Post by: Crave on January 29, 2007, 01:35:34 PM
All opinion's happily accepted.
-Crave
Post by: NeoThunder on January 29, 2007, 01:40:49 PM
Post by: NWR_pap64 on January 29, 2007, 01:41:44 PM
Second, I think you are demanding too much out of a system that was just released. Of course the games will feel like GC games, ALL consoles suffer from the same thing. Many of the PS2 games were initially PSone titles and even Sega DC ports.
History has stated that the games that are created from the ground up for the system appear a year after launch.
So give the Wii a break and enjoy what you have, rather than trying to wish it was better.
Post by: Chiller on January 29, 2007, 02:02:03 PM
Post by: Edfishy on January 29, 2007, 02:28:42 PM
Loading times are also much faster than I'd expect on the Xbox.
Post by: segagamer12 on January 29, 2007, 02:39:36 PM
I was disapointed at first but after pl;aying 360 a lot and going back to Wii I am not seeing the difference as that big anymore. I think Wii holds its own compared to regular xbox and can put up a good fight agianst the 360, but I hope the good looking games come out sooner rather than latter. MP3 is suppsoed to look great so thats going to be the deciding factor I think for most people.
Post by: son of lucas on January 29, 2007, 03:12:38 PM
Post by: IceCold on January 29, 2007, 03:47:34 PM
Post by: nickmitch on January 29, 2007, 04:31:30 PM
Post by: TrueNerd on January 29, 2007, 05:16:05 PM
Post by: jasonditz on January 29, 2007, 05:17:51 PM
Post by: Smoke39 on January 29, 2007, 05:20:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: TVman
Shouldn't that say "than" and not "then"?
Yes.
Post by: Kairon on January 29, 2007, 05:45:18 PM
Personally, I am very, very forgiving of bad graphics (I enjoyed playing Far Cry, for example), but hopefully you'll see some stuff more representative of the Wii's early-life capabilities when more developed-from-ground-up-for-Wii-premiere-titles come out, like Metroid Prime 3 or Mario Galaxies. The tricky thing about Nintendo systems these last couple of Gens is that third parties seem very lazy with pushing the tech, very few of them did it last time around, so you generally look at first or second party efforts for technical excellence.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: ShyGuy on January 29, 2007, 06:03:21 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on January 29, 2007, 07:22:22 PM
Post by: Adrock on January 29, 2007, 07:26:32 PM
And once again, a game's graphics rely highly on art design.
Post by: Koekoenutt on January 29, 2007, 07:55:26 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on January 29, 2007, 08:08:38 PM
There's only so much resources for managing the available features. If all the features were active at the same time, something's going to be spread thin, cuz some feature is bound to bottleneck everything else. Look at how StarFox Adventures tried to pack all kinds of shiny details into a scene, causing the framerate to fail its 60fps glory. Then see how Metroid Prime handles lots of things quite smoothly, while mainly sacrificing texture detail and other bumps -- more importantly, Metroid Prime chose to maximize performance in specific areas for better all-around performance while StarFox did NOT, causing it to fall into the pit of "hmm that's too bad, not as hot as we thought." It's an engineering decision (for the sake of performance) that throws more weight/dependence on the art direction to provide some extra visual pizazz.
Consider Xbox, and it's multitude of bump-heavy, shadow-heavy games. The vast majority of them were limited to 30fps, telling us we couldn't have ugly-black-shadows AND silky smooth 60fps framerates. Developers obviously chose to prioritize some visual features over others.
Post by: denjet78 on January 29, 2007, 08:38:27 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
These "didn't push the GC to its limits" ideas are crap. If a game like Metroid Prime 2 or RE4 can cause a moment of framerate stutter on GC, it's obviously being pushed to some kind of limit, and obviously can't handle the extra demand that's being thrown at it.
There's only so much resources for managing the available features. If all the features were active at the same time, something's going to be spread thin, cuz some feature is bound to bottleneck everything else. Look at how StarFox Adventures tried to pack all kinds of shiny details into a scene, causing the framerate to fail its 60fps glory. Then see how Metroid Prime handles lots of things quite smoothly, while mainly sacrificing texture detail and other bumps -- more importantly, Metroid Prime chose to maximize performance in specific areas for better all-around performance while StarFox did NOT, causing it to fall into the pit of "hmm that's too bad, not as hot as we thought." It's an engineering decision (for the sake of performance) that throws more weight/dependence on the art direction to provide some extra visual pizazz.
Consider Xbox, and it's multitude of bump-heavy, shadow-heavy games. The vast majority of them were limited to 30fps, telling us we couldn't have ugly-black-shadows AND silky smooth 60fps framerates. Developers obviously chose to prioritize some visual features over others.
I really wish more developers would prioritize the important stuff first, like a solid framerate. I don't understand how there can still be games that are unable to run at 60fps. By this point ALL games should run at 60fps by default. Anything slower is just unacceptable.
Post by: Kairon on January 29, 2007, 08:46:05 PM
But games like F-Zero X... now THAT needs 60 FPS! BRING IT ON BABY! BRING IT OOOOOOON!
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: denjet78 on January 29, 2007, 09:55:45 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Bah. Only fighters and racers should do 60 fps. All other games are just dandy at 30 fps if you ask me, and can lay on the other effects. Slower paced games (action adventures, action titles, platformers, etc.) benefit far more from atmospheric effects than twitch games.
But games like F-Zero X... now THAT needs 60 FPS! BRING IT ON BABY! BRING IT OOOOOOON!
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Progressive scan needs 60 though or really you're just wasting it.
The thing is, progressive scan still isn't even standard but we've got certain companies trying to jump the gun into the hi-def era. If companies can't even master technology from the analogue era when can we possibly expect them to actually be able to do hi-def right?
Post by: bustin98 on January 30, 2007, 02:36:26 AM
Ok, technically speaking, if a game is not optimized, it is pushing the system to its limits in its own way. But its better to have a polished game push the limits rather than a crap game impose its own limits.
Post by: Extra Terrestrial on January 30, 2007, 02:57:03 AM
We all knew that Nintendo were going to give the graphics department a back-step by offering us to what the GameCube produced but over time we will eventually be able to see the gap between your average (or high quality) GameCube games in terms of graphics to what the Wii can offer in the not too distance future.
At the moment, most developers (especially Ubisoft) are being very lazy and putting less than inspiring ports on the shop shelves so we shouldn't haste to say that the Wii is merely offering GameCube terms in the graphics department when Zelda: Twilight Princess looks wonderful although you could argue that it is the art direction that makes it more appreciative to look (and play).
It has been nearly two months since the Wii was released so I wouldn't worry about the disappointing effort(s) that shows average GameCube standard graphics so far as by the end of the year, we should hopefully enjoy games that are both enjoyable to watch and play.
Post by: Pittbboi on January 30, 2007, 04:27:01 AM
Then again, this could all be Nintendo's fault. It is my personal belief that the reason we're not seeing a lot of new projects being announced for the Wii yet, or any games that seem to be pushing the envelope (with the graphics OR the controls), is because Nintendo waited until the absolute last minute to reveal any details of the Wii to developers and get out dev kits so they could start creating. Remember, with the exception of a few key people, developers were finding out about the Wii's features just as the public was, and MOST didn't get their dev kits until just a few months before launch. Everyone was wondering what the hold up was. If any developer wanted to take initiative in developing a game for the Wii (and not many did, looking back at the failures of Nintendo's previous two consoles), they had to use Gamecube dev kits. In that kind of environment it makes perfect sense that we're not going to see games moving out of Gamecube and into Wii territory anytime soon. I honestly don't see that happening until late next year.
I know Nintendo wanted to keep a tight lid on the Revolution to keep Sony from finding out through a developer and stealing their ideas (again). But I honestly think it would have been worth the risk if it meant getting developers up and creating Wii games a lot sooner than this.
Post by: Plugabugz on January 30, 2007, 04:35:08 AM
Post by: segagamer12 on January 30, 2007, 05:19:10 AM
Back to GFX, Its hard for me to take a side on this, I play a lot of 360 at my friends house and the games we play look great, then I play Wii at home and the best looking game I have looks BETTER on 360. I KNOW we can't expect the games to look that good as even Nintendo told us not to, yet it is still somewhat disapointing considering Nintendo has always pushed thier sysetsma nd most 3rd parties ususaly do too, until GC flopped. Early GC stuff looked fantastic, latter GC stuff looked just barely accaptable. When i got the GC it had plenty og games that wowed and amazed and looke dbetter than ps2,. then theys topped coming shortly after I got it until RE4.
Its not that i want game to look as good as 360, that wont ever happen, but I DO want games to look BETTER than regular Xbox and by default GC. MP3 should be the start but I fully expect Smash Bros to be the game that swayes people on way or the other as it seams to be getting the longest dev time so has no excuse if it looks bad.
