign to help one of these ungrateful companies again?
The only real third party support, and the BEST on the DS and Wii, is where companies take risks. The DS was the "minigame gimmick lolbat handheld" until Square Enix took a risk and remade FFIII on it. Now it's the RPG console this generation. The Conduit is getting hype JUST FOR TRYING. Seriously. Will it make the Wii a competent shooter console? Maybe, Maybe not. But the respect and admiration comes from the risk being and, considering the Wii's userbase is still growing by leaps and bounds, could pay off greatly for them.
Nintendo cannot handhold these crybaby third parties anymore. The DS is the #1 handheld in the world, and the Wii is the #1 console. Period. They can either adapt, or die. Grow, or shrink. The status quo will not be maintained. They have to make the first move, because Nintendo is just fine with them killing themselves to get 9.0's from IGN and adequate ratings from snobby hardcore gamers. It'll make them all the more desperate for the Wii's audience in the future.
And Galford, go back under the bridge. Nobody cares who "abandoned" what "market" made Nintendo who they were today. Just shut up and get out while you still have some dignity.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NWR_Lindy on July 31, 2008, 12:17:03 PM
Deg's right in the sense that it's up to these third-parties to save themselves. I mean, NINTENDO is doing fine. NINTENDO is servicing their userbase exactly how they want to, and making money hand over fist in the process. If third-parties want to ignore that, it's their business. I would say "bad business", but not being on Wii isn't necessarily a bad thing for every company. Some companies just aren't interested in making Wii games and don't like the console, period. And that's fine.
Now when comparing the DS to the Wii, the DS didn't have jack for games - first-party or otherwise - until what I call the Great Christmas Flood of 2005. That's when you had Mario Kart DS, Animal Crossing: Wild World, Sonic Rush, Castlevania, and a bunch of other big games released for it. That was a year after its release, and only later did we see other stuff like New Super Mario Bros. and Zelda: Phantom Hourglass. The Wii has been quite different...it seems that Nintendo has blown their wad in terms of big franchises in the console's first 18-24 months of existence. Zelda, Mario, Metroid, Mario Kart, Smash Bros., Anijmal Crossing - they're all out there. I'm not sure where the Wii goes from here, but you gotta think that, like the DS, since Nintendo has "seeded the field" with their first-party stuff, that more and more third-party developers are going to make their way over to Wii. It's just going to take that one company taking a risk (like Square-Enix) and the flood gates will (hopefully) open.
What irritates me is that it seems that companies like Vicarious Visions are doing more daring things with the Wii platform than Nintendo itself.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Ian Sane on July 31, 2008, 01:58:15 PM
Quote
There's actually a very compelling possibility that nobody asked Nintendo what they were doing. IT's sort of like... they wrote them off... or something. And remember when Nintendo debuted the Wii Remote a full year before the system came out? The third parties more or less ignored them. Once bitten and all that.
Considering Nintendo is the company that intentionally withheld information about microcode for the N64 to give themselves an advantage over third parties I would tend to assume that they would be at fault. This is the company that provided no assisstance whatsoever for the Gamecube network adapter because they had no plans in using it. Nintendo has a history of keeping third parties in the dark (and treating them kind of like competition even though they get a cut for every game sold) so when Wii Motion Plus is sprung out of nowhere with every third party wondering where the hell it came from my natural instinct is to assume Nintendo was being their usual selves. It's not hard to believe they're afraid some other game that uses it would steal Wii Sports Resort's thunder or something.
But then I never saw the DS launch as being intentionally accomodating for third parties. I figured it was more Nintendo rushing things to beat the PSP to the market.
I think the "Nintendo is not being affected by the weak third party support" argument is short sighted. Yeah it's working okay now but is it going to stay that way without some improvement? I find the Wii to be a very overachieving console right now. For longterm success it needs to have a more substancial lineup. It should get the best game. If the non-gamers are truly becoming interested in gaming, well, their tastes are going to improve dramatically. And if if they're not becoming interested then the whole thing is a fad and Nintendo is screwed when the fad ends if the console doesn't have a more substancial library. If the non-gamers lose interest right now Nintendo is completely f*cked. If they're smart they'll think more longterm.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 31, 2008, 02:53:42 PM
Nintendo didn't tell 3rd parties because one of them would leak it, I guarantee.
Remember how IGN got ahold of Wiiware details before Nintendo released them? That was probably some Wiiware dev trying to get in good with IGN by spilling some beans (someone who lacked the good common sense to respect NDAs).
Same thing would've happened with this: there are a shitton of licensed Wii devs. If Nintendo let that news out, someone could've leaked it and Nintendo NEVER would've known who.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Adrock on July 31, 2008, 06:24:31 PM
And aren't you kind of arguing against your own point here? If Nintendo's projects are top secret, why tell a bunch of third parties who'll blab to their moneyhat masters and ruin any surprise Nintendo needs to get one up on their competitors? That's some soft logic there.
They told 3rd parties about the Wii remote. Microsoft and Sony are still trying to figure their way around that one. Okay, let's be fair, Sony tried... then failed with Sixaxis.
Quote
Square Enix took a risk and remade FFIII on it
When did remaking a Final Fantasy game ever become considered a risk? It's called FINAL FANTASY. Square Enix is about at the point where they market empty boxes with "F1nuL Fun+4si" written in magic marker and people would buy it.
Anyway, I'm not debating that 3rd parties should be making more games on the Wii or that they should be taking more risks, which I guess involves making more games on the Wii. Rather, I'm advocating the idea that the sad state of 3rd party support on the Wii, which is the strongest its been since the SNES days but terrible in comparison to where it should be, is not entirely on the shoulders of 3rd parties.
Quote
Nintendo cannot handhold these crybaby third parties anymore.
When did this ever happen... like ever? Nintendo has always had a "take it or leave it" attitude when it came to 3rd parties. Intentionally gimping the DS launch? Now you're stretching.
Ultimately though, this argument is pointless. This thread shouldn't exist. There should be better 3rd party support on the Wii right now and 3rd parties should be ready to release kick-ass Motion Plus games next year when Nintendo launches the thing. Nintendo fans like to think that Nintendo never does anything wrong hence why so many are baffled when 3rd parties don't release games on the Wii... conveniently forgetting that Hiroshi Yamauchi f*cked over every Nintendo fan who enjoyed 3rd party games. Nintendo made great games on their own poorly constructed system while alienating anyone who didn't share their vision. 3rd parties looked elsewhere. The thing is: that was 12 years ago. At this point, they're both to blame. Nintendo has seemingly learned nothing from dropping from 1st to dead last and 3rd parties are being overly cautious.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Ian Sane on July 31, 2008, 06:48:15 PM
Quote
Nintendo fans like to think that Nintendo never does anything wrong hence why so many are baffled when 3rd parties don't release games on the Wii... conveniently forgetting that Hiroshi Yamauchi f*cked over every Nintendo fan who enjoyed 3rd party games. Nintendo made great games on their own poorly constructed system while alienating anyone who didn't share their vision. 3rd parties looked elsewhere. The thing is: that was 12 years ago. At this point, they're both to blame. Nintendo has seemingly learned nothing from dropping from 1st to dead last and 3rd parties are being overly cautious.
This is a good point. Back before the Wii was revealed it was assumed that regaining third party support was a very important step if Nintendo was to ever regain the top spot. The lack of third party support was contributing to low sales among other reasons. Nintendo could never regain the top spot without decent third party support. It was something they had to attract back.
Well this whole Wii thing was rather unprecedented. Nintendo didn't win back the third parties to regain the top spot. They didn't need to. But that creates the problem that they therefore never learned their lession regarding third party support. We assumed to regain the top spot they would have to swallow their pride, admit they were wrong and change their attitude regarding third parties. But they didn't do that. In fact I argue Nintendo learned absolutely nothing about why the Cube didn't do too well. They're the same jerkface Nintendo they've always been. No wonder third parties are cautious.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Mario on July 31, 2008, 09:52:36 PM
The joke is wearing a bit thin now.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Galford on July 31, 2008, 10:42:26 PM
Just for reference here is a link to the lastest media create thread on neogaf...
Pay close attention to what is selling and not selling. It should be painfully obvious why third parties are not flocking to the Wii. Take a look at the ToS sequel. I can guarentee you that Namco is paying attention to it's sales and will adjust their output accordingly in the future.
Deguello, how did I dishonor myself? Seriously I was just pointing out how thsre threads go. There are a lot of older Nintendo fans who feel Nintendo has abandoned them. I used to get mad about it but now I don't care. I've moved on to play other things. If Nintendo doesn't want third party games or my money, MS and Sony will happily take them.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Djunknown on July 31, 2008, 11:37:35 PM
Don't want to intentionally go off topic fan the flames but damn (http://www.gamernode.com/news/7224-wii-owners-need-more-okami/index.html) does that sting.
What says everyone else?
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Arbok on August 01, 2008, 12:41:34 AM
Don't want to intentionally go off topic fan the flames but damn (http://www.gamernode.com/news/7224-wii-owners-need-more-okami/index.html) does that sting.
What says everyone else?
That it didn't sell on the PS2, and that Capcom was a fool to assume that the same word of mouth that did that would somehow change for the Wii port and therefore think they didn't need to advertise it?
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Spinnzilla on August 01, 2008, 12:50:43 AM
Don't want to intentionally go off topic fan the flames but damn (http://www.gamernode.com/news/7224-wii-owners-need-more-okami/index.html) does that sting.
What says everyone else?
Well, Okami didn't really have any marketing muscle or hype behind it. I was honestly gunna buy it for my birthday back in apirl but had completely forgotten about it's existence. I think another 3rd party game, ya know the Conduit, will probably sale very well because they're going about it smart. Getting us excited while also taking their time and making sure their publisher will but money into its marketing.
Look at a game like Red Steel, it was pretty meh, but it got pretty good sales off the hype alone. (you could also figure in that it was a launch title too)
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on August 01, 2008, 01:45:53 AM
280k is awesome for a game considering that the PS2 version bombed and made Capcom cry.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: KDR_11k on August 01, 2008, 02:31:27 AM
Well, people whine about how they need more hardcore games and hardcore games fail to sell. Who should we blame for that? Nintendo for somehow... uh... what? With so many people demanding hardcore games on the Wii surely those games would sell because there's so much demand? Er, wait, where are the hardcore gamers when it comes to actually buying things? Are there really that few of them? Ooops.
(talking about tales) Can't blame the "casuals" at least, someone who's in that market often got there because they don't have the time to play huge, epic games in sessions of several hours. Since I see huge time requirements as a game flaw anyway I'd say they should've fixed their game to be more accessible. Of course with noone realizing that over the past few generations I don't expect them to learn now either.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Mario on August 01, 2008, 06:17:12 AM
KDR is spot on, hardcore games are there, but hardcore gamers aren't buying them. Hardcore lamers, that's why nobody takes anything you say seriously, because YOU don't.
I didn't and won't buy Okami because of it's pure laziness. No credits sequence and the boxart was enough. I don't want it stinking up my collection. PS2 version for me.
As for a sequel, the original team isn't even with Capcom anymore so it was never going to happen. They are making new things, and thank god for that, they are damn good at it.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Bill Aurion on August 01, 2008, 08:47:40 AM
Yep, I'd actually love to see the complete Wii game collection of everyone complaining about third party support, just for a few laughs...
(And everyone who doesn't have Okami yet SHOULD buy it, and not for the reason of buying a third party game but because it's an incredible game that is well-worth the 40-dollar-or-less price point...Who cares about credits?)