Post by: Smash_Brother on January 30, 2007, 05:29:01 AM
For all intents and purposes, Crave is trolling.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on January 30, 2007, 05:34:58 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
Wait until MP3 launches before we say anything about graphics: that will be the first game built from the ground up on Wii hardware which is specifically designed to take advantage of its graphical potential.
For all intents and purposes, Crave is trolling.
That sounds like a confirmation the game was delayed and graphically overhauled to pull it away from its original launch title limitations.
Post by: Smash_Brother on January 30, 2007, 05:54:40 AM
For one, there were other FPS offerings by 3rd parties at launch which Nintendo didn't want to squash, but beyond that, the Wii didn't need MP3 to sell initial launch Wiis as badly as it needs it to maintain a consistent software release schedule.
But yeah, I'm sure the added polish to the game will make it that much better, not only in the graphical department, but I've been hearing that they're keeping the multiplayer mode tightly under wraps. I'm not one to be optimistic, but I don't think they'd be doing such a thing unless they had something decent planned for multiplayer.
Post by: Ceric on January 30, 2007, 06:26:01 AM
On MP3, I'm hoping there using the time to up the graphics, significantly up the sound presence (it seems to always be about graphics when the sound effects and music contribute so much more to the atmosphere), and forget about Multiplayer unless its a weird form of multi-bounty hunter coop. (There are more bounty hunters then Samus so why not have a Coop where your versus each other but grudgingly have to help.) The coop be online and there be updateable contents.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on January 30, 2007, 06:28:30 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
Sure, the big Nintendo franchises are all set to look good (I won't say great yet, nothing I've seen of Nintendo's upcoming titles look like they couldn't have been done on the Cube),
.
I'm sorry but I don't see Mario Galaxy being done on the cube. When some of the boss battles resemble CGI and yet maintain 60 fps, there is no chance you could see that done with the GC.
Post by: Hocotate on January 30, 2007, 06:44:53 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
it's that we have no proof that we're ever going to see titles that look better than what the Gamecube did. No announcements, no screen shots, nothing.
So the Wii will never surpass the GCN graphically you say?.... lol are you serious?
Post by: Pittbboi on January 30, 2007, 06:58:41 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: HocotateQuote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
it's that we have no proof that we're ever going to see titles that look better than what the Gamecube did. No announcements, no screen shots, nothing.
So the Wii will never surpass the GCN graphically you say?.... lol are you serious?
lol can you read?
That's not what I said at all. Way to take one sentence out of my three paragraph post completely out of context.
Post by: Kairon on January 30, 2007, 07:22:10 AM
Anyways, the Wii's got more important things to do. It's practically guaranteed that Wii games will look better than GC games, but that'll come in time, and at first be mostly Nintendo published titles.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Ian Sane on January 30, 2007, 07:24:19 AM
Super Mario World, F-Zero and Pilotwings looked way better than any NES game.
Super Mario 64 sure as hell didn't look like anything on the SNES. It was a little blocky looking but at the time it looked way better than anything else.
Rogue Leader and SSBM are two of the best looking Cube games ever made and both came out within the first few months of the Cube's life.
Crappy looking launch games are a Playstation trademark. Nintendo consoles usually have a few launch titles (often first party) that just blow the sh!t out of everything else. It is odd for most Wii games to look no better than last gen graphics. But then it's odd for Nintendo to not offer a significant hardware upgrade in the first place.
Post by: Pale on January 30, 2007, 07:29:04 AM
Post by: Kairon on January 30, 2007, 07:29:34 AM
Come to think of it, what IS EAD up to? Nintendo's traditional powerhouse developer and dynamite launch game developer was almost completely absent from launch except for the GC port and Wii Sports/Play.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on January 30, 2007, 08:22:43 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
For those saying launch titles usually don't look so hot I'll point out that there isn't really any precedence for that
Seems like someone never seen the majority of Xbox 360's games at launch. Let's face it we are starting to see graphical jumps diminishing now, the last big leap was from N64 to GC (which was quite major) and I doubt we'll see a jump like that anytime in the near future. In addition to that, Wii isn't that much powerful than GC so it is alittle harder to get "good" graphics out of it, especially for 3rd parties who didn't develop much for GC.
Post by: Hocotate on January 30, 2007, 11:23:22 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
That's not what I said at all. Way to take one sentence out of my three paragraph post completely out of context.
I do not think it was taken out of context, read your post again. You are saying EVERYTHING that has been shown could run on the Gamecube and that there is no proof that things will ever get better. It is inevitable that the graphics will look better as games are going to be developed from the ground up on Wii. Just because they didn't show screens of FFXII at the PS2 launch didn't mean it wasn't capable of such things.
Quote
I know Nintendo wanted to keep a tight lid on the Revolution to keep Sony from finding out through a developer and stealing their ideas (again). But I honestly think it would have been worth the risk if it meant getting developers up and creating Wii games a lot sooner than this.
Considring that even wilth Nintendo waiting as long as they did to announce the controller, and that Sony still tried to rip it off at the last minute leads me to believe that Nintendo made a smart move on holding back information. Showing everything at E3 05 would have given Sony enough time to make their motion controls a lot better.
Post by: Pittbboi on January 30, 2007, 12:04:23 PM
Yes, that is what I said, and I stick by that. Nothing we have seen so far or that has been announced looks like it couldn't have been done on the Cube. With the exception of Mario Galaxy maybe, I've seen a few vids since this morning and I'll admit the game looks better than I've given it credit for, but I'm still not altogether convinced. But if you keep reading my next paragraph explains why I think that is and when I think that'll change:
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
Then again, this could all be Nintendo's fault. It is my personal belief that the reason we're not seeing a lot of new projects being announced for the Wii yet, or any games that seem to be pushing the envelope (with the graphics OR the controls), is because Nintendo waited until the absolute last minute to reveal any details of the Wii to developers and get out dev kits so they could start creating. Remember, with the exception of a few key people, developers were finding out about the Wii's features just as the public was, and MOST didn't get their dev kits until just a few months before launch. Everyone was wondering what the hold up was. If any developer wanted to take initiative in developing a game for the Wii (and not many did, looking back at the failures of Nintendo's previous two consoles), they had to use Gamecube dev kits. In that kind of environment it makes perfect sense that we're not going to see games moving out of Gamecube and into Wii territory anytime soon. I honestly don't see that happening until late next year.
The Wii never displaying graphics better than the Gamecube was never the point of my entire post. I wrote that simply because that's, by and large, the impression we're getting now, and that's probably because most developers really weren't given the time to create both beautiful and innovative games. There's a lot of things in the works for the Wii, but thanks to Nintendo sitting on dev kits until the last minute, a lot of that stuff isn't even in the stages where it can be revealed. And that's not exactly a good position for Nintendo to be in right now. When the PS2 first launched, it didn't really have many titles that displayed what the console was capable of, either. However, they had announcements, screenshots, and tentative release dates for games that were definitely beatuiful to look at and truly pushing us into the next generation of gaming, and that helped maintain interest in the console. You knew better was coming. Same with the Xbox360. However, the Wii doesn't really have that outside of it's first party offerings (and even those are appealing mainly to Nintendo fans only), and when the initial WiiSports craze eventually dies down and it's up to gamers to carry the console, the Wii might find itself having very little to keep interest piqued.
Fortunately for Nintendo, when the initial launch mania finally dies down we'll have hit the GDC (and maybe even E3), so Nintendo and third parties will have plenty of opportunity to release game info that'll keep us salivating. They just better deliver.
Quote
Showing everything at E3 05 would have given Sony enough time to make their motion controls a lot better.
I agree with that. But Nintendo definitely should have risked keeping developers themselves a little more in the know. They didn't have to reveal everything at an E3-like event. However, at the same time there were too many developers at E3 saying "yeah, this is the first time we've heard about this" or "Nope, we still don't have dev kits". Nintendo can definitely take a page from Microsoft's book when it comes to kissing developer butt.
Post by: Hocotate on January 31, 2007, 11:39:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
Again, reading is fundamental.
Pfft, your post is full of contradictions; learn how to convey your thoughts properly.
Quote
For me it's not that we're not seeing that new gen style now, it's that we have no proof that we're ever going to see titles that look better than what the Gamecube did. No announcements, no screen shots, nothing.
Quote
I wrote that simply because that's, by and large, the impression we're getting now
Didn't you just say "it's not that we're not seeing that new style now?" please. Also, if you meant now then you should have said that instead of ever.... then again you just said it wasn't about now, then you turn around and say it is so whatever...
Quote
When the PS2 first launched, it didn't really have many titles that displayed what the console was capable of, either. However, they had announcements, screenshots, and tentative release dates for games that were definitely beatuiful to look at and truly pushing us into the next generation of gaming
This isn't 1999 anymore, the jump in visuals isn't very big this gen at all, even the PS3 and 360's best offerings aren't that impressive. Also, you are forgetting the Wii is not all about graphics, The systems has completely taken a dump on the PS3 and is closing in on the 360 with its last gen graphics anyway.
Quote
You knew better was coming. Same with the Xbox360. However, the Wii doesn't really have that outside of it's first party offerings (and even those are appealing mainly to Nintendo fans only)
Wrong. Just take a look at the DS, it has been a completely dominate beast on pretty much Nintendo titles alone. 3rd parts support is just now starting to come around. Nintendo has proven they can pretty much carry the system on their own. Don't try to tell me "But the DS and Wii are completely different!" because from where I'm standing things are looking pretty darn similar.
Quote
and when the initial WiiSports craze eventually dies down and it's up to gamers to carry the console, the Wii might find itself having very little to keep interest piqued.
Nope, wrong again. Non-gamer games like Wii health pack, Brain Training, Wii Music, etc will carry the craze on. Wii sports and Wii play have been in the top ten since their debut and are showing no signs of leaving anytime soon. The Wii is like the DS all over again.
Post by: Kairon on January 31, 2007, 11:41:25 AM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Pittbboi on January 31, 2007, 01:08:22 PM
Quote
Pfft, your post is full of contradictions; learn how to convey your thoughts properly.
Ugh, I swear you're going to give me a caffeine headache. I absolutely refuse to debate semantics here. Read my post a little more carefully, there are several key words that are conveniently missing from your quotes of me.
How I convey my thoughts aside, the point is clear: from the current standpoint, it doesn't seem as though the Wii has anything in the pipeline that could compete with the big titles that Xbox360 and even the PS3 have coming. None of the game released now, or announced have generated the sort of hype those games are. And that needs to change.
Quote
This isn't 1999 anymore, the jump in visuals isn't very big this gen at all, even the PS3 and 360's best offerings aren't that impressive. Also, you are forgetting the Wii is not all about graphics, The systems has completely taken a dump on the PS3 and is closing in on the 360 with its last gen graphics anyway.
Yeah yeah, the Wii is really successful right now. Though I agree that that's nothing to scoff at, the argument is being done to death. Wii is running off the success of WiiSports the heaps of good press it has received in its initial stages, nobody can deny that. But I think Nintendo fans are claiming victory a little too early, especially against the PS3. While the future of Wii gaming is largely still a mystery outside of Nintendo 1st party games, both the Xbox360 and PS3 have MAJOR titles on the horizon that are guaranteed to be both fun and stunning to look at. Games like Bioshock and FFXIII and Metal Gear Solid 4 are set to show the world what the new generation of gaming is really about, and if you think the sales of the PS3 aren't going to significantly increase by the time those games come out you've got another thing coming. WiiPlay cannot hope to compete with that. Don't get me wrong, I WANT the Wii to succeed and continue crapping all over the PS3 (it is my console of choice and all), but if the Wii doesn't get any major third party games AT LEAST announced for it before Xbox360 and PS3 pull out their big guns, then I really fear for it's longevity. Non-games won't save it forever, especially when Nintendo's courting a market as fickle as the pop-culture crowd.
Quote
Wrong. Just take a look at the DS, it has been a completely dominate beast on pretty much Nintendo titles alone. 3rd parts support is just now starting to come around. Nintendo has proven they can pretty much carry the system on their own. Don't try to tell me "But the DS and Wii are completely different!" because from where I'm standing things are looking pretty darn similar.
You're not going to like this, but the DS and Wii are completely different! Like it or not what works for a portable might not work for a home console. What worked for the successor to the market leader might not work for the underdog. Nintendo 1st party games can sell a handheld; they proved that with every other Nintendo handheld, ever. Nintendo 1st party games cannot keep a console afloat (at least in the American market); they proved that with the N64 and Gamecube. WiiSports had the advantage here because Nintendo included it with the console, but to assume that WiiSports and WiiSports-like games are going to carry the console throughout this entire gen is ludicrous.
Quote
Nope, wrong again. Non-gamer games like Wii health pack, Brain Training, Wii Music, etc will carry the craze on. Wii sports and Wii play have been in the top ten since their debut and are showing no signs of leaving anytime soon. The Wii is like the DS all over again.
Ummm, I think it's best to not include Wii health pack until we know what the game is, and what its real title is.
I honestly don't think Brain Training for Wii will be as big a success as on the DS. A MAJOR part of its appeal is its portability. WiiPlay will sell more wiimotes, not consoles. Wii Music is not even announced for the States yet.
I think it's cool that Nintendo is bringing in non-gamers, but they're going to have to focus on gamers soon. Non-gamers may account for sheer numbers, but they're non-gamers for a reason. It'll always be gamers that shape the industry and push it forward.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on January 31, 2007, 01:29:35 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
Games like Bioshock and FFXIII and Metal Gear Solid 4 are set to show the world what the new generation of gaming is really about, and if you think the sales of the PS3 aren't going to significantly increase by the time those games come out you've got another thing coming.
I'm not sure you can state anything about how those games are going to show what the new generation of gaming is all about, they could be overrated along with being multiplatform when it is all said and done. Besides Bioshock is already coming out for the PC which has had the "new" generation of gaming for some time now.
IN response to some of your other things, the Wii is a whole different animal, it is a system that will and IS attracting a gaming market that had barely been tapped with PS3 and Xbox 360. I'm personally going ignore you using Wiiplay for your straw man argument for "competition" because Wiiplay is not a "big" title of any kind and is basically a low budget collection of games. INstead let's use titles like Brain Age, Mario Party 8, Wii music and others. These games will help establish the Wii even more because they are attracting people who are scared away from Xbox 360 and PS3, so I'd say they'd stand up pretty well against games like Halo, MGS and FF because they are attracting a larger userbase.
Post by: Kairon on January 31, 2007, 01:48:11 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
I think it's cool that Nintendo is bringing in non-gamers, but they're going to have to focus on gamers soon. Non-gamers may account for sheer numbers, but they're non-gamers for a reason. It'll always be gamers that shape the industry and push it forward.
I think you're patently wrong there Pittboi.
Non-gamers are called non-gamers because they don't share traditional core beliefs. They're not called that because they're poor.
I think you're vastly underestimating the spending power of non-gamers, and vastly underestimating blue ocean and long tail strategies. Non-gamers drink Star Bucks, use Netflix, and buy cellphones.
AND, non-gamers on the Wii are buying both Wii Sports and, to a lesser extent, Wii Play to the tune of 70-90 percent attach rates in Japan. I'll also point out the amazing and consistent sales of Nintendogs and Brain Age, and even though these titles are on the DS they are valid examples: they prove that non-gamers have purchasing power to rival conventional wisdom if only games and hardware come along that appeal to them. The Wii won't have a version of Brain Age that'll sell it, no one's saying that, but each cry of "Nintendogs" is a metaphorical cry for the successor to Wii Sports, the next in a string of non-traditional, non-gaming, blockbuster market-expanding hits that spurs on explosive hardware penetration.
Your stand that it will always be hardcore gamers who push the industry forward is the sort of marginalizing view that Microsoft and Sony take, and that Nintendo is fighting against. The industry is pushed forward by new ways to deliver entertainment: new ways to deliver fun. And as long as you're limiting your conception of "fun," you're crippling yourself.
"FUN" isn't owned by the 18-30 year old set, it belongs to everybody. The internet doesn't belong to the RSS geek, but to the Myspace user. And today's visual mediums aren't being changed by blockbuster movies, but instead by YouTube. And rest assured, the killer app for e-mail wasn't called 100 GBs of storage space, but "Grandma."
Traditional gamers are just one facet of the expanding videogame market, and they don't own it, or its future. The future of videogames will be owned by whomever can deliver the most "fun" to the most people, non- or otherwise, in the best possible way.
I AM concerned about the lack of epic titles on the order of a God of War 2 (is God of War the new Halo???) in the Nintendo Wii's horizon... But I am MORE concerned about when the next packet of mass-market fun is coming. Nintendo's future hinges indescribably more on how Wii Music performs than on how good Disaster: Day of Crisis turns out.
Besides, it was non-gamers who saved the industry back in '84. Before the crash, videogames had always been marketted more towards an adult crowd. Kids... were the non-gamers of the 80's.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: ViewtifulJoe on January 31, 2007, 02:52:30 PM
Post by: Pittbboi on January 31, 2007, 06:02:09 PM
I wasn't disregarding the power of the non-gamer. But I think that, lately, in Nintendo's quest to recognize their blue-ocean strategy and harness the power of the non-gamer they're slowly turning a blind eye to the gamer. And it's been said to death, but it's still relevant: The Playstation 2, the greatest selling console of all time--didn't churn out over 100 million units appealing to the non-gamer.