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Mario on August 01, 2008, 08:57:39 AM
I do. :D
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Nick DiMola on August 01, 2008, 09:37:36 AM
Here is a list of my Wii games:
Third Party
Blast Works: Build, Trade, Destroy
Dewy's Adventure
Elebits
Final Fantasy Fables: Chocobo's Dungeon
Ghost Squad
The House of the Dead 2 & 3 Return
LostWinds
Mercury Meltdown Revolution
Nitrobike
No More Heroes
Octomania
Okami
Red Steel
Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition
Sonic and the Secret Rings
Speed Racer
Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz
Toki Tori
Trauma Center: New Blood
Zack & Wiki: Quest for Barbaros' Treasure
First Party
Endless Ocean
Excite Truck
Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
Link's Crossbow Training
Mario Kart Wii
Metroid Prime 3: Corruption
Super Mario Galaxy
Super Paper Mario
Super Smash Bros. Brawl
WarioWare: Smooth Moves
Wii Play
Wii Sports
I don't get it, what's wrong with Wii 3rd party support? Do I want more purchaseable games? Sure. But is the support thus far abysmal? Far from it.
The Wii gets tons of shovelware for sure, but so has every single console leader every generation.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Infernal Monkey on August 01, 2008, 09:44:35 AM
Go play some video games, Ian.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Mario on August 01, 2008, 10:14:24 AM
Yep, and I could probably add 10 more to that third party list Mr. Jack.
IF THOSE GOOD THIRD PARTY GAMES WERE SELLING VERY WELL, A TREND WOULD START.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Nick DiMola on August 01, 2008, 10:15:56 AM
Yep, and I could probably add 10 more to that third party list Mr. Jack.
IF THOSE GOOD THIRD PARTY GAMES WERE SELLING VERY WELL, A TREND WOULD START.
Yeah exactly, I have a number of games I want still from 3rd parties, there are plenty of games to play that are great on the Wii. I have more games this (Nintendo) generation than any generation prior.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Mario on August 01, 2008, 10:19:23 AM
I still have twice as many Cube games, but that's like 1.5 years vs 5 years worth. Wii is clearly a step up, and while some are claiming "it's still not enough", those same people aren't participating in playing these titles.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Nick DiMola on August 01, 2008, 10:26:38 AM
I still have twice as many Cube games, but that's like 1.5 years vs 5 years worth. Wii is clearly a step up, and while some are claiming "it's still not enough", those same people aren't participating in playing these titles.
Well let me clarify, at this stage in the game (1.5 years in) I have more games than I had on the Cube in the same time period. Currently I have 32 Wii games (including WiiWare) and I have 85 Cube games, but at this rate I will easily end up with more Wii games.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Mario on August 01, 2008, 10:37:26 AM
Oh ok, i'm in a similar situation then. Except I only have about 55 Cube games, 85 is very impressive, i'm still expanding my Cube list but it will never reach that amount. :D I own a PS2 too though so it gets most of the third party releases just because they are cheaper and more common (recently bought PoP: Sands of Time, amazing game, but that's for another topic).
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Bill Aurion on August 01, 2008, 10:41:59 AM
I have 20 Wii games (8 third party) versus 29 GC games (10 third party), and 12 of the 17 games on my Wii wish list are third party...
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the third party support the Wii has at the moment, and it will only get better...
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: KDR_11k on August 01, 2008, 10:58:20 AM
Retail: Rayman Raving Rabbids (garbage) Zack & Wiki (pretty good) Sonic and the Secret Rings (good fun so far) Blastworks (bad campaign, good moddability and excellent content sharing system)
Wiiware: Lost Winds (decent but way too short) Toki Tori (most awesome!) FFtl;dr (pretty repetitive but good)
Er, yeah, I don't have many. I'm a bargain bin hunter and there are very, VERY few bargain bin games on the Wii that are worth even their reduced price.
Hey, let's talk about a different problem: The Wii's lack of good bargain bin titles. Other consoles (except the DS) have bargain serieses like Player's Choice, Platinum and whatever else, the Wii has nothing. Nintendo even stated they don't plan on doing price drops so more people pay full price. The only price drops I see is when a game fails to meet expectations and the stores lower prices by themselves. Sure, gives more high price sales but anyone who's unwilling to pay that much will see a distorted image of the system's library, going for bargains means you end up with mostly bad games as the good ones remain full price indefinitely. It also causes purchase deadlock for me, the condition of waiting for the price drop on something, seeing the next big thing, dropping interest on the old thing for the new thing, waiting for a price reduction, repeat. The result is that I don't buy anything because I'm always given a reason to not buy anything yet.
While the same thing happens on the DS third parties have introduced their own bargain bin collections (THQ will price anything at 20€ after a while, as does Ubisoft) which often include a number of good games. Also full price is a bit lower for DS games than Wii games.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Mario on August 01, 2008, 11:13:43 AM
I've been lucky enough to find a ton of "unofficial" bargain bin titles here in Aus, sounds pretty rough for you over there. I've found some titles like SSX Blur, Mercury Meltdown for 1/3 their retail price. Otherwise I would not have tried them, but to be fair the same is the case with some Nintendo published games I have.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Spinnzilla on August 01, 2008, 11:15:46 AM
Need to look at the bright side we are getting plenty of very awesome looking "core" games that are wii exclusives in the coming months. Deblob in sept, Deadly Creatures in Oct, Star Wars: Clone Wars in Nov, and in Q1 we got The Conduit and Madworld. All of those are 3rd party. Even the non-exclusives are enticing; Guitar Hero World Tour, Rock Band 2, Force Unleashed and World At World (just to name a few).
3rd Party support is looking pretty good IMO, I just think some of us are being a little cry babyish.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Ian Sane on August 01, 2008, 12:29:32 PM
Why is anyone pointing at Okami and saying "hey look you guys don't buy the games". Okami is PLAYSTATION 2 GAME! Why the HELL should anyone be expected to buy a game from last gen? That would be like releasing Pitfall on the NES and getting all huffy if it didn't sell. It doesn't matter if Okami is a good game. The truth is it's a port from a system that is almost 8 years old. No one bought a Wii to play Playstation 2 games. Why would anyone when the PS2 is much cheaper and has more games to choose from?
This is part of the whole problem. If you have to include last gen games in your list supporting "good" third party suppot then the third party support isn't very good at all. No other market leading console had to put up with that crap. Gradius III & IV was not a high profile third party release on the PS2 but on the Wii it would have been. That's unacceptable. Did any of you include Resident Evil 2 & 3 as notable Gamecube releases?
Though oddly enough no one includes the two third party games I have: MLB Power Pros and Guitar Hero 3 in their list. Though Power Pros is also a PS2 game so I wouldn't have included it.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Nick DiMola on August 01, 2008, 12:34:33 PM
Who cares if Okami was a PS2 game? The fact is, it is an amazingly good game that added some very welcome Wii controls and opened up an overlooked title to a bigger crowd.
Your example with RE 2 and 3 isn't the same because those two brought literally nothing new to the table. Comparing Okami Wii to REmake would be more accurate. If they would've ported Okami and done nothing new with it, fine, but that is not the case. The changes made to the game were for the better, bringing in 16:9 support and Wii controls for the paintbrush.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Bill Aurion on August 01, 2008, 01:01:30 PM
Why is anyone pointing at Okami and saying "hey look you guys don't buy the games".
Why are you pointing out Okami and saying "Hey look this doesn't count" when there's still a solid list of more than 20 titles other than it that aren't "ports"? (and as Mr. Jack pointed out, "port" should be used very loosely)
This reminds me of the time Nintendo revealed that list of 15 or so DS games and you singled out Mario Basketball and complained about it...
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Ian Sane on August 01, 2008, 01:17:35 PM
Quote
Comparing Okami Wii to REmake would be more accurate.
I think something like Skies of Arcadia Legends would be a better comparison only that was a game from the same generation. REmake was made for the Gamecube from the ground up which is a lot different then a new control scheme.
"Why are you pointing out Okami and saying 'Hey look this doesn't count' when there's still a solid list of more than 20 titles other than that?"
Yeah because some modern Sonic game and Speed Racer and a bunch of junky Ubisoft crap like Raving Rabbits and Red Steel is so much better. Nitrobike gets 50% on Game Rankings and someone with a straight face is trying to sell that to me as good third party support?
I'll give you Zack & Wiki, No More Heroes and maybe Elebits I guess out of that list of 20. If I'm counting ports then RE4, Okami and Trauma Center are okay as well.
People did this on the Cube too. Someone would complain that there wasn't anything to play in the next few months or third party support was weak or whatever and the big lists of mediocrity would pop out. Those don't help. It looks like you're trying to fill out the list. Make a smaller list and make sure each game on that list is a big deal and it helps the argument. If you asked me to list some good PS3 third party games I would list
GTA IV Virtua Fighter V Soul Calibur IV Metal Gear Solid 4 Rock Band
Mostly sequels there but that's just off the top of my head anyway. I don't think the PS3 is a very worthwhile console but I just listed off five pretty major games. I don't even know the PS3 library that well because I'm not very interested in it but that list of five is pretty effective. Much more so than a longer list of weaker titles would be.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 01, 2008, 01:25:59 PM
I'll list some good 3rd party games now that are EXCLUSIVE to Wii:
-Smarty Pants (best trivia game I've played) -Elebits -Zack and Wiki -RE: UC -NMH -We Love Golf -Trauma Center -Blast Works (Best user creation tool I've ever seen for any console) -Boom Blox
Coming this Fall with some multi-platform that may actually justify purchasing TWO versions:
-Force Unleashed (Sounds like it could be good) -Deadly Creatures (Very unique game) -SPRay (adventure/puzzle game) -Madden 2009 (I am actually getting the 360 and Wii version because they do different things) -Fatal Frame (Hey I can hope) -Spore (Still don't know much about the Wii version but Wright seems excited about it so hopefully it is a quality game) -deBlob (Once again a promising game that is quite unique that is EXCLUSIVE to Wii)
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: BeautifulShy on August 01, 2008, 01:31:58 PM
So Ian what games do you have?
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Nick DiMola on August 01, 2008, 01:52:34 PM
Ian that was just a list of Wii games I own. Given price I can justify every one of those games.
Also, Speed Racer is an awesome game.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: EasyCure on August 01, 2008, 01:54:42 PM
The Okami argument is full of fail on both ends of the spectrum.
On one hand Capcom didn't do a god damn thing to promote it, did they? No.
Also not counting it as a good example of 3rd party support just because its an (upgraded) port of a last-gen game is pointless because to alot of people it might just be a new game. Not everyone owned a PS2 (yes its possible, I'm one of them) and probably never heard of Okami because they didnt own a PS2.
The game didn't sell well anyway (again, lack of advertisement) back then so all the people who didn't pick it up the first time have a reason to pick it up now because they finally know about it and heard it was good, plus an updated version would be nice. Then you have to see the potentil sales a new audience (gamer and non-gamer alike) that didn't know squat about it and think its a new game with good reviews.