Non-gamers aren't poor, but one thing that I think a lot of people aren't considering is the possibility that non-gamers may not be as loyal. Nintendo is striving to make their console the current craze amongst the pop culture crowd, but they're playing with fire: the current craze can quickly turn into last month's fad. You're right, non-gamers drink starbucks, use netflix and buy cellphones; but they also drink Caribou, and rent using blockbuster online. One day they want the Razr, then the Krzr, then the Chocolate. One minute crunk music is the sh*t, the next it's played out. One year pink is the new black; the next year black is the new pink. My 6th grade year yoyo's were the thing to have; 7th grade it was all about scooters; 8th grade pokemon took the US by storm.
The type of non-gamers that Nintendo may be attracting may be the kind drawn to it because it is this season's big thing. I know so many non-gamers who want or have the Wii for WiiSports...and nothing else. Don't expect non-gamers to suddenly transform into "gamers" and continuously support the industry because they bought the console for a game that just happened to come with it, and I honestly don't see any of the future non-gamer games like Wii Play and ESPECIALLY Wii Music making as big a splash here in the states as Wii Sports did for the simple fact that they're not launching with the most anticipated console of the year.
Non-gamers will buy something because it's cool--like Halo or Madden or Grand Theft Auto or Wii Sports, and then move on when something else gets the spotlight. A gamer will stay with the console, play the game and then buy more. A gamer will support the industry with more than just their money. A gamer will grow up to become the next Miyamoto or Will Wright. In that sense it'll always be gamers who shape the industry and move it forward.
As for the Japan factor, I've always wondered...for so long Japan has been the center for gaming. The leader of the industry. Gaming there is more infused into the everyday culture than almost anywhere else. This is the country that actually has a law stating that Dragon Quest can't be launched on certain days due to fear that the country would almost literally shut down. It's not out of the question to say that, in Japan, gaming means something almost completely different than what we in the west consider it. With that in mind, one must wonder: does the Japanese non-gamer exist in the same way the American non-gamer does? I'm not qualified to answer the question with authority, but my gut feeling says no. Wii Sports didn't have to be packaged with the system in order for it to catch on there. However, most people are almost certain that both the Wii and Wii Sports would not have caught on as strongly here in the States had they not been packaged together.
I dunno, something to think about.
Post by: IceCold on January 31, 2007, 06:11:11 PM
QuoteWell. Zelda had and is still maintaining a tie-in ratio of nearly 80%, and the overall software attach rate for the Wii so far is very healthy. Obviously Nintendo has attracted non-gamers, and from the looks of it, they're buying other games as well.
The type of non-gamers that Nintendo may be attracting may be the kind drawn to it because it is this season's big thing. I know so many non-gamers who want or have the Wii for WiiSports...and nothing else. Don't expect non-gamers to suddenly transform into "gamers" and continuously support the industry because they bought the console for a game that just happened to come with it,
Post by: Pittbboi on January 31, 2007, 06:24:55 PM
Where are you getting that from? Because I'm seeing something a little closer to 60%.
Anyway, even still I'm not really surprised. Even for a person buying the console just for Wii Sports, I'd expect a lot of non-gamers to want to walk out of the store with at least one game purchase and, if there had to be one....
I don't see this translating into longevity...
Post by: denjet78 on January 31, 2007, 08:22:28 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
"Well. Zelda had and is still maintaining a tie-in ratio of nearly 80%"
Where are you getting that from? Because I'm seeing something a little closer to 60%.
Anyway, even still I'm not really surprised. Even for a person buying the console just for Wii Sports, I'd expect a lot of non-gamers to want to walk out of the store with at least one game purchase and, if there had to be one....
I don't see this translating into longevity...
Dude! Get over yourself! You sound like Ian for gods sake! All of your moaning, complaining and posturing isn't getting you anywhere and if you actually think for a second that games like Bio-whatever and MGS4 are the future of gaming, then I'm sorry to have to inform you but you have no imagination. They're just the same games over and over again just gussied up. That is not the future, that is the past. You can live there if you want but I'm sick and tired of it.
Twilight Princess is an incredible game. It's lush, beautiful and incredibly epic. But, in the end, it's still just Zelda. The same Zelda we've been playing since the N64. A fresh coat of paint and some new ideas can keep it interesting but it will never be NEW again. I love Zelda as much as the next person but I can only play what is fundamentally the same game over and over again so many times. Just like when 3D revolutionized gaming we need something new again. We can't just keep going forward letting graphics carry the entire brunt of game evolution. I don't know if the Wii is what we need, I don't think anyone can really say that. But at least it's new, it's different, and it's TRYING, which is a lot more than I can say for the PS3 or the XBox 360.
If you still think that remakes and rehashes are the future then I guess nothing anyone can say will ever change your mind. But that's okay, most people are afraid of change. Hopefully you'll outgrow it before you allow your fear to destroy something you could potentially love just because it's different.
Post by: Mario on January 31, 2007, 10:27:09 PM
Quote
While the future of Wii gaming is largely still a mystery outside of Nintendo 1st party games, both the Xbox360 and PS3 have MAJOR titles on the horizon that are guaranteed to be both fun and stunning to look at.
While the future of PS3 and X360 gaming is still a mystery outside of Halo 3, MGS4 and FFXIII, the Wii has MAJOR titles on the horizon that are guaranteed to be both fun and stunning to look at.
Post by: Pittbboi on February 01, 2007, 03:28:40 AM
Quote
If you still think that remakes and rehashes are the future then I guess nothing anyone can say will ever change your mind. But that's okay, most people are afraid of change. Hopefully you'll outgrow it before you allow your fear to destroy something you could potentially love just because it's different.
And if you think the gaming public as a whole it going to go "Metal Gear?? Final Fantasy?? I don't want that! It's not the future! Give me MARIO! Give me Wii Music! THAT'S the future!" Then you're just kidding yourself. Nintendo may be the great innovator, but if you think that so far it's done enough to render those two games I just mentioned obsolete then you're so far up Nintendo's a** and so removed from the actual state of gaming nothing I could say could change your mind.
I don't think those games are the future, far from it. However, those games are tried and true classics that are guaranteed to sell BIG. They're guaranteed to innovate, be fun, AND be great looking games (most likely the best looking when released). I love Nintendo, and I'm more in line with their gaming philosophy than with anyone else's. But I am not blind enough to think that just because they created a radical new controller to realize their vision that theirs is the only console on which innovation can happen this gen. And they have to be ready for that.
You think Nintendo isn't releasing the same game over and over? How's Nintendo INNOVATING by releasing compilations of mini-games back to back? How's Nintendo innovating by once again relying on their classic mascots to sell their consoles? How's Nintendo innovating with a controller that so far hasn't delivered on that promise it made back when it was unveiled? I DO believe that Nintendo is closer to what the future of gaming should be than Sony or MS, but no way can you possibly think it's there yet. None of these games truly show us what the future of gaming is or what the future of the Wii is. We're still getting wonky, debatable gesture control and graphics not removed from last gen. And there are still important genres that the controller hasn't proven itself with yet.
Where are those games that look great AND are doing amazing and truly revolutionary things with a controller that is very much capable (instead of just replacing "press ABBA" with "draw a heart")? Nintendo can't compete with the graphics of the other consoles, that's been established. But the ace up its sleeve is the promise of new and different gaming experiences that change the way we think about games. We've gotten fun games so far (and a lot of not so fun games), but we haven't got THAT yet. And Nintendo's going to need THAT if it wants to really compete with the major titles coming up. Mario with a water pack didn't save the Cube. Mario in space isn't going to catapult the Wii anywhere either.
Quote
While the future of PS3 and X360 gaming is still a mystery outside of Halo 3, MGS4 and FFXIII, the Wii has MAJOR titles on the horizon that are guaranteed to be both fun and stunning to look at.
And what are those major titles? I'd like to know. Project Hammer? The last two generations proved that Nintendo's first party mascots won't save a system. I hate to be all doom and gloom here. Really, I do. It just bothers me that most people are already considering Nintendo the victor. They've still got a lot of work left to do. This gen is not in the bag for them yet, but it can be.
Post by: BigJim on February 01, 2007, 04:00:06 AM
So just understand the bubble you speak in when an opinion gets dismissed for not being consistent with "the message", and let it slide.
Post by: bustin98 on February 01, 2007, 04:56:31 AM
That's Nintendo's thing. And in the meantime, Metroid, Mario, and Zelda fill some needs that I have. Not all. The 360 has games that I enjoy. But they are the same games I have been playing for the past 5 or 6 years, played the same way. If the Wii can produce games that challenge in ways no other system can, then bring it on.
Stop the sooth saying. No one can determine the future just by way the bones are scattered.
Of course, there's the fact that this is a Nintendo fan site. Anyone coming here to dis Nintendo isn't going to meet many friends.
Post by: segagamer12 on February 01, 2007, 05:01:02 AM
THAT is all I am going to regfute, yor argument was the Wii will not be better than GC, adn then you through THAT out there to prove your piont, DUH the Wii Will NEVER look as good as those IT CANT, thast not even debatable and if you try and argue that your dumb cuz you dont understand the differences between the systems.
The Wii DOESNT all look bad right now, have you even SEEN COD3 or DBZBT2? have you even SEEN videos and screans for MP3 or Brawl? they look better than the GC versions so that tells us something. What Wii games have you played?
Galaxy I wont comment on because its a different environment and its hard to compare space and planets to tropical settings so its not that easy to distinguish right now, except the characters look better so far so that says something.
OK so YES it is true right now most games that people recognise look like GC games, MArvel Ultimate Alliance is another that comes to mind that looks better than what GC could do. Seriously juts cuz they dont look as good as 360 doesnt mean they dont look good.
Persoanly I didnt like excittrucks gfx and thought they could use imrpovments, I thought red steel looked bad, and Wii Sports look fantastic out side the Miis.
I have yet to see a game that blows me away, although Marvel Ultimate Allience lookd pretty damn good, that doesnt mean they look BAD.
So what is yor point anywyas, are you complaining the Wii isnt as compareble to PS3 and 360 or its not better than GC? seriously whats your argument you seam to flip flop on that.
I dont buy the blue ocean BS one bit, out side Wii sports non of the other non games appeal to me, I dont consider Wario ware at all, and Wii music, etc not for me. BUT I might get Wii Play cuz of the shooting game and the extra controller. So far there have been plenty of good looking gamer games and plenty more on the way. Mk Armageddon looks pretty good so dont count that out. Just give it more time. And its been said before but it is true, 360 launch games didnt look that much better than xbox games so why shoudl wii launch games look much better than GC games? I mean there ARE games already that look good so why complain? I want games to look thier best and I hope they get better but I have seen enough to settle any fears or doubts I may have had.
Post by: Pittbboi on February 01, 2007, 05:43:22 AM
Quote
So what is yor point anywyas, are you complaining the Wii isnt as compareble to PS3 and 360 or its not better than GC? seriously whats your argument you seam to flip flop on that.
I haven't flip flopped on my argument since my first post here. I think I should be asking you what your point is.
Post by: couchmonkey on February 01, 2007, 06:46:20 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: BigJim
You see Pittbboi, I sorta got tired of having this type of conversation since many adopt Nintendo's PR language as a matter of fact and structure discussions on its basis. Where else can you find peeps concerned more about the next game for their grandparents and Nintendo's profitability than games and products made for them?
So just understand the bubble you speak in when an opinion gets dismissed for not being consistent with "the message", and let it slide.
I get concerned with granparents and profitability because it's the path to more and better games for me in general. PS2 is inundated with crap for its large casual fanbase, but it's also inundated with awesome third party titles that I'd like to play - that's the benefit of being market leader.
The other implication is that my reasoning about Nintendo's business is flawed because I'm buying into Nintendo's PR. I'm sure there's some truth to that, and yet, everything that has happened since last May supports my conclusions: Wii is very popular, and it's expanding the market. The common argument is that we don't know if Nintendo has won yet. This is true, but by the same token, we can't say that Wii's selling points are going to suddenly stop mattering.
If we want to talk strictly about what's good for me as a gamer, I'm frankly way more interested in Wii than the other consoles. To my mind, the graphics don't justify the cost of buying the other consoles - I'd rather buy a PS2. Wii is considered overpriced by most gamers because we have the knowledge to say, "Hey, there's no way this technology is worth $250." But as a customer, I was glad to pay that much, and I'd pay even more, because I'm paying for the gaming, not the technology. The gaming is good - the best I've experienced in at least 10 years. That's a subjective thing, not everyone will agree with me, but personally, my only complaint about Wii is that the first half of this year is so slow for new games - which is typical.
Edit: And on the original topic, I consider Wii to be in the same graphical category as the last-gen systems. It might not even be better than Xbox, but I stopped caring a long time ago. The games look fine to me.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on February 01, 2007, 07:23:05 AM
"They're guaranteed to sell". Stop right there, cuz anything more is opinionated speculative uncertainty.
But I'm jumping the gun here too: the extent of those sales isn't even a certainty.
Selling to your last generation audience can garner a decent chunk of sales (still in the millions). That's typical and obvious. What's not obivous is will these people buy their supposed HD next gen game system in time to matter.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 01, 2007, 07:26:05 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: BigJim
You see Pittbboi, I sorta got tired of having this type of conversation since many adopt Nintendo's PR language as a matter of fact and structure discussions on its basis. Where else can you find peeps concerned more about the next game for their grandparents and Nintendo's profitability than games and products made for them?
So just understand the bubble you speak in when an opinion gets dismissed for not being consistent with "the message", and let it slide.
Profitability for Nintendo should be important because without it Nintendo would go down. This crap about us just wanting games for their grandparents is just that, crap, elitist crap at that. Many of these so called "grandparent" games have alot to offer to everyone, like Wiisports, WarioWare, Brain Age etc etc. We are still getting the so called "gamer" games, like Zelda, Mario, Smash Brothers etc but for once there is more variety. I'm sorry but last generation got really stale, there were barely any simple, yet addictive games, all were trying to be the next cookie cutter sci-fi action, beat em up, shoot dogs, people, and the mailman games (ok maybe not all those) but with the Wii and the DS things are starting to get mixed up again. Finally we are getting games that we can have a blast playing with our family, unless you are an elitist snob who won't touch something "casual".
Post by: Kairon on February 01, 2007, 07:36:54 AM
Quote
What console out there is being "pushed forward" by hardcore gamers and their high tie-in ratios? That's actually BAD according to some...Quote
The report further adds that the Xbox 360's high software attach rate is “a damning commentary on the limited hardware installed base, most of whom are hard-core gamers.” The analysts add that what is actually needed by Microsoft for its latest console, as well as by third party software publishers, is “quicker adoption of hardware and a rapidly growing installed base on which to sell progressively more game units,” rather than just more games sold per existing Xbox 360 owner.
But that's the beauty of it, see? It's the long tail at work! Sure those many non-gamers and casuals NATURALLY have a lower software tie-in rate. But according to the long tail, all of those aggregated small sales cumulatively overcome the minorities large purchases.Quote
In these distributions a high-frequency or high-amplitude population is followed by a low-frequency or low-amplitude population which gradually "tails off." In many cases the infrequent or low-amplitude events—the long tail, represented here by the yellow portion of the graph—can cumulatively outnumber or outweigh the initial portion of the graph, such that in aggregate they comprise the majority.
...
An Amazon employee described the Long Tail as follows: "We sold more books today that didn't sell at all yesterday than we sold today of all the books that did sell yesterday."[5] In the same sense, the user-edited internet encyclopedia Wikipedia has many low popularity articles that, collectively, create a higher quantity of demand than a limited number of mainstream articles found in a conventional encyclopedia such as the Encyclopædia Britannica.
You know, I bet the PS2 had a real low tie-in ratio in the end...
Look, gamers, like you an' me, we're awesome. AWESOME. But we're just a handful of consumers out of many. And as Nintendo fans, we should have learnt humility by now: our small collection of fanbois is dwarfed by the vast majority of "others" out there, including other hardcore gamers, casual gamers, mainstream gamers, niche gamers, PC gamers, and moms buying systems for their 7 year olds with a minimum of research done beforehand.
And this population, in turn, is dwarfed by non-gamers, lapsed gamers, middle-aged people, and other sorts who've never played videogames before. Oh, and GIRLS. Yeah, there are like, as many girls as guys out there... funny huh?
You and me, we'll buy the next Zelda and Mario. But these non-gamers? They'll cumulatively have so much more purchasing power than us, and though blockbusters from their crowd will become rarer as the market matures, the cumulated sales of their games will overwhelm our strong but few blockbusters and they'll start driving change in the industry.
Already we can see how it's non-gamers, not gamers, who are driving changes. The Wii has non-gaming functions (news, weather, internet, photos, etc.), the PS2 played movies (argh... my fanboi-ness hates me for saying that) and the DS has a touch screen and microphone that enabled Nintendogs and Brain Age. Oh, and the wiimote was made with non-gamers in mind.