I never heard about it until you all started talking about it here when the port was announced. I got excited cuz everyone praised the game (even the Zelda-clone comments sounded like a compliment to me). I'll admit i havent bought it but it is on my list of games i WILL get, and not just in the maybe pile.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 01, 2008, 02:17:24 PM
For fun here are my Wii games:
First party 1. Wii Sports (I think we know why this is good) 2. Mario Kart Wii (Few will deny this is a quality game) 3. Wii Fit (Not really a game but still well put together) 4. Wii Play (Basically a $10 game) 5. Zelda: TP (Um, don't think I need to elaborate here) 6. MP3 (Same) 7. Mario Strikers (Great fun with friends and family) 8. Smash Brothers Brawl (same) 9. BWii (Still a great strategy game) 10. Endless Ocean (Amazing game that is extremely relaxing) 11. Mario Galaxy (Um once again, no comment needed) 12. WarioWare Smooth Moves (Quality title that has a fun multiplayer once you unlock it) 13. Excitetruck (Surprisingly great, one of the better racers I've played) 14. Super Paper Mario (Once again, quality title) 15. Big Brain (Casual game that may not appeal to everyone but far from low quality) 16. Mario Party 8 (My family still loves this series) 17. Zelda Crossbow Training (Solid for what it is)
3rd Party: 1. Bug Island (So bad it is good) 2. We Love Golf (Very solid and feature rich arcade golf game for Wii) 3. Blast Works (Stunning level creator) 4. PES 2008 (Most revolutionary sports game in years) 5. Boom Blox (Extremely addicting and fun party game) 6. Pinball Hall of Fame (Best Pinball simulation I've ever played) 7. Mercury Meltdown (Great and CHEAP game) 8. Mario and Sonic (Mindless fun but good fun with family) 9. Godzilla Unleashed (I actually liked this game quite a bit) 10. RE4 (Great port of a great game) 11. House of the Dead 2 and 3 (Lightgun gaming goodness) 12. RE: UC (Once again, a unique and fun lightgun game) 13. Opoona (Odd RPG that may not be for everyone but has charm) 14. Dragon Quest Swords (A really solid Wii title even if it came out later than it should have) 15. Zack and Wiki (Great!) 16. NMH (Best brawler in years) 17. Godfather (Best version of Godfather by far, Wii remote controls make for an extremely interactive and FUN experience) 18. Scarface (Same as Godfather) 19. Madden 07 (Promising first steps for Madden on Wii) 20. Red Steel (Ok not much to defend! One of these day 1 console buys that you have on EVERY console) 21. Rayman 1 (Same as above) 22. Bomberman (average game) 23. Dewey's Adventure (Extremely unique graphical style and gameplay even with some wonky controls) 24. Elebits (I LOVE this game. Enough said) 25. Carnival Games (Takes alot of unfair bashing. It does what it sets out to do quite well, which is replicate carnival games for home use. Lots of fun to be had with family 26. Nights (Unpolished but still very solid title) 27. MySims (Quality title that needed more refining) 28. Cruis'n (As I said, I realize this is a bad game but I enjoy the terrible nature of it!) 30. Manhunt 2 (Ehhe, average at best, I mainly bought it to see what the hype was about) 31. Ghost Squad (Great light gun game. Bargain Price 32. MLB Power Pro Baseball (Amazing baseball game, the best I've played in years) 33. Smarty Pants (With over 20,000 questions and an extremely polished and straight forward userface this is a family favorite. I LOVE this game, even after almost a year we have yet to see a repeat question) 34. Harry Potter: Order of Phoenix (Interactive wand controls for all us Harry Potter geeks) 35. Cranium Kabookie (Good version of a favorite of my family. Has some problems but still far from low quality) 36. Okami (Wow. I still can't imagine playing this on PS2)
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Bill Aurion on August 01, 2008, 10:09:53 PM
Coming this Fall with some multi-platform that may actually justify purchasing TWO versions:
-Force Unleashed (Sounds like it could be good) -Deadly Creatures (Very unique game) -SPRay (adventure/puzzle game) -Madden 2009 (I am actually getting the 360 and Wii version because they do different things) -Fatal Frame (Hey I can hope) -Spore (Still don't know much about the Wii version but Wright seems excited about it so hopefully it is a quality game) -deBlob (Once again a promising game that is quite unique that is EXCLUSIVE to Wii)
You forgot Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World and Little King's Story!
Quote
Mostly sequels there but that's just off the top of my head anyway. I don't think the PS3 is a very worthwhile console but I just listed off five pretty major games. I don't even know the PS3 library that well because I'm not very interested in it but that list of five is pretty effective. Much more so than a longer list of weaker titles would be.
I don't like where you are going with this...You are making the assumption that "known franchise = good support," and you're always complaining about sequels in the first place...
Just because a game isn't from a franchise with a dozen games doesn't make it not worthwhile...Boom Blox, Kororinpa, Zack & Wiki...These games are amazing...On the horizon there's Little King's Story, Fragile, MadWorld, The Conduit, Arc Rise Fantasia, etc...All of these games show real potential and to put them down as "weaker titles" just because they aren't franchise games is stupid and goes completely against your argument (AND against your own past rants on Nintendo for not making original titles...Hurray for double standards!)
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NWR_insanolord on August 01, 2008, 10:12:40 PM
Coming this Fall with some multi-platform that may actually justify purchasing TWO versions:
-Force Unleashed (Sounds like it could be good) -Deadly Creatures (Very unique game) -SPRay (adventure/puzzle game) -Madden 2009 (I am actually getting the 360 and Wii version because they do different things) -Fatal Frame (Hey I can hope) -Spore (Still don't know much about the Wii version but Wright seems excited about it so hopefully it is a quality game) -deBlob (Once again a promising game that is quite unique that is EXCLUSIVE to Wii)
You forgot Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World and Little King's Story!
Also Monster Lab looks interesting, as does Mushroom Men.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 01, 2008, 10:15:01 PM
Coming this Fall with some multi-platform that may actually justify purchasing TWO versions:
-Force Unleashed (Sounds like it could be good) -Deadly Creatures (Very unique game) -SPRay (adventure/puzzle game) -Madden 2009 (I am actually getting the 360 and Wii version because they do different things) -Fatal Frame (Hey I can hope) -Spore (Still don't know much about the Wii version but Wright seems excited about it so hopefully it is a quality game) -deBlob (Once again a promising game that is quite unique that is EXCLUSIVE to Wii)
You forgot Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World and Little King's Story!
Yes you are right. Even MySims 2 along with EA's other sim game look promising. Really I think this is going to be a GOOD year for 3rd party developers, they seem to be getting the hang of the Wii and we are getting out of the "PS2 to Wii" port era.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NWR_Lindy on August 01, 2008, 11:45:36 PM
My Wii game library:
First-Party
1. Wii Sports 2. Mario Kart Wii 3. Zelda: TP 4. MP3 5. Mario Strikers 6. Smash Brothers Brawl 7. BWii 8. Mario Galaxy 9. WarioWare Smooth Moves 10. Excitetruck 11. Super Paper Mario
Third-Party
1. PES 2008 2. Castle of Shikigami 3. Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz 4. Blast Works 5. Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition 6. Okami 7. Zack & Wiki 8. No More Heroes 9. Trauma Center: Second Opinion
I actually have 20 games then. The only thing on the horizon that interests me for Wii is MadWorld. Everything else is in the "only interested if it gets rave reviews" category.
I think the 360 and PS3 libraries both kill the Wii at the top end of the spectrum. The top-level titles on those consoles are REALLY good. On Wii, beyond Mario Galaxy, Brawl, Metroid, Mario Kart, and Zelda, you drop into a definite second tier (Okami and RE:4 are darn good, but they're last-gen). The Wii has more games, but I'd say the 360 and PS3 have a deeper roster of top-level titles (probably double what the Wii has, actually).
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Bill Aurion on August 01, 2008, 11:57:02 PM
Bringing the idea of "tiers" into this is a bad idea, mainly because then you are merely adding the additional factor of gaming taste into the equation...I own 10 360 games and 1 PS3 game and I'd give maybe 5 "top-tier status," so yeah, it's impossible to judge, particularly when you start trying to define the difference between a "top-tier" game and a "second tier" game...
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on August 02, 2008, 12:08:33 AM
Let me join in the fun: My Wii Library
1st party:
Battalion Wars 2 The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess Mario Kart Wii Mario Strikers Charged Metroid Prime 3: Corruption Super Mario Galaxy Super Paper Mario Super Smash Bros. Brawl WarioWare: Smooth Moves Wii Fit Wii Play Wii Sports Link's Crossbow Training 13 total
3rd party: Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock Bundle Marvel Ultimate Alliance Castle of Shikigami III Guilty Gear XX Accent Core Trauma Center: New Blood Trauma Center: Second Opinion Okami Resident Evil 4 Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles We Love Golf! Zack & Wiki Quest for Barbaros’ Treasure Boom Blox No The Godfather: Blackhand Edition Medal of Honor: Heroes Dance Dance Revolution Hottest Party Blast Works: Build, Fuse & Destroy Ghost Squad House of the Dead 2 & 3 Return Nights: Journey of Dreams Sonic and the Secret Rings Super Monkeyball Banana Blitz Geometry Wars: Galaxies Metal Slug Anthology SNK Arcade Classics Volume 1 Final Fantasy Fables: Chocobo's Dungeon No More Heroes Rayman Raving Rabbids Rayman Raving Rabbids 2 Red Steel 29 total
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NWR_insanolord on August 02, 2008, 12:28:42 AM
The 360 has been out more than a year longer than the Wii, of course it has more big games. And Mario Galaxy is the best game this generation on any console, that's gotta count for something.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: BeautifulShy on August 02, 2008, 12:58:37 AM
I don't have as much as you guys I have 17. First Party: Wii Sports Smash Brothers Brawl Mario Kart Wii Mario Galaxy Zelda:Twilight Princess Metroid Prime 3 3rd Party: Mortal Kombat Armageddon Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles Boom Blox Zack&Wiki Elebits Resident Evil 4:Wii edition Trauma Center: Second opinion Mario&Sonic at the Olympic Games Red Steel Okami No More Heroes
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Galford on August 02, 2008, 03:45:10 AM
The sheer fact we've resorted to Gamecube style lists tells me everything I need to know.
This thread has reached it's conclusion.
Peace out homies....
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 02, 2008, 03:48:14 AM
The sheer fact we've resorted to Gamecube style lists tells me everything I need to know.
This thread has reached it's conclusion.
Peace out homies....
How sad.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: KDR_11k on August 02, 2008, 03:55:15 AM
Actually this time the lists are used as some form of appeal to authority rather than a justification of "these games are coming". I just joined in to show how few Wii games I have. No idea how people here got so many, if money wasn't an issue I could at most double my library (or at least that's what I think based ont he games I see in stores), seems like some people will buy anything. Desperation purchases?
Not sure about the lists of upcoming games this time, they do seem highly hardcore-focussed, i.e. games that get hyped up here. If you want my guess I'd say they're all going to be commercial failures, at least the lists Bill puts out.
In closing, Pro Evo 2008. I don't think the Cube ever got any of those and the Wii even got a special version instead of a lame port, the game is still fairly high in sales charts AFAIK.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 02, 2008, 04:06:06 AM
Actually this time the lists are used as some form of appeal to authority rather than a justification of "these games are coming". I just joined in to show how few Wii games I have. No idea how people here got so many, if money wasn't an issue I could at most double my library (or at least that's what I think based ont he games I see in stores), seems like some people will buy anything. Desperation purchases?
Not sure about the lists of upcoming games this time, they do seem highly hardcore-focussed, i.e. games that get hyped up here. If you want my guess I'd say they're all going to be commercial failures, at least the lists Bill puts out.
In closing, Pro Evo 2008. I don't think the Cube ever got any of those and the Wii even got a special version instead of a lame port, the game is still fairly high in sales charts AFAIK.
I purchase my games based off a myriad of things, many I purchase to have a great time with my family. Others I purchase because they look unique while others, such as multiplatform games I purchase because of the added interactive experience such as Godfather, Harry Potter, and Scarface. Overall I am quite happy with my collection. I bought Bug Island because it is so bad and wasn't that expensive (a great game to laugh at) and Cruis'n because I have nostalgia for Cruis'n USA.
Actually I can easily defend any of my purchases so it is far from "desperation", especially since I would have no reason for it since I buy games for PC, 360 and PS3 as well. Just because someone may not be interested in a particular game does not mean that game is not a solid or good title. Heck I was amazed your list didn't even include SMG, Metroid 3 or Smash Brothers.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NWR_insanolord on August 02, 2008, 04:18:31 AM
I don't feel like typing out all of my games, and I think we have enough lists, but I'd like to say that I own 14 third party Wii games and only two of them are things that I'm not 100% happy with. I've got way more games than I had at this point on the GameCube and I'm even ahead of the DS at this point. There are more games that I'm looking forward to this year than any other year, probably twice as many as any year of the GameCube.
This thread is pointless. Some people are happy with the third party support on the Wii, some aren't. There's no need to create an endless argument where neither side gains any ground or convinces anyone to switch sides, there's no need to look down on the other side. Different people have different tastes in games, and this is all opinion, nobody is right or wrong. Forums are all about lively discussion, but this discussion is going nowhere and only serving to get us all mad at each other.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: KDR_11k on August 02, 2008, 04:54:51 AM
Heck I was amazed your list didn't even include SMG, Metroid 3 or Smash Brothers.
Guess I forgot to mention that I only listed third party titles there because that's the subject of this debate, I do have Galaxy, MP3C, Super Paper Mario, Excite Truck, Endless Ocean, Wii Play and Wii Fit. No Smash Bros because Melee wasn't that much fun for me (no friends that liked the game) and I'm not willing to pay even 40 Euros for Brawl.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 02, 2008, 05:17:07 AM
Heck I was amazed your list didn't even include SMG, Metroid 3 or Smash Brothers.
Guess I forgot to mention that I only listed third party titles there because that's the subject of this debate, I do have Galaxy, MP3C, Super Paper Mario, Excite Truck, Endless Ocean, Wii Play and Wii Fit. No Smash Bros because Melee wasn't that much fun for me (no friends that liked the game) and I'm not willing to pay even 40 Euros for Brawl.
Ah OK. Personally I think this debate doesn't necessarily hinge on the quality of the 3rd party games but preferences. Like I am willing to bet that you wouldn't like games like Smarty Pants which are more casual in nature. The game is an excellent trivia game, but it definitely is NOT for every gamer out there. I guess with Wii I've found games, that IMO, have a "soul" they are fresh even if they are not big budget or extremely polished. They offer an experience I cannot find elsewhere, that is exciting to me. Before Wii came out I was mainly playing DS for just this reason and was growing tired of gaming. It was the same stuff over and over again, there were few fresh experiences whether they be from gameplay, or from the way you interact with the game. In a way the Wii made me a kid again with new ways to interact with games whether it be from Nintendo or some of the 3rd parties.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: KDR_11k on August 02, 2008, 08:21:46 AM
My quality requirements are strongly based on price, it seems that many B-list and crappy games come out at the full 60 Euros when Nintendo themselves have mostly abandoned that price.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NWR_Lindy on August 02, 2008, 10:14:28 AM
I don't mean to bring in "tiers" in to enforce my gaming tastes on the debate, but I think that the "Big 5" that I listed could easily be considered "best of generation" material. Below that, you have really good games that you'd need to think about to remember ten years from now.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NWR_insanolord on August 02, 2008, 10:19:58 AM
How do you justify not letting RE4 and Okami into the discussion because they're last gen ports but putting Twilight Princess in your top tier?
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Mario on August 02, 2008, 11:38:47 AM
It's all bullshit to me.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NWR_Lindy on August 02, 2008, 05:37:06 PM
How do you justify not letting RE4 and Okami into the discussion because they're last gen ports but putting Twilight Princess in your top tier?
I put Twilight Princess in there because its first appearance was on Wii. It just happened to be a GameCube port, and it just happened to also be released for GameCube at the same time it was for Wii. Okami and RE 4 were both previously released on a previous console generation. They're great titles, but they're nothing new aside from their tweaked control schemes.
If I was to sub-divide the Big 5, I'd put Galaxy and Brawl at the very top, followed by MP3, MK Wii, and Zelda.
I think Nintendo themselves has yet to create that one huge new IP that defines the Wii. Right now it seems like the Wii is defined to a certain degree by what's come before: Mario, Zelda, Mario Kart, Brawl, GameCube ports. I'm still waiting for that one brand-new breakout title that the Wii becomes known for. That title is probably Wii Sports, but I don't feel like that game is universally revered...you either love it or hate it. I'm waiting for something totally new, that is so amazing that nobody - casual, hardcore, male, female, alien, whatever - can deny its value.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on August 02, 2008, 05:45:14 PM
"I'm waiting for something totally new, that is so amazing that nobody - casual, hardcore, male, female, alien, whatever - can deny its value."
What kind of bizarro world do you live in that includes such certainty?
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 02, 2008, 06:00:19 PM
Quote
I'm waiting for something totally new, that is so amazing that nobody - casual, hardcore, male, female, alien, whatever - can deny its value.
Uhh, what Xbox 360 or PS3 game matches this standard? Heck what game in the last few years has had that? The only game I can think of that MAY match that is Wii Sports which is NOT a love it or hate it game because it is universally acknowledged as a very fun game by most who've played it. That is about as good as you are going to get with a majority liking something. This is an impossible standard because NO game is liked by everyone.
Also in regards to sequels, the big titles on PS3 are made up mostly of sequels:
Then you have games like Viva Pinata, Dead Rising, Gears of War, and Resistance. None of these games so far even come close to universal acceptance for their "value".
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NWR_Lindy on August 02, 2008, 08:28:44 PM
But if the Wii is so revolutionary and all the other consoles are so generic, then why is it unreasonable for me to want a game that defines the Wii as a console? Why should I demand any less from such a revolutionary piece of equipment?
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on August 02, 2008, 08:36:03 PM
But if the Wii is so revolutionary and all the other consoles are so generic, then why is it unreasonable for me to want a game that defines the Wii as a console? Why should I demand any less from such a revolutionary piece of equipment?
Same thing can be said about the 360 or PS3 as in what really justifies a 400 - 600 dollar experience and what is exactly special that justifies that price tag.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: KDR_11k on August 03, 2008, 02:25:14 AM
But if the Wii is so revolutionary and all the other consoles are so generic, then why is it unreasonable for me to want a game that defines the Wii as a console? Why should I demand any less from such a revolutionary piece of equipment?
You got it with the system, remember? If you go only by hardcore-acknowledged games of course you're going to get a list of sequels and niche titles, part of the Wii's revolution was to change the focus from hardcore-only to wide appeal and games like Wii Sport and Wii Fit are the epitome of that move.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Smash_Brother on August 03, 2008, 02:32:06 AM
But if the Wii is so revolutionary and all the other consoles are so generic, then why is it unreasonable for me to want a game that defines the Wii as a console? Why should I demand any less from such a revolutionary piece of equipment?
How do you know someone who isn't Nintendo isn't developing that game for the Wii right now?
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 03, 2008, 05:00:46 AM
All I know is that the Wii has had some new, and fresh experiences not found elsewhere. Now you can argue that they are not AAA titles (at least some of them) but at the very least they have some very fresh and FUN ideas. Look what the Wii did for Godfather, just a simple thing like the way you interact with the game changed its enjoyment. Boom Blox is so simplistic in its Wii mote implementation but still creates a fresh interactive experience. Zack and Wiki is the same, it has things in that game that there is no way any of the other consoles could replicate in mechanics, and some truly FUN uses of the Wii remote. Even Mario Galaxy brilliantly brought platforming to a new level by utilizing the point functionality in conjunction with the platforming.
Your other points seem weak. For one there is no way you will EVER create a game that everyone will love, it just is not possible. Also the Wii has already had defining games for it, not to mention the fact that it will more than likely cause its competitors to implement motion controls in future consoles. Also what exactly is a "defining" game? That in itself is extremely subjective, because I would say Wii Sports was followed by games like Boom Blox, Mario Galaxy, Zack and Wiki, and others. Wii is revolutionary in how you interact with games, and I think ALL those utilize this, giving the industry a chance to work with something that opens new doors to interactivity. Is it still evolving? Of course, like any vastly new system it takes time for progression to happen though I have to say I'm impressed so far with where it is at now in less than 2 years.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NWR_Lindy on August 03, 2008, 09:22:35 AM
Saying that any third-party developer that isn't supporting the Wii is going to shrivel up and die is pretty far-fetched. They won't make as much money as they could, but going out of business? I doubt it. You can still totally ignore the Wii and DS and have a completely healthy company that lives off of PC, 360, and PS3 sales. I've ever heard a dying developer say, "Yup, we went under because we didn't make Wii games". Ironically, the only company that I've heard expressing regret about their lack of Wii support is Electronic Arts, and it's in their best interests to adequately support all platforms just to cover their massive expenses.
Remember, not everybody wants to make Wii games. Heck, John Carmack would apparently rather make an iPhone game than a Wii game. Some developers just don't like the platform out of personal preference, probably because they like to program on top-tier graphics hardware.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NWR_insanolord on August 03, 2008, 10:39:35 AM
That's why all those developers only made games for the N64, GameCube and Xbox when they had superior graphical capabilities, right?
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: KDR_11k on August 03, 2008, 10:45:42 AM
Remember, not everybody wants to make Wii games. Heck, John Carmack would apparently rather make an iPhone game than a Wii game. Some developers just don't like the platform out of personal preference, probably because they like to program on top-tier graphics hardware.
Yep, top-tier graphics hardware, like the iPhone... oh wait...
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: KDR_11k on August 03, 2008, 12:26:58 PM
Personal preference is something the actual developers have but they aren't asked when it comes to business strategies like "where will our next game go".
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Ceric on August 03, 2008, 12:55:27 PM
I'm going to check in on this really quickly. I personally have very few games for my Wii but I have played many more than I did on the DS at this point. There are very few games that I want to own but, plenty I want to play. Well not so much lately I've actually been replaying games but I am getting through Zak and Wiki and, despite trying its best to stop me, Phantom Hourglass.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 03, 2008, 02:29:39 PM
Actually if they want to develop for these so called top-tier systems wouldn't they be developing for PC? Not like John Carmack has done anything really innovative lately either, he is obviously a graphics over gameplay guy so that makes sense for him. But what about Will Wright? Who runs circles around Carmack and about any other developer out there? He is EXCITED about Wii.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: KDR_11k on August 03, 2008, 02:40:24 PM
Carmack is not graphics over gameplay, he's an engine programmer. What the game plays like isn't his department. Unlike most other famous game devs he's not the game designer so when he innovates (and I think he did that plenty) it's not something the end user realizes.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 03, 2008, 03:05:24 PM
Carmack is not graphics over gameplay, he's an engine programmer. What the game plays like isn't his department. Unlike most other famous game devs he's not the game designer so when he innovates (and I think he did that plenty) it's not something the end user realizes.
I thought he worked on games like Doom and is known as a game designer? He may not do it as much now but in the past it was my understanding that he had quite a bit to say about the design of games like Doom or Quake? If that is not right I apologize.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Ceric on August 03, 2008, 03:31:07 PM
Carmack is not graphics over gameplay, he's an engine programmer. What the game plays like isn't his department. Unlike most other famous game devs he's not the game designer so when he innovates (and I think he did that plenty) it's not something the end user realizes.
If memory serves Carmack is also the one who develops for Linux first and then ports.