Oh... and Miyamoto isn't a tech guy, he didn't play D n D or nuttin' like that. He's not a programmer... he's a trained artist, a gardener, an outsider. I personally suspect that the next breakout game designer won't be deeply steeped in gaming lore, (in my experience, a lot of gamers steeped in their hobby are... highly dependent on things that have come before) but someone who can freshen things up and introduce new directions and see things in a new light, free of the conventions that we're asll so familiar with.
So.... uh... sorry. I rambled on. I also stopped for like an hour to help my roomie with HW... eheh...
So, in conclusion, don't be stuck in the blockbuster mentality when looking at the big picture, and us hardcore gamers already have been marginalized in the advances we've been seeing from Nintendo, influences that in the DS and Wii are seen in the touch screen and wiimote.
Basically, let me try to say this another way...
I want more epic games from Nintendo. And I'm pretty sure we'll get 'em, aren't you? It's just that a huge paradigm shift like the wiimote isn't overnight. How long did it take third parties to get their camera system down when they switched to 3D with the N64? How long will it take them to utilize the wiimote correctly after Nintendo nailed it with Wii sports? Shorter I hope, because I can't wait to carve snow by tilting my nunchuck in SSX Blur, I can't wait to use the wiimote as a state switch for my attacks in No More Heroes, and I can't wait for an Iron Chef game that is a seamless course of minigames instead of pre-dictated and chopped up and graded ever 10 seconds. And I can't wait to see what the next Zelda will be, because it certainly won't be the "Zelda-as-we-know-it," remember?
So traditional games aren't the problem, really. It's just a matter of time until developers ramp up.
The problem is what happens ASIDE from that. The wiimote was meant for more than just revolutionizing games, it was meant for revolutionizing the game market. Nintendo's said that if they sold more than GameCube, and made money, but failed to expand the market, that they'd have failed. They set the rubric for themselves at the success of bringing in new people, people who won't necessarily buy as many games as us, but people who, according to their numbers and the long tail effect, matter just as much or even more than we do profitwise.
People who are different, but by virtue of their differences can encourage us to grow beyond ourselves and can encourage videogames to grow beyond what they are now. Yes, they're different, yes, they're new, yes, they don't want the same things we do. But they are asd much a fabric of this world as we are, and they deserve the same attention any of us does, and they just want different things is all. And whether they buy those different things 30,000 copies at a time, or 100,000, it all adds up.
I think I have about 14 Wii games on me (my life savings! &< /cry), but my Mom plays Bejeweled on her cell phone every night for hours before sleeping, she plays it so we can hear the beeping from across the house, and she deserves games just as much as I do. She deserved it when she kicked my butt in Dr. Mario, and she deserves it now.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Hocotate on February 01, 2007, 09:12:11 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: denjet78
Dude! Get over yourself! You sound like Ian for gods sake!
Uh-oh, don't encourage him, thats exactly what he wants to hear. Pittbboi claims to be like Ian, though I think pretty much everyone would hold Ian in a much higher regard.
Quote
there are several key words that are conveniently missing from your quotes of me.
Read those quoted sentences again and show me what key words are missing that changes their meaning.
I feel you are putting too much faith in a few games that won't be released for a long time to bring the PS3 out on top. MGS4 will see a spike in sales, but it will not be enough to bring it over the Wii. It'll be in the top 10 for a while but drop off rather quickly. FFXIII has been confirmed as a 2008 JPN release which means a late 08- early 09 release in the US at best (Keep in mind it was 3 years since the first screens of FFXII were shown to it's release) so expect delays here as well. That is just way too late in the gen to push the PS3 ahead of the Wii in any region.
I swear with your constant negative statements about Nintendo (even now with the current state of the industry) at a Nintendo forum leads me to believe you are simply trolling. The occasional "Nintendo is my favorite" is thrown in here and there to hide it imo.
Post by: Pittbboi on February 01, 2007, 09:16:14 AM
Quote
Uh-oh, don't encourage him, thats exactly what he wants to hear. Pittbboi claims to be like Ian, though I think pretty much everyone would hold Ian in a much higher regard.
Seriously, don't you have something better to do?
You talk a big talk about how I'm making statements about the future that can't be confirmed in one way or the other, and then you turn around and do the exact same thing.
Post by: Kairon on February 01, 2007, 09:29:11 AM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Hocotate on February 01, 2007, 11:42:35 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
You talk a big talk about how I'm making statements about the future that can't be confirmed in one way or the other, and then you turn around and do the exact same thing.
Final Fantasy XIII confirmed for 2008
Post by: Pittbboi on February 01, 2007, 12:09:55 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: HocotateQuote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
You talk a big talk about how I'm making statements about the future that can't be confirmed in one way or the other, and then you turn around and do the exact same thing.
Final Fantasy XIII confirmed for 2008
This is incredibly childish. I'm done with you after this post.
I was more thinking about this:
"MGS4 will see a spike in sales, but it will not be enough to bring it over the Wii. It'll be in the top 10 for a while but drop off rather quickly. FFXIII has been confirmed as a 2008 JPN release which means a late 08- early 09 release in the US at best (Keep in mind it was 3 years since the first screens of FFXII were shown to it's release) so expect delays here as well."
You can say what you want, but your posts are just as full of conjecture as you claim mine to be. We're just aiming at two different things.
Oh, and Square isn't usually known for delaying their FF games to Nintendo-like lengths. I'd say FFXII is an exception, which is understandable seeing as they had to swap developers halfway through.
Post by: Hocotate on February 01, 2007, 01:50:02 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
You talk a big talk about how I'm making statements about the future that can't be confirmed in one way or the other, and then you turn around and do the exact same thing.
Show me where I've said that to you.
Quote
there are several key words that are conveniently missing from your quotes of me.
"Read those quoted sentences again and show me what key words are missing that changes their meaning." And you still fail to answer this as well.
Go ahead and be done, we'll come back after MGS4 is released and see who was right.
Post by: BigJim on February 01, 2007, 02:30:37 PM
Quote
I get concerned with granparents and profitability because it's the path to more and better games for me in general.
Quote
Profitability for Nintendo should be important because without it Nintendo would go down.
If Nintendo were to profit "only" $500 million for the year by making the necessary investments to offer (for example) an HD-capable console, rather than their $600 million, I would say they don't need our well-wishes. They're far from doom. Profitability is a regularly used defense mechanism for any number of things because Nintendo brought it up in their PR in the past, particularly when they were struggling to compete. At this point it's adopted language unless one's definition of financial solvency is nothing short of having a swimming pool of gold coins like Scrooge McDuck... which approximates what Nintendo's $7 billion looks like in my mind.
Quote
everything that has happened since last May supports my conclusions: Wii is very popular, and it's expanding the market.
Expanding their demographic, yes. The market at large has still been sucking up PS2s and 360s too.
Quote
Finally we are getting games that we can have a blast playing with our family, unless you are an elitist snob who won't touch something "casual".
Ironically, many of Nintendo fanboys are some of the more elitist I've seen, next to some Mac users. And I've been online since the 80's.
Post by: denjet78 on February 01, 2007, 03:07:36 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BigJim
If Nintendo were to profit "only" $500 million for the year by making the necessary investments to offer (for example) an HD-capable console, rather than their $600 million, I would say they don't need our well-wishes. They're far from doom. Profitability is a regularly used defense mechanism for any number of things because Nintendo brought it up in their PR in the past, particularly when they were struggling to compete. At this point it's adopted language unless one's definition of financial solvency is nothing short of having a swimming pool of gold coins like Scrooge McDuck... which approximates what Nintendo's $7 billion looks like in my mind.
I have only one major problem with this statement and that's that you're assuming it wouldn't cost Nintendo much to do things like Sony and MS. Sony is expecting to loose around 2 BILLION on the PS3 it's first year alone. That's just year one. What about year 2? Year 3? MS had to tank more than 5 BILLION just to edge out the GC last generation. And how much have they lost on the 360 so far? And rumors are circulating that they may, or may not, have finally MAYBE started turning a profit. And that will probably go down the toilet once the 360 revision unit that's rumored to be coming out soon is released.
Nintendo may be sitting on a 7 billion war chest but if they were to blow it all on a Sony or MS style system that would be it for them. Had they released the original XBox, Nintendo would be gone today. They would be 3rd party, or more likely carved up into smaller developers and sold off piece by piece.
Nintendo ONLY HAS that 7 billion. MS has so much money at their disposal that it would be impossible to even try to quantify it. Sony isn't quite as huge but they certainly have the deep pockets to completely obliterate Nintendo if they tried to come at them with the same marketing style that they use.
Point being, Nintendo HAS to make money. And they HAVE to make a lot of it. There's no way they could absorb the major loses that the competition can. It's just not possible.