GP: I would label Doom and Quake Series as just showcases for what there really selling which is the engine. Serious Sam and Unreal is the same way. Now that the engines themselves have there own name in the developer land I think we'll see less of these types of game.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NWR_Lindy on August 03, 2008, 09:20:33 PM
John Romero was the designers (and Sandy Petersen as well, and Tom Hall to a lesser degree). John Carmack created all the graphics engines.
I'm just saying, when a graphics engine guy is more enamored with the iPhone than the Wii, that's not a good sign.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Ceric on August 03, 2008, 10:08:54 PM
John Romero was the designers (and Sandy Petersen as well, and Tom Hall to a lesser degree). John Carmack created all the graphics engines.
I'm just saying, when a graphics engine guy is more enamored with the iPhone than the Wii, that's not a good sign.
Granted.
Unless its the thrill of a new architecture...
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on August 04, 2008, 12:25:56 AM
Give the man some popsicle sticks.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Deguello on August 04, 2008, 02:08:18 AM
Quote
I'm just saying, when a graphics engine guy is more enamored with the iPhone than the Wii, that's not a good sign.
He also apparently plays Wii and DS the most out of any of the consoles out. Now that's quite a conundrum for the hardcore/casual continuum.
"So, he makes hardcore games... but he PLAYS casual games... so that makes him a casual gamer... But... But... Graphics... HDTV... Engine... *head explodes*"
Quote
I've ever heard a dying developer say, "Yup, we went under because we didn't make Wii games".
To again use a DS parallel story: Working Designs was so sure that the PSP would whoop the ass of the DS early on that they said the DS was "Stillborn." The company then went out of business and admitted that they probably guess wrong about the whole PSP/DS thing.
And I've never heard a dying developer say anything like that, no. I've never heard a dying developer say they were dying, either. In fact, they insisted that they could "turn things around." Like Sega. Sega had a Strong opening 2001 declaring that they were going to be the #1 console. they were a third party by the end of the year.
And, also you HAVE heard a developer say that they should have made more Wii games. And they did just pull a loss for the last year. EA said it. Again I also defer you back to that chart and please note that some of the companies that have "blue profits" have them as a result of the two "loss-losing" console manufacturers giving "incentives" to those developers and publishers. Apparently if it were not for Nintendo, the entire video game industry would have pulled a combined LOSS. It's rather amusing that third parties don't want a piece of that blue Nintendo's got, but if they want to stay away, they can. They can be interested in iPhone and speak of how developers should make their "dream game" as they slowly starve to death when the money dries up.
In fact, that's kinda what a lot fo these third parties act like. They act like they are "above" the Wii or something. Like it's something they shouldn't "have to deal with." It's a 600-lbs gorilla in the room that they are somehow ignoring as it gets bigger and bigger. If they don't find a way onto it soon, they'll be swept away as most of the profits funnel into just ONE company. IF third parties are afraid of competing with Nintendo NOW, they worst thing they could do is NOTHING on the Wii. The best way to ensure a Nintendo monopoly is to allow them to dominate their own record-breaking platform unchallenged. That will just allow Nintendo to get even more money and influence. More technology will originate from Nintendo as they will be the only ones able to sustainably afford it, while competitors will have to justify the just noticeable difference of a new platform.
But, you know, that's just the way it looks to investors.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: KDR_11k on August 04, 2008, 02:17:58 AM
IIRC he said he was interested in the Wii but they bet on the other horses and can't change directions now.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Deguello on August 04, 2008, 02:36:59 AM
Oh well, more's the pity, eh? Guess he should have bet better.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: KDR_11k on August 04, 2008, 03:44:47 AM
Well, they'rehoping for licensing deals and with those they both get more engine sales with epic game developers as their customers and don't have to really worry about sales reducing as long as there are enough fools that try to make these games until they have their next technology ready.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Shift Key on August 04, 2008, 07:26:16 AM
I'm just saying, when a graphics engine guy is more enamored with the iPhone than the Wii, that's not a good sign.
So the iPhone is now a serious business games system? Fark, we're talking a sample size of one here Lindy, and its a guy who's reknown for dealing with a keyboard and mouse platform.
Take a giant grain of salt and then try and tell me its still relevant to the discussion.The iPhone platform isn't going to take over the DS or even the PSP. Not even when the DS2 and PSPnext are on the market - its just not going to happen.
Didn't you realise that Apple is going after the business users with this latest product? Don't you know about mixing business and pleasure? Come on Lindy, stop trolling.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NWR_Lindy on August 04, 2008, 12:16:42 PM
I was merely pointing out that a segment of the development audience will not want to develop for the Wii because they want to program on the best graphics hardware they can get, and even when given the choice between Wii and a mobile phone, a graphics guru picks a mobile phone. I think that's pretty telling in terms of how the Wii is perceived by some developers. Yes, Carmack is one guy, but that's like saying that Miyamoto is one guy. He's one HUGE guy in the industry.
And if id Games never makes a single Wii game, are they going to somehow implode? I don't think so. They're still going to make their money. And my point with that is that the Wii is not the be-all and end-all of video game development. Yes, you can theoretically make a lot of money on the platform simply because of installed userbase, but if you don't think that userbase is going to buy your game, why take that risk? That's where I'm coming from with all of this. You don't see Blizzard giving a crap about Wii, but they're still rolling in dough.
It's not as simple as just userbase. Like Deg himself has said, demographics play a huge part. Look at the DS games coming out nowadays, they're much broader from a demographics standpoint because the demographics have shifted. Stuff like Metroid Prime: Hunters pretty much bombed, and it's in the rear view mirror now.
Sure, EA laments how they missed the boat on the Wii, but they aren't releasing Super Killer Shooter 2000 now that they're back on board, either. Instead, we're getting Madden 09 with TardPlay, and Boom Blox. EA is giving us exactly what they think the Wii demographics want, which is more family fare. They aren't risking anything.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Deguello on August 04, 2008, 02:55:18 PM
Quote
I was merely pointing out that a segment of the development audience will not want to develop for the Wii because they want to program on the best graphics hardware they can get, and even when given the choice between Wii and a mobile phone, a graphics guru picks a mobile phone. I think that's pretty telling in terms of how the Wii is perceived by some developers. Yes, Carmack is one guy, but that's like saying that Miyamoto is one guy. He's one HUGE guy in the industry.
Yu Suzuki is a HUGE guy in the industry too. He was one huge developer who really favored the GameCube over the PS2 and the Xbox. this didn't mean much as Sega basically made PS2 games in the majority. It's really no indicator of developer support when established ones pick their platforms, especially for platforms like the Wii and DS which foster new developers to take the place of the old ones who ignored large audiences. And I wouldn't compare Shigeru Miyamoto to John Carmak in terms of relevance today. I mean Nintendogs, just one of Miyamoto's games this generation, has sold more than everything John Carmack's worked on combined (at least according to vgchartz). HE may have been a key person in the industry's burgeoning days but, like Yu Suzuki, but his importance has waned greatly.
Also he and his company's console picks don't seem to become market leaders: N64 Dreamcast Xbox
Quote
And if id Games never makes a single Wii game, are they going to somehow implode? I don't think so. They're still going to make their money.
Maybe... but how much of it will be MS's "incentive?" As I said before, that's not a very healthy industry model. Sure, they'll survive... maybe (we certainly aren't assuming RAGE or whatever he hell they're working on will be wildly successful, are we?) but they could be having some of that blue Nintendo's got. All they have to do is swallow their pride, bite the bullet, and work for a graphically inferior platform. If they don't want to... that's OK. The Playstation didn't get every developer. Just the ones that became really important.
Quote
And my point with that is that the Wii is not the be-all and end-all of video game development.
I don't believe anybody said that, did that?
Quote
You don't see Blizzard giving a crap about Wii, but they're still rolling in dough.
You don't see Blizzard giving a crap about consoles either. And Blizzard is a bad example to use. They just got slammed for making Diablo III "colorful," and they are the Nintendo stereotype company. You remember, how Nintendo never makes anything new (they do) and only relies on franchises (not all the time.) Blizzard only has like, three or four franchises.
Quote
It's not as simple as just userbase. Like Deg himself has said, demographics play a huge part.
I don't believe I ever said that. What you may be confusing that with is the media's perception of the DS changed from "mingame fest" to "RPG machine" almost overnight due to a crapload of them being made. What that obviously showed was a desire amongst the "minigame fest" DS owners to buy more complex games like RPGs (This is called upstreaming.) The first one to get there won, and in this case, both Nintendo and Square Enix provided the first few RPGS, (Mario and Luigi 2 and FFIII.) This market and "demographic" did not appear to be there at first, but was there to begin with. This si similar to Wii. Wii owners are thirsty and hungry for more experiences, be they shooters (Which apparently can sell a million on the platform. "They'll still get their money," right?) or RPGs or what have you. The first one to get there gets the prize, and no amount of ham-hawing about their failed games will change anything.
Quote
Sure, EA laments how they missed the boat on the Wii, but they aren't releasing Super Killer Shooter 2000 now that they're back on board, either. Instead, we're getting Madden 09 with TardPlay, and Boom Blox. EA is giving us exactly what they think the Wii demographics want, which is more family fare. They aren't risking anything.
We don't know what EA has in store for Wii, but I can assure you it probably won't be more mini- and non- games. Why? Because they already tried that with Ninja Reflex and it flopped pretty badly. They are going to have to foster new development efforts and find what will work from a market standpoint and that also includes insight into market that may only be there latently. They might try a shooter. They might try something else. But the non-game boat sailed a long time ago.
Of course, this is all assuming they want to make quality games for the largest audience. The problem lies with the 3rd parties' mindsets about Wii. Nintendo's mindset has always been "Make quality games" no matter WHAT they are working on. This is why there exists Metroid Prime 3 and Super Mario Galaxy, even Wii Sports and EVEN Wii Music (despite impressions and previews.) They put their full heart into whatever they are making. Third parties don't have this mindset. They have a mindset of:
"These Wii owners are idiots, they'll buy anything." Which is of course both true and untrue at the same time. The Wii owners at large will buy some serious junk, but mostly they've bought quality Nintendo products and good 3rd party efforts.
"The profits from this Wii game will help fund what I REALLY want to work on. (or have been contractually obligated to work on)" This is, of course, both lacking effort and "sending good money after bad." Capcom's been doing this a bit with ports that are clearly intended to stave off RE5 development costs. Even Square Enix who's been selling the effort of eons gone by in order to fund just one Next Gen project.
"The demographics demand that I make this type of game." This one is usually only half-believed. Where are the big-name fighting games for the Wii? Smash Bros. is the biggest fighting series around, selling more than all the rest of them released combined. Where are the quality platformers? Mario Galaxy is the only one left? Shooters? 2 have sold a million! Somebody should really exploit a market ALREADY PRESENT. It seems demographics in this case are merely an excuse for half-hearted efforts. No wonder Nintendo dominates their own platforms. Sheesh.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: KDR_11k on August 04, 2008, 03:15:41 PM
Developers don't get a say in business decisions, the publisher says where the game goes and the devs follow, whether they like the platform or not.
There's a lot of talk about funding HD projects with Wii money but do we have evidence that the HD projects really absorb all the money made by the Wii and DS games?
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Smash_Brother on August 05, 2008, 03:28:54 PM
I thought Ubisoft admitted that, though I could be wrong.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: BeautifulShy on August 05, 2008, 03:40:55 PM
Yep they did admit that S_B.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NWR_Lindy on August 05, 2008, 10:19:56 PM
My point was about some third parties not wanting to develop for Wii due to its last-gen graphics. I can't think of a more relevant graphics guy than Carmack, even though he's no longer a household name. I'd throw the Unreal Engine dev team in there too, and guess what, they aren't making their engine for Wii either (although third-parties are welcome to have a stab at it, like Ubisoft did with the Unreal 2 engine for Red Steel).
The whole "DS owners migrating" thing is a chicken-and-egg theory. Did the RPGs come out because DS owners wanted them, or did DS owners want them because they came out? Or did those RPGs just get made because the DS was cheap to develop for, and if they totally bombed, no loss for Square-Enix? I'd lean towards answer #3. I don't know if you can apply this same logic to the Wii, though. Wii games still need a much more sizeable development team than most DS titles, so there's more risk involved.
Let's say Square-Enix came out with a bunch of RPGs on Wii. So what? Anybody that wants those types of games already has a 360 or PS3, and those games are done better on that platform anyways. I think Nintendo has pigeonholed themselves to a degree, but to their credit they're in a REALLY BIG pigeonhole that will make them a WHOLE BUNCH of money.
I agree that it makes sense for third parties to get in on the Wii action, but I don't think you could put any type of game out there and have it sell a ton of copies. For example, if BioWare put out Mass Effect on Wii, I don't think it would even matter because nobody would buy it. On 360, it's a phenomenon. Nintendo needs to make a commitment to all kinds of games in order to make those that have migrated to 360 and PS3 notice them again. Among certain audiences they aren't even relevant right now, and E3 2008 only made it worse.
If Nintendo won't endorse any Wii content besides non-games and its own franchises, how is that going to inspire third-parties to do things any differently? Nintendo isn't seeding the market with big titles in certain genres, so developers aren't going to take that risk themselves in an unproven market. They'd be stupid to do so.
However, I really doubt Nintendo cares, so it's a moot point. They aren't going after the Call of Duty 4 or Halo 3 player.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on August 06, 2008, 12:19:17 AM
"Anybody that wants those types of games already has a 360 or PS3, and those games are done better on that platform anyways."
IS THIS FOR REAL?
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Deguello on August 06, 2008, 12:32:53 AM
Quote
Developers don't get a say in business decisions, the publisher says where the game goes and the devs follow, whether they like the platform or not.
I certainly hope more of this will happen. It'd be nice to see these entitled, aristocratic developers actually have to work hard for a living instead of crunch out minuscule improvements on graphics.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: SixthAngel on August 06, 2008, 12:37:23 AM
The whole "DS owners migrating" thing is a chicken-and-egg theory. Did the RPGs come out because DS owners wanted them, or did DS owners want them because they came out? Or did those RPGs just get made because the DS was cheap to develop for, and if they totally bombed, no loss for Square-Enix? I'd lean towards answer #3. I don't know if you can apply this same logic to the Wii, though. Wii games still need a much more sizeable development team than most DS titles, so there's more risk involved.
Let's say Square-Enix came out with a bunch of RPGs on Wii. So what? Anybody that wants those types of games already has a 360 or PS3, and those games are done better on that platform anyways.
What? All rpg players have 360 or ps3? Do you actually believe this or do you really think that rpgs have such an incredibly small audience? Jrpgs can have a huge appeal because they are simple and easy to get into.
Dragon Quest has always been a blue ocean game. It has always had crappy graphics compared to the competition and has remained simple while other rpgs introduce more complicated concepts and it has always been available on the most popular system.
I think Nintendo has pigeonholed themselves to a degree, but to their credit they're in a REALLY BIG pigeonhole that will make them a WHOLE BUNCH of money.
How has gaining the majority of the console video game audience and making the majority of money become pigeonholed in any way shape or form? The other consoles are the ones that are pigeonholed with their small audience and they can't attract the people who want the Wii.
I agree that it makes sense for third parties to get in on the Wii action, but I don't think you could put any type of game out there and have it sell a ton of copies. For example, if BioWare put out Mass Effect on Wii, I don't think it would even matter because nobody would buy it. On 360, it's a phenomenon. Nintendo needs to make a commitment to all kinds of games in order to make those that have migrated to 360 and PS3 notice them again. Among certain audiences they aren't even relevant right now, and E3 2008 only made it worse.
Phenomenon?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I just can't be bothered to respond to anything else after you call a decently selling game a phenomenon (why?), say no one on the Wii would buy it (opinion) and then in the same paragraph say that Wii needs those games (that apparently won't sell on the system)
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Kairon on August 06, 2008, 01:24:34 PM
Why did I miss this? T_T Oh why did I disappear for a month and miss the fun? T_T
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NWR_Lindy on August 06, 2008, 05:58:14 PM
All of those people that want stuff like Mass Effect already have a PS3 or 360 because those games are already on those systems. And those types of games - massive, graphics-intensive RPGs - are done better on those systems. I never said that you couldn't do RPGs on Wii - but there's a reason why Final Fantasy XIII isn't being done on Wii. Whether or not you think FFXIII is a good game or a bad game is a separate issue, but if you want those types of games you don't own a Wii. If you do, you're kidding yourself because those games aren't going to come out. You'll have Namco making Tales of Awesometasia 3 instead.
If that's your thing, that's cool. But if the Wii is such a no-brainer, why didn't Square-Enix make DQ IX for Wii? Because RPGs aren't a proven commodity on Wii, while they are for DS. Also, DS development is much cheaper, and the DS is ubiquitous in Japan (whereas the Wii is currently being outsold by the PSP and DS on a regular basis), so you have a guaranteed massive payoff. The Wii is considered a risk right now for anything besides family or casual-skewing fare. That may very well change, but that's how it is for now.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on August 06, 2008, 06:19:41 PM
If that's your thing, that's cool. But if the Wii is such a no-brainer, why didn't Square-Enix make DQ IX for Wii? Because RPGs aren't a proven commodity on Wii, while they are for DS. Also, DS development is much cheaper, and the DS is ubiquitous in Japan (whereas the Wii is currently being outsold by the PSP and DS on a regular basis), so you have a guaranteed massive payoff. The Wii is considered a risk right now for anything besides family or casual-skewing fare. That may very well change, but that's how it is for now.
So by your reasoning RPGs shouldn't exist on the PS3 because its barely outselling the PS2 in Japan and the 360 can't even beat the PS2 in Japanese weekly sales. And don't forget how expensive it is to develop on the 360 and PS3!!!!
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 06, 2008, 07:18:20 PM
The reason why FF13 isn't coming to Wii is because Square-Enix thought PS3 was going to be the market leader, that is it. There is no way a company in their right mind would create anymore big name franchises that are exclusive to PS3 anymore. Also we forget that DS took a couple years before it even began to see any RPGs of any significance.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: DAaaMan64 on August 06, 2008, 07:50:59 PM
LOL maybe, but I really don't believe FF14 will come to Wii.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: ShyGuy on August 06, 2008, 07:55:03 PM
considering how slow FF13 has been to release, FF14 won't come out on any current gen system.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on August 06, 2008, 08:28:22 PM
Square and FF in general is kinda starting to look washed-up. But I don't like FF so whatever.
Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest are SquarEnix's biggest games and while both are RPGs both are so different.
Final Fantasy is a game that (after FF7) relies on having top of the line visuals, huge cinematics, and a different often more complicated spell/special move system to tell an epic story.
Dragon Quest uses whatever graphics are appropriate and cheap to make a game that is simple and appropriate for their giant audience to tell an epic story. While I haven't played the only Japan games they seem to keep the spell/special move formula simple from what I played as well.
I predict that Final Fantasy will quickly become a huge money loser do to the enormous investment and the incredible amount of time it takes to make. The non-Wii audience is small and they simply can't follow the market when it takes 2+ years to make a game. I now see how Square and Enix were so different before they joined, before I thought the acquisition would work because they were the two biggest RPG developers but now I see the huge difference between the companies and don't think both philosophies will survive anymore.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Ceric on August 06, 2008, 10:32:42 PM
RPG's are always late to any system. They take longer to plan and like but it just seems to be when the niche userbase is seen to fall in for those.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: DAaaMan64 on August 06, 2008, 10:51:51 PM
Isn't the RPG scene shrinking anyway?
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Arbok on August 06, 2008, 11:12:41 PM
The reason why FF13 isn't coming to Wii is because Square-Enix thought PS3 was going to be the market leader, that is it. There is no way a company in their right mind would create anymore big name franchises that are exclusive to PS3 anymore. Also we forget that DS took a couple years before it even began to see any RPGs of any significance.
Yep, fully agree. Final Fantasy 13 started development way before the PS3 or Wii were released, and the choice to make it for the PS3 seems obvious given most companies assumed it was going to be the market leader. The fact that the game has been delayed and delayed, and is now going to release on the 360 as well, without a shadow of a doubt shows that Square-Enix regrets that choice. Consequently, I find it odd that Silks would cite the title as defense in this situation because of that.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Adrock on August 07, 2008, 12:44:29 AM
Yeah, basically. I can only imagine the collective "ffffffff*ck" at SquareEnix's board of directors meeting when they realized that the Wii was dominating the PS3. Kind of sad, but more funny than sad.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Smash_Brother on August 07, 2008, 01:58:44 AM
FF games have been consistently selling less and less. With the rise of casual gaming in Japan, console RPGs are going the way of the dodo. Handheld RPGs are still doing alright, considering you can play for 20-30 minutes on the bus/train on the way to work (commonplace in Tokyo), but a combined sitting time of 40 hours in front of a TV is hard to come by for older gamers (aka those with the money).
I actually don't see this big fight over RPGs being worth it. 40-80 hours? Honestly, who has that kind of time these days?
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: ThePerm on August 07, 2008, 02:45:11 AM
has third party support ever been in line with nintendo since the snes days?
third parties arent tied to a console, so they follow lame surveys and target demographics, which doesn't necessarily follow common sense or logic
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: KDR_11k on August 07, 2008, 05:09:07 AM
I actually don't see this big fight over RPGs being worth it. 40-80 hours? Honestly, who has that kind of time these days?
Everyone. Or they would if they could play it in short bursts while still having fun (over the years even 5 minutes of play a day adds up to a long time). Of course few games of that size are interesting when played in short bursts (or when played for so long) as you might spend half your time on one cutscene already and multi-hour battles just have to be aborted with a power-off then.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NWR_Lindy on August 07, 2008, 01:50:03 PM
Final Fantasy games as we know them will not come to the Wii. They're big-budget semi-CGI movies that just don't lend themselves to the Wii's technical limitations. They're all about technical overload.
Now, if S-E does a total about-face and basically changes their entire development philosophy, then we could see the next FF come to Wii. S-E has certainly painted themselves into a corner by pretty much positioning every FF title as the graphical benchmark for each given console generation. The Dragon Quest series was never really about being a graphical tour-de-force, so the series has a little bit of leeway and can release the next game on DS without having rioting in the street.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Smash_Brother on August 07, 2008, 02:56:30 PM
Everyone. Or they would if they could play it in short bursts while still having fun (over the years even 5 minutes of play a day adds up to a long time). Of course few games of that size are interesting when played in short bursts (or when played for so long) as you might spend half your time on one cutscene already and multi-hour battles just have to be aborted with a power-off then.
There's a certain amount of attention span required for gaming like this, since you're basically playing a time-release story that asks you to endure X hours of boredom (aka leveling) so that you can see the next chunk of storyline.
The more the play time is broken up into small increments, the more likely the player will be to either lose interest in the storyline or spend a longer period of time away from the game which results in even greater potential to lose interest. This is especially true if the game has a period of "lull" in it: if the player stops playing in the midst of this, it's often the death knell of the game play period.