Besides, Sony and MS are making all-in-one set-top-boxes and they're not all that worried about making a profit today because they're expecting the money to come rolling in when people are using their future systems to stream movies, music, internet. Nintendo makes GAMES and in 10 years when Sony and MS have moved on to greener pastures Nintendo will still be here making games. If they can't make a profit now focusing on that single market, how do you expect them to do it in the future?
To put it bluntly, Nintendo really is in a completely different market than their so-called competition.
Remember that.
Post by: MarioAllStar on February 01, 2007, 03:21:19 PM
Post by: segagamer12 on February 01, 2007, 03:27:06 PM
BUT the point everyone keeps forgetting is NONE of us know how much it would cost Nintendo to do HD, end of story. Seriously you can crunch numbers all day but not one of us knows the truth to any of the figures. whatever thier reason for not going hd is thier business not ours. besdies its not like it affects the games anyways, the Wii can do widescreen and progressive scan which looks good enough.
Maybe I havent seen a 360 running on an HD tv so I dont see a big difference between wii and 360 right now either, except a couple games, but the truth is most people who own a 360 havent either. so whats the difference. Now if the Wii is out for a year and the games barely look better than GC then we have room to complain, right now we have games that look good enough and games on the way that look better than what we have now so theoretically it should keep getting better.
Post by: ShyGuy on February 01, 2007, 03:30:31 PM
Post by: denjet78 on February 01, 2007, 03:41:35 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: MarioAllStar
Good post, denjet78. It is funny how the big companies take the conservative approach and lose billions, while the underdog thinks outside of the box and turns profits from day one. In actuality, the "safe" approach doesn't bring success. Microsoft and Sony are not failing in the sense that they lack marketshare, but financially their video gaming policies are not helping them out.
To be honest, Sony's and MS' ideas for the future may indeed bring them huge, unimaginable profits... maybe. And that's a big maybe. The problem is that all these technology companies are currently fighting over who's going to own that future, and splintering the market in the mean time, when in the end the only way that it's going to happen is if they all work together. Why do you think the cellphone infrastructure in the US is falling so far behind other countries? Too many companies jocking for control when cooperation is what's going to be needed to bring the future to fruition.
Post by: denjet78 on February 01, 2007, 03:55:11 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: segagamer12
I dont know, Sony has been TRYING for 10 years to put Nintendo out of business and they have't succeeded yet. Nintendo has other assests besides Wii and GC so that doesnt mean much. They didnt start out a game company why shoudl they remian ONLY a game company if the future doesnt allow for it.
BUT the point everyone keeps forgetting is NONE of us know how much it would cost Nintendo to do HD, end of story. Seriously you can crunch numbers all day but not one of us knows the truth to any of the figures. whatever thier reason for not going hd is thier business not ours. besdies its not like it affects the games anyways, the Wii can do widescreen and progressive scan which looks good enough.
Maybe I havent seen a 360 running on an HD tv so I dont see a big difference between wii and 360 right now either, except a couple games, but the truth is most people who own a 360 havent either. so whats the difference. Now if the Wii is out for a year and the games barely look better than GC then we have room to complain, right now we have games that look good enough and games on the way that look better than what we have now so theoretically it should keep getting better.
Your points are noted and taken, and are very much true.
However, it is possible to infer how much it would cost Nintendo to jump into the HD arena as well. The Wii would probably have had to cost close to $400 right out of the box. No game included. Considering that's how much the 360 actually cost MS to produce, not what they sold it for, we can gage that around $400 is the sweet spot for getting HD off the ground in your system. At least today. And the reason I say that is because people would have an absolute heart attack if Nintendo went HD without the graphical upgrade to keep up with the Joneses as well. People are complaining right now but they're giving it some leeway because the system doesn't do HD.
And at $400, just how many Wiis do you think would be sold right now, even with the new Wiimote? Nowhere near as many. The Wiimote is of course the system's greatest strength, but the price is as well. Put it up against a fully featured 360 or PS3 and it looks almost like an impulse purchase. And yes Nintendo is making a profit off the system right now, but not very much. If they were taking home $100+ on each unit sold an launch you would more than have the right to bitch and moan all you wanted about Nintendo being cheap. But that's not what's happening. I've heard anything from $5-20 profit on each system. That's not a huge amount of money at all. But at least it's not a $200-300 loss.
Post by: darknight06 on February 01, 2007, 05:48:48 PM
Quote
And at $400, just how many Wiis do you think would be sold right now, even with the new Wiimote? Nowhere near as many.
My opinion, I'll put it to you this way. If the Wii was $400 I wouldn't have bothered for the same reason I haven't jumped on the 360 or especially the PS3 bandwagon. I don't give a crap what a game console claims to do at that point it's no longer justifiable. No video GAME system in general, I don't care if it does have the success of the PS2 is EVER going to be worth all of that. And you better believe that there's a lot of people out there who at a price like that would also have left it on the shelf. They're f*cking games, not food.
Post by: oohhboy on February 01, 2007, 11:11:53 PM
Post by: Hocotate on February 01, 2007, 11:17:32 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: darknight06
My opinion, I'll put it to you this way. If the Wii was $400 I wouldn't have bothered for the same reason I haven't jumped on the 360 or especially the PS3 bandwagon. I don't give a crap what a game console claims to do at that point it's no longer justifiable. No video GAME system in general, I don't care if it does have the success of the PS2 is EVER going to be worth all of that. And you better believe that there's a lot of people out there who at a price like that would also have left it on the shelf. They're f*cking games, not food.
I agree completely. $300 would be my absolute limit, and I have never paid that much yet.
Post by: TedNemeth on February 02, 2007, 01:40:48 AM
The 360 costs so much because of HD, it also has a great list of current and upcoming games.
I dont know about the Wii. I own a DS(and the other 2 systems)but I am waiting for Mario Galaxy to buy a Wii.
I will be very surprised if the Wii cannot produce astounding 3D in standered definition. I think given time we will see it happen. I know you dont need HD to have a great game, but to be honest, good graphics are , in most cases, important.Along with story, control and sound it is an equal element in the equation. I understand your frustration, and I hope we see some mind blowing graphics on the Wii soon, dont loose faith yet, it is still way early.
Post by: BigJim on February 02, 2007, 02:12:17 AM
But I do gotta say, sega... What Nintendo sells us is "not our business"... ? LOL.
Post by: TedNemeth on February 02, 2007, 02:26:16 AM
As far as profitability, the DS really turned the corner for Nintendo. I read they are selling 9 every minute! With sales like that they could have offered a cutting edge system at a higher price and directly competed with MS and Sony. They really come out looking very greedy in this evaluation. But I will withhold judgement until I see what they can cook up for this system. You know people were laughing when instead of making a more powerful portable to directly compete with the PSP they just added a second screen, but they really came through like champs- the DS Lite is nothing short of fantastic. So lets wait and see. It's not like we have a choice. I think Nintendo may surprise everyone, it wouldnt be the first time!
Post by: Kairon on February 02, 2007, 07:19:12 AM
But I personally fully embrace the blue ocean and long tail mentalities, and though I personally wouldn't mind Nintendo losing money on their consoles to give us a better deal, I really can't complain because I've ultimately always gotten high quality and been happy with my console purchases.
Besides, I've been against Nintendo emulating Sony and MS ever since the early years of the GC. I've taken stances against competing against these electronics and computing giants on a dollar-to-dollar basis, which means that I've stood against competing against them on a technical hardware basis, on a traditional marketting basis, on a game style basis, and even on a networking basis. I see the HD issue in this light: Nintendo finally realizing that they have to go in a radically different direction from their competitors in order to compete and survive.
And of course, this HD wasn't decided too much from a top-down business viewpoint, but the internal direction that Nintendo's movers and shakers, including Iwata (who had been a game developer) and Miyamoto, had chosen. If Nintendo's most creative and significant braintrusts have decided not to pursue high technology from a design standpoint as opposed to a business standpoint, then we're argueing the HD - price issue from the wrong view. From a design standpoint, the Wii being able to output 1080p graphics might actually be a total betrayal of what it's supposed to do for the industry, for gaming, and for gamers and non-gamers alike.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: denjet78 on February 02, 2007, 08:37:38 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: BigJim
I kinda made my point, which was that some people adopt Nintendo's language as automatic defense mechanisms for anything they do (or don't do) and frame the discussion on that basis as fact. Such as defending their vast profitability with the assumption that HD means automatic millions/billions in losses and assured death. Talk about dramatic.
But I do gotta say, sega... What Nintendo sells us is "not our business"... ? LOL.
Actually, the only point you made is that you seem to think that Nintendo is greedy for not throwing tons of worthless and incredibly expensive technology into the Wii and then selling it at a massive loss ala Sony and MS.