The solution would be to break games up into "chapters" which would take 30-60 minutes at most. Each chapter would offer the players more storyline but with a feeling of conclusion at the end of each, as if each one is a leg of a journey being completed. This would be the more "casual" model of gaming for the RPG genre but wouldn't necessarily deduct anything in the way of gameplay or enjoyment.
By using the episodic content model for a retail game, it'll give the player a better place to start and end each gameplay session which would in turn greatly increase the chances that they'll play it all the way through.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 07, 2008, 03:20:34 PM
Final Fantasy games as we know them will not come to the Wii. They're big-budget semi-CGI movies that just don't lend themselves to the Wii's technical limitations. They're all about technical overload.
Now, if S-E does a total about-face and basically changes their entire development philosophy, then we could see the next FF come to Wii. S-E has certainly painted themselves into a corner by pretty much positioning every FF title as the graphical benchmark for each given console generation. The Dragon Quest series was never really about being a graphical tour-de-force, so the series has a little bit of leeway and can release the next game on DS without having rioting in the street.
Must be why the series was on the weakest graphical system last generation right? Heck even the previous generation was the same. Seriously it all has to do with what they felt would have been the most profitable move which is why DQ9 is taking a visual downgrade to come to DS. It has little to do with technology and more to do with perceived sales.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on August 07, 2008, 03:41:52 PM
Way to ride that logic train, Silks.
To your credit, big money CGI movies lend themselves well to piracy and p2p sharing, as FF: Advent Children has shown. OH WAIT, THAT DOESN'T WORK FOR SQUARE AT ALL. Heck, expensive PS3s and expensive Blu-Ray media are also reasons piracy isn't helping the PS3 name unlike the rapid "growth" PSX and PS2 saw in Southeast Asia.
FF games as we used to know them (movies) will not come anymore. The FF games as we know them today, Crystal Chronicles, Chocobo Whatso, anything else that starts with a C, are the mainstays.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Ian Sane on August 07, 2008, 04:19:18 PM
I think it's silly to point out the PS2 being the weakest hardware last gen. It was still comparable. Hell the only reason it wasn't as powerful as the Xbox and Gamecube was because it came out a year earlier. The difference was minor. Same with Playstation vs. N64 or Genesis vs. SNES. There is a difference but not one as significant as the one between the Wii and the other two consoles. The Wii is like a half generation step in between. That's significantly different then previously top-of-the-line hardware surpassed by console with a later release date. If the PS2 was just a barely enhanced PS1 and still had all that third party then you've got a fair comparison. The Wii hardware is intentionally gimped and thus no other console really compares to it. They all tried to just push the best hardware they could.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 07, 2008, 04:38:33 PM
Um Ian N64 was a much more visually impressive system than the PS One and was more advanced. The only limitation was carts. Perhaps you also missed the part where they are creating a NEW DQ game for DS when the last one was on PS2? Or maybe you failed to see the point that Lindy was trying to make that S-E makes the FF games for the most powerful system when that has not been the case for the last two years. Square has ALWAYS created FF games not for the most powerful system but usually the current market leader.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NWR_Lindy on August 07, 2008, 04:53:06 PM
S-E was kinda between a rock and hard place with FF XII. The Wii's weaker hardware didn't really allow them to make the game they wanted to make (I assume), so Sony was their only real option at the time. The Xbox brand is brutal in Japan, as we all know.
What I don't get is why Crystal Chronicles is the only FF they've ever talked about for Wii. You'd think they'd make a more traditional RPG to complement it, but no.
And the big-budget FF games will never go away, because there will always be a market for them. They're "event games" like Halo, Metal Gear, Zelda, Mario, etc. When they come out it's a big deal.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 07, 2008, 05:01:31 PM
Quote
The Wii's weaker hardware didn't really allow them to make the game they wanted to make (I assume), so Sony was their only real option at the time.
That is not really true, FF13 was announced long before anyone had a clue about the success of Wii and the struggling of the PS3. It seems to be a matter of "We have too much invested now to turn back so lets make the best of it and at least make it on 360 as well to recoup out development and make some profit". Also I do not see how Square couldn't make a big budget, blockbuster FF game on Wii if they did it for PS2 why not Wii? The Wii may be weaker visually that doesn't mean it can't be just as grand as previous FF games.
It should be interesting though to see how they approach future FF games though now that things are starting to be more clear when it comes to userbase.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Adrock on August 07, 2008, 05:09:42 PM
I actually don't see this big fight over RPGs being worth it. 40-80 hours? Honestly, who has that kind of time these days?
I'd make time if Square Enix remade Final Fantasy VI (that's 6, not a typo of 7) the the Wii. I'm not high on remakes and ports, but I'd make an exception for a 3D remake of FFVI.
That is not really true, FF13 was announced long before anyone had a clue about the success of Wii and the struggling of the PS3. It seems to be a matter of "We have too much invested now to turn back so lets make the best of it and at least make it on 360 as well to recoup out development and make some profit". Also I do not see how Square couldn't make a big budget, blockbuster FF game on Wii if they did it for PS2 why not Wii? The Wii may be weaker visually that doesn't mean it can't be just as grand as previous FF games.
Are you aware of how much you are pwning in this thread?
Square Enix could make those kinds of games on the Wii and they should (costs less, larger installation base). They've already announced a couple exclusive 360 titles so I'm hoping they can do better than Final Fantasy Fables on the Wii.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Smash_Brother on August 07, 2008, 05:42:04 PM
Square, as much as I dislike their "time-release" storylines, is generally known for pushing the graphical limits of whatever hardware they're on, regardless of whether or not there's "better" hardware out there. If they're bringing piles of games to the DS instead of the PSP, there's no argument for not bringing games to the Wii.
Something I need to ask: am I the only one who isn't impressed by "next-gen" graphics any more? The same washed-out look of these games with admittedly nice smoothing has just become commonplace for me and as a result nothing to get excited about.
It's the same reason "special" effects aren't special any more when George Lucas puts them in every single scene.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NWR_pap64 on August 07, 2008, 06:04:45 PM
Something I need to ask: am I the only one who isn't impressed by "next-gen" graphics any more? The same washed-out look of these games with admittedly nice smoothing has just become commonplace for me and as a result nothing to get excited about.
My issue with next gen graphics is the lack of creativity. Here we have these powerful graphic engines, yet they opt to create games that look the same. Same character models, same textures and same color.
For example, when I first saw the TV spot for Unreal III I thought the game was a Gears of Wars spin off because the main character looked A LOT like Marcus Fenix.
And before someone mentions it, yes I am talking about many FPS games out in the market right now.
Whatever happened to color, surreality and imaginative environments?
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NWR_Lindy on August 07, 2008, 06:13:42 PM
Yes, when S-E announced FF XIII (May 2006), they had no idea that the Wii would be big and the PS3 would struggle. But they did know that Sony's console was going to be a hardware powerhouse, and that Nintendo's Wii would be underpowered by comparison. Since 1) they already had close ties with Sony, 2) the PS3 hardware would allow them to produce the visuals they were looking for, and 3) Nintendo hadn't had a track record of console success since the SNES, Sony was the obvious choice at the time.
Yes, S-E is making FF XII for 360 to recoup expenses, period. That's why they aren't releasing it in Japan; they wouldn't get their money back.
Square Enix can make epic games on the Wii. I never said they couldn't (and from a business standpoint, like I stated above, I don't know why they're not). But if they're looking to set an industry benchmark for graphics (which they seem to try to do with every successive FF release), they aren't going to be able to do that on Wii. The Wii isn't the ideal platform for the pseudo-movies that S-E seems to be intent on producing.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Ian Sane on August 07, 2008, 06:15:37 PM
Quote
Um Ian N64 was a much more visually impressive system than the PS One and was more advanced.
Not much. The N64 was blocky and the Playstation was blocky and grainy. The comparison between the Wii and the other two console is like the PS1 going against the Dreamcast but being released after. I have yet to see a Wii game that doesn't look it could have been done on the Xbox. The Wii's CPU clocks in the MHz while the other consoles are in the GHz. Not the whole picture but it shows the huge difference in specs. The Wii is glorified last-gen hardware. Its specs are closer to the Xbox than they are to the other current systems.
Say this and that about Square but they were working on the N64 but moved when they realized the hardware was not suitable for what they wanted to do. Them switching over is what made the Playstation the market leader. They led the way. They didn't just hop over once it appeared everyone was. Initially they were doing what they're doing now - supporting the old market leader under the assumption the status quo would remain. But they couldn't do what they wanted to do so they jumped ship. Final Fantasy VII at the very least is an example of Square switching hardware because they wanted a high level presentation. Had they "toughed it out" and compromised Final Fantasy VII so it could be on the N64 that would have changed everything.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on August 07, 2008, 06:22:35 PM
"Them switching over is what made the Playstation the market leader."
That's a nice myth.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 07, 2008, 06:28:18 PM
Square, as much as I dislike their "time-release" storylines, is generally known for pushing the graphical limits of whatever hardware they're on, regardless of whether or not there's "better" hardware out there. If they're bringing piles of games to the DS instead of the PSP, there's no argument for not bringing games to the Wii.
Something I need to ask: am I the only one who isn't impressed by "next-gen" graphics any more? The same washed-out look of these games with admittedly nice smoothing has just become commonplace for me and as a result nothing to get excited about.
It's the same reason "special" effects aren't special any more when George Lucas puts them in every single scene.
I agree with the graphics, I am VERY hard to impress now, the only way a company can do it is if they try something abstract like a Mario Galaxy or something that is not trying to be realistic. I HOPE Banjo Kazooie 3 turns out this way but I'm not holding my breath. There is one game coming out for 360 (Maybe the PS3 as well) that is called Tales of (Can't remember the full title!) that is using cell shading that looks just like a cartoon, now this game's visuals interest me. Realistic visuals pretty much fail to compare to a game like Crysis which is pretty amazing and even then they aren't "OMG mind blowing". I can go outside and see pretty trees, if possible I'd like my game to actually have a world that I truly cannot see in every day life. I guess that is why I found SMG far more stunning visually than most games out there, it did something very unique visually. Even Ratchet and Clank did this to a lesser extent.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NWR_pap64 on August 07, 2008, 08:18:03 PM
While this idea of mine generated when thinking of an ideal animated film I think this can also be applied to videogames.
In my opinion, reality should be presented in a way that looks familiar but is completely fictional, like a dream. Make your surroundings glow with color, life and charm. Even something as dark as a war torn world can dazzle if they handled the presentation well enough. In a way, it creates a believable reality.
I admit that as much as I thought Bioshock was a tad overrated it did to a great job of presenting a world that looked like our own, but was completely set in fiction.
To sum it up; creating realism often ends in unreality. Creating surreality makes things real.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 07, 2008, 08:23:50 PM
While this idea of mine generated when thinking of an ideal animated film I think this can also be applied to videogames.
In my opinion, reality should be presented in a way that looks familiar but is completely fictional, like a dream. Make your surroundings glow with color, life and charm. Even something as dark as a war torn world can dazzle if they handled the presentation well enough. In a way, it creates a believable reality.
I admit that as much as I thought Bioshock was a tad overrated it did to a great job of presenting a world that looked like our own, but was completely set in fiction.
To sum it up; creating realism often ends in unreality. Creating surreality makes things real.
That is a good pick for creating realism without being too realistic. Bioshock had a strange world we will never encounter yet it was familiar at the same time.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Adrock on August 07, 2008, 10:27:35 PM
Something I need to ask: am I the only one who isn't impressed by "next-gen" graphics any more?
No, you're not. I stopped caring about graphics after playing The Wind Waker. Gorgeous game, even by today's standards, but it plays like a refined Ocarina of Time with sailing.
Bad graphics is one thing, standard definition is another. If anyone other than Nintendo gave a damn, they could make some great looking games on the Wii. HD doesn't equal good graphics. There's plenty of ass looking 360 games. I've said this so many times, it's called art design. Developers need to figure out what that is and make some games that push people's imaginations.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Sarail on August 08, 2008, 01:41:43 AM
"Them switching over is what made the Playstation the market leader."
That's a nice myth.
But that's not a myth, Pro. That's the truth of the matter. Square got upset with Nintendo's decision to go with carts instead of CD as a medium, and because of it, Square jumped ship. Enix followed, and because of this, Sony claimed the throne of market leader in Japan. Its waves soon landed on American shores and took hold here, too.
If Nintendo would have gone with CDs for the N64... geez... I dunno.. we'd probably still be seeing Nintendo vs. Sega. o_O
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: KDR_11k on August 08, 2008, 03:42:19 AM
I think there's sales data showing it didn't happen like that, might be what Pro's talking about.
I'd say the only reason FF13 is on the PS3 is assumed market inertia (AKA "playstation will keep the top"), nothing else. I recall Sony fanboys claiming it needs bluray but that's apparently not the case.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on August 08, 2008, 05:41:23 AM
I really wish I could get inside some 3rd party software planners' heads. I feel like I'm getting a great mental workout just sitting down and thinking about why more 3rd party games aren't getting released/succeeding on the Wii. It's pretty easy to throw out lots of completely plausible theories, but I have a hunch it won't be clear for quite a while longer.
One issue I've noticed 3rd party guys raise since DKC came out is that it's really hard to compete with Nintendo's 1st (or 2nd, lol) party games on their own console. Nintendo is now making bank on excercise and fake dog games and if I were a 3rd party trying to sell to that demographic, I wouldn't even know where the **** to start. I'm sure the stockholders would rather see the company stick to business-as-usual so we get good quarterly numbers...
I have a hunch, though, if I could get my own company in good with Nintendo, like even get in a position to be 2nd party or partner and develop for them with some of their licenses attached (if they're still willing to do that stuff nowadays) and/or basically just become their bitch or whatever it takes to be a cog in their business plan, there'd be some good money to be had there.
The internet troll in me just wants to point at the shitbarn hardware and retarded casual games and jump up and down, but you can't argue with success. :(
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on August 08, 2008, 10:27:07 AM
Quote from: gamedaily.com
For as long as the Wii has been on the market, industry pundits and journalists have pointed to low software tie ratios and sluggish sales of third-party games on the platform. Nintendo is getting increasingly annoyed by this perception, however. With 19 third-party titles that have sold over 400K units in the U.S. and a few that have gone on to be blockbusters, such as Guitar Hero III and Mario & Sonic, Nintendo feels it's about time that people start thinking differently about how games sell on the Wii.
Speaking to GameDaily BIZ during E3, Nintendo of America's Vice President of Coporate Affairs, Denise Kaigler, commented, "There is an assumption out there that just simply isn't true... We're setting the record straight. This is fact," she said while pointing to a chart supplied to Nintendo by The NPD Group. "We are selling third-party games and they are doing very well, and better than our competitors." (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/CONFUZZLED_MUNKIE/nintendosalesassumptionchart.jpg)
In fact, according to the data in the chart, the Wii has sold more software (first-party and third-party combined) than either the Xbox 360 or the PlayStation 3 when looking at the first 19 months of availability in the U.S. for each platform.
Of course, given how well Nintendo's own titles tend to sell, the above chart is no doubt affected by the inclusion of first-party games. At the very least, however, it does show that a boatload of Wii games in general have been sold. We've contacted NPD and Nintendo to see if a chart that focuses only on third-party sales is available. We'll be sure to bring that to you if/when we receive it.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NWR_Lindy on August 08, 2008, 10:58:41 AM
Is there a comparable chart for third-party games only? I'd love to see that.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on August 08, 2008, 11:34:07 AM
The only 3rd party charts are from 2006/2007 that compared 1st to 3rd party sales.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on August 08, 2008, 12:24:54 PM
"It's pretty easy to throw out lots of completely plausible theories, but I have a hunch it won't be clear for quite a while longer."
I'm waiting for those instances where a company rep will admit what they did "wrong." Like how someone at Sega recently mentioned Sonic's ailing game quality, and how EA peeps talk about being surprised and then restructuring this and that.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Ian Sane on August 08, 2008, 12:49:13 PM
Quote
am I the only one who isn't impressed by "next-gen" graphics any more? The same washed-out look of these games with admittedly nice smoothing has just become commonplace for me and as a result nothing to get excited about.
I probably should have responded to this point earlier but missed it the first time. A lot of games don't really wow me too much in terms of graphics anymore but they still can if they're creative. Bioshock does wow me because it looks cool. A spooky underwater city? That's a cool setting and it makes the game stand out more. Call of Duty meanwhile does nothing for me because it's dull. It's just army stuff. Big deal.
Japanese games still wow me but I think a big part of that is I like the style. Namco, Capcom, Konami and Square Enix just have a style I like. North American third parties just don't have that.
The Wii however often has games that specifically unimpress me with their graphics. A lot of it looks like something that wouldn't even fly on the Cube. There's a real laziness to a lot of it.
Graphics will only get so good. If they looked like real life for example you could never top it. Nothing can look better than real life. I think what the PS3 and Xbox 360 can do is at a level where we really don't need to go much further. But I think that also creates a certain expectation of graphic quality. Frankly I think Resident Evil 4 or Twilight Princess should be the standard. We really shouldn't have anything below that anymore. But the Cube has tons of stuff like that. Stuff that would have been laughed at at the GAMECUBE LAUNCH. That's lazy and sloppy and we shouldn't put up with that.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on August 08, 2008, 05:16:17 PM
Quote from: Neogaf.com
Here is a breakdown for the first 18 months software units (US):
Wii - 50 million (not including Wii Sports) X360 - 28 million PS3 - 20 million PS2 - 42 million
First 18 months hardware units (US):
Wii - 9.5 million X360 - 5.2 million PS3 - 4.2 million PS2 - 8.5 million
Wii 3rd party software = 29.05 million X360 total software = 28 million PS3 total software = 20 million
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 08, 2008, 05:18:23 PM
Wow can't believe Wii is beating 360 and PS3 in 3rd party software sales. My guess is that they are spread out among many games instead of a few like 360 and PS3.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: DAaaMan64 on August 08, 2008, 05:19:12 PM
29.05 Million copies of Carnival Games
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on August 08, 2008, 05:50:43 PM
Wow can't believe Wii is beating 360 and PS3 in 3rd party software sales. My guess is that they are spread out among many games instead of a few like 360 and PS3.
Of course, Wii has the most diverse spread of software this generation as long as you don't count the DS.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on August 08, 2008, 07:03:53 PM
“The game has changed, … and the way the game is played has to be changed.” --Iwata
game = business
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NWR_Lindy on August 08, 2008, 10:07:06 PM
For example, if BioWare put out Mass Effect on Wii, I don't think it would even matter because nobody would buy it.
Looks like BioWare was listening to me.
http://ds.ign.com/articles/897/897443p1.html
Well Silks, I'm sure Microsoft wouldn't be pleased if Mass Effect lands on Wii or PS3 since Mass Effect did start off as a Microsoft published game so it will likely stay on the 360 and PC. The DS is neutral territory because a bunch of Microsoft properties were released on the GBA and DS such as Banjo, It's Mr Pants, Saberwulf, Age of Empires, Mech Assault, Viva Pinata. DS doesn't directly compete with the 360 and it still gives Microsoft some profit margin and can indirectly stick it to Sony's PSP.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NWR_Lindy on August 08, 2008, 10:46:03 PM
hahaha. Just stirring up the hornet's nest.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Bill Aurion on August 08, 2008, 10:47:23 PM
More like you're the hornet buzzing around our heads... >=/
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: NWR_insanolord on August 08, 2008, 10:57:41 PM
Mass Effect coming to the DS? It's happening again, my reasons for buying a 360 are disappearing.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on August 09, 2008, 09:57:02 AM
Quote from: gamedaily.com
We recently posted a story discussing the state of third-party software sales on Wii, which included a chart from Nintendo that inconveniently also lumped in first-party sales. Well, now we've obtained the proper third-party only sales chart (see below), which does bear out what Nintendo of America has been telling us all along: games from third parties are selling on the Wii.
In fact, when GameDaily BIZ contacted The NPD Group for more data, we discovered that for the first 20 months on the market for each console the Wii comparatively sold several million more units of third-party software in the U.S. than either the Xbox 360 or PS3. More specifically, the Wii sold 33 million units of third-party software in its first 20 months, while the Xbox 360 sold 29 million units and the PS3 sold 20 million units.
"I actually think that given the number of comments made from industry executives at E3 (or thereabouts) about how they didn't put enough resources against development of Wii games that the industry has realized that the old adage of 'only first-party games sell on Nintendo systems' is absolutely incorrect. I think you're right that the data will cause a few eyebrows to lift," NPD industry analyst Anita Frazier commented.
So where does the perception that third-party games don't sell on Wii come from? Most likely it stems from the respective sales ratios for the three consoles. While third-party software sales comprise well over 80 percent of total game sales on both the Xbox 360 and PS3, on the Wii that number dips all the way down to 56 percent. On the whole, however, because total Wii software sales are so high, even 50-something percent of a huge chunk yields a larger total for third-party sales. But there's still no doubt that Nintendo's incredible first-party success leaves a smaller part of the Wii software market for third parties to fight over. The key, however, as Nintendo has said, is to expand that market so all can benefit. So far, so good.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Ceric on August 09, 2008, 11:04:26 AM
The Wii third party sales seem spikey on that chart.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on August 09, 2008, 11:13:39 AM
* Wii: 60 million software units total, 56% are third-party units or 33 million (Nov. '06 through June '08) * Xbox 360: 35 million software units, 84% third-party or 29 million (Nov. '05 through June '07) * PS3: 25 million software units, 82% third-party or 20 million (Nov. '06 through June '08)
That's the numbers. Well 3rd parties did spike because the summer was relatively slow but then Guitar Hero 3 came in and stormed, after November a lot of Wii versions of Multiplatform games took were top sellers.
And those numbers also prove that Nintendo can survive if 3rd party interests were low on the Wii while the 360 and PS3 relies on 3rd party sales to stay afloat. While Nintendo is a strong first party, 3rd parties on the Wii still has a big chunk of cumulative software sales so there is still a healthy balance between Nintendo vs 3rd party sales.
As of now the chart is a little inconclusive considering that the 360 sales chart depicted doesn't extend to June of 2008 since the point of the chart is to compare the first 20 months of each console's life cycle.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: Ceric on August 09, 2008, 12:12:29 PM
Though the sales numbers and the N64 and Cube lifetimes already established that Nintendo could hold there own. From Nintendo's perspective 56% is a great ratio but I think as a platform as a whole I believe 75% probably be better. That would allow for a few more big players. Now on the flipside the user base is so much larger then the others that by units sold its sort of a moot point.
Title: Re: Theory about third party support
Post by: DAaaMan64 on August 09, 2008, 12:30:18 PM
Though the sales numbers and the N64 and Cube lifetimes already established that Nintendo could hold there own. From Nintendo's perspective 56% is a great ratio but I think as a platform as a whole I believe 75% probably be better. That would allow for a few more big players. Now on the flipside the user base is so much larger then the others that by units sold its sort of a moot point.
Considering the garbage most third parties throw at the system it's really no surprise.