Just how much more do you want your next game console to cost?
Wii is proving that high prices do not need to be the driving force behind gaming. when the Xbox 720 and PS4 cost in the realm of $700-800 out of the box will you then understand what's happening? The price for these systems is completely outrageous as it is, and they're only going to get more expensive.
Where is the end of the battle for technological supremacy?
And if you don't think that loosing 2 or even 5 BILLION on a single console would kill Nintendo, you simply have no idea what you're talking about. You say it won't lead to that by just asking for HD, well what about everyone else who will then complain because it's not as graphically capable as the other systems? So then they have to take a dive to put a more powerful CPU and GPU in the system. But wait, it should have a harddrive too, and a big one! And we all want a fancy online network like Live, but I want it to be free! That whole internet TV thing, I want that too. And I want it to play HD DVD movies as well!
It won't cost Nintendo much to give you what you want right?
It's not just about you though.
Post by: BigJim on February 02, 2007, 11:08:55 AM
Quote
Actually, the only point you made is that you seem to think that Nintendo is greedy for not throwing tons of worthless and incredibly expensive technology into the Wii and then selling it at a massive loss ala Sony and MS.
Nope, you're still proving my point by trying to frame the discussion defensively about their profit when it was an example of my actual point about how PR gets adopted as language, and used as reasoning when convenient against others with counter opinions. And the line about HD automatically meaning massive MS- and Sony-level losses, that's another one.
Quote
And if you don't think that loosing 2 or even 5 BILLION on a single console would kill Nintendo, you simply have no idea what you're talking about.
I do give you (some) credit for baiting with ridiculous assumptions of what I'm thinking, though.
Post by: Kairon on February 02, 2007, 11:43:03 AM
What's wrong is deliberately not defining terms in order to prolong an argument without ever reaching any definitive conclusion, a deliberate sabotaging and betrayal of everything rational debate is supposed to be about.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: segagamer12 on February 02, 2007, 11:44:00 AM
What I said...
>>But I do gotta say, sega... What Nintendo sells us is "not our business"... ? LOL.<<
What you said..
WTF dude!? learn to read.
Post by: BigJim on February 02, 2007, 01:15:47 PM
Quote
Isn't framing and adopting effective arguments the way issues are discussed? I don't see anything wrong with that.
Going back to my original post, many adopt PR language as a matter of fact, and structure arguments on its basis. So no, it doesn't strike me as effective discussion at times when that appears to be the case, or when someone is just being unreasonably defensive. It's like talking to a brick wall for both sides. The folks here are lucky though, to also have posters like you because regardless of where you stand on issues, or whether people agree or not, your views can be respected for being well-rounded and thought out. I just wish there were more such posters.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 02, 2007, 01:19:14 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BigJimQuote
Isn't framing and adopting effective arguments the way issues are discussed? I don't see anything wrong with that.
Going back to my original post, many adopt PR language as a matter of fact, and structure arguments on its basis. So no, it doesn't strike me as effective discussion at times when that appears to be the case, or when someone is just being unreasonably defensive. It's like talking to a brick wall for both sides. The folks here are lucky though, to also have posters like you because regardless of where you stand on issues, or whether people agree or not, your views can be respected for being well-rounded and thought out. I just wish there were more such posters.
Actually I see quite a few posters like that, personally I agree completely with Kairon, I like the Blue Ocean strategy and feel it will help expand the market, along with keeping Nintendo in the console business. Personally I despise elitist mentality that people who enjoy "casual" games are not worth creating games for, or refuse to try a game because it is more "simple". There is room for both types of games and when it comes to the Wii it will be more important, IMO, to release games like Wiisports than traditional games (or at least balance them) because they can attract people from ALL gaming categories and ages.
In regards to yourself, I don't see you as an extreme person like SOME people here who are mostly negative, but I feel you have a bias against market growing games such as Wiisports, that attract people who may have never played a game before. So in that context I definately feel you are exactly what you accuse others of, being a brick wall. My guess is you were referring me or to others who got defensive, and guess what, I do get a bit of defensive when I feel people are beng condescending towards the "casual" games market because it comes accross as really selfish, in a "I only want hardcore, traditional games to be made or focused on, because I like them". I'm sorry but if Nintendo focused on "traditional" gamers like you, they would not last long because their console market, and franchise popularity has been on the decline.
Post by: Kairon on February 02, 2007, 01:21:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BigJimQuote
Isn't framing and adopting effective arguments the way issues are discussed? I don't see anything wrong with that.
Going back to my original post, many adopt PR language as a matter of fact, and structure arguments on its basis. So no, it doesn't strike me as effective discussion at times when that appears to be the case, or when someone is just being unreasonably defensive. It's like talking to a brick wall for both sides. The folks here are lucky though, to also have posters like you because regardless of where you stand on issues, or whether people agree or not, your views can be respected for being well-rounded and thought out. I just wish there were more such posters.
I feel all warm and fuzzy! Thank you!
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: denjet78 on February 02, 2007, 06:36:39 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BigJimQuote
Actually, the only point you made is that you seem to think that Nintendo is greedy for not throwing tons of worthless and incredibly expensive technology into the Wii and then selling it at a massive loss ala Sony and MS.
Nope, you're still proving my point by trying to frame the discussion defensively about their profit when it was an example of my actual point about how PR gets adopted as language, and used as reasoning when convenient against others with counter opinions. And the line about HD automatically meaning massive MS- and Sony-level losses, that's another one.Quote
And if you don't think that loosing 2 or even 5 BILLION on a single console would kill Nintendo, you simply have no idea what you're talking about.
I do give you (some) credit for baiting with ridiculous assumptions of what I'm thinking, though.
No, you're proving your own point. Over and over again you say it won't cost Nintendo much to do what you want them to do. How do you know that? You don't. But then you accuse other people of having unreasonable opinions, which again is just your opinion so really you don't have a leg to stand on.
Nintendo could do HD, this is true. But you cannot deny that it would cost them a lot of money to do it, or at the very least cause the price of the Wii to go up, and maybe even substantially. Sony is willing to take a bath on BluRay because they're expecting it to be the next big thing and they practically own it outright, which means profits out the wazoo if it does. Nintendo on the other hand gets nothing out of BluRay. Whether you think it actually brings anything to the table or not doesn't matter. What would Nintendo get out of pushing BluRay in the Wii? Nothing. In fact, it would end up costing them as they'd have to pay Sony royalties just to use the technology and for each and every disc they press. But there are still people out there who think Nintendo should have put BluRay in the Wii. Why?
But that's not your argument. Your argument is that you want HD. How is that any different? Either way it's a technology that you want that will end up costing Nintendo more than they're willing to spend. Everyone wants something. I'm still not happy that they decided to bow to pressure and switch to optical media. I want my cartridges back! Or better yet, there was talk before the GC came out that they were developing a rewritable disc media. Word was that it was going to cost around $7 to manufacture. It would have been really cool though. No memory cards. Games that would rewrite themselves as you played them. But in order to compete with Sony they chose to use an inferior non-rewritable optical media. Blech.
Still, I understand Nintendo's choice. They could have gone with rewritable disks but then they would have had to end up charging 3rd parties a lot more money to make games. So in order to remain competitive in the market they had to go with optical *barf*. Nintendo does what they have to do, not just for you but for themselves. Sony and MS are in the same boat. BluRay isn't for the good of video games, it's so Sony can create a new market that they can exploit later. And MS' big internet push isn't to make online games more fun, it's to control the distribution of streaming media into your living room. IPTV anyone?
What is it exactly that you want?
Post by: Adrock on February 02, 2007, 08:07:32 PM
And cartridges? Are you serious? As if Nintendo didn't have a hard enough time getting 3rd party support.........
Wii doesn't need HD or Blu-Ray. However, developers constantly bellyache about how technologically inferior the system is. That sucks. I agree that Nintendo has to look out for itself, but they make an awful lot of selfish choices and they only change when they screw up. Would it be so hard to listen to what consumers and developers want? It's give and take. You can't make everyone happy, but you can meet half-way, you make compromises. Spending money to make money isn't the only long-term plan. Nintendo doesn't need to do that. At the same time, could Nintendo have made a better console for $250 with WiiSports and still broken even? I'd say no doubt about it.
Nothing is as easy and simple as people make it seem. Companies make choices every day which range from good to bad. I see many of Nintendo's choices with Wii somewhere in the middle.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 02, 2007, 08:18:46 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock
Why would Nintendo have to pay Sony for Blu-Ray technology? Nintendo gets their disc drives from Panasonic who, from what I understand, happens to be on the Blu-Ray Association Board of Directions.
And cartridges? Are you serious? As if Nintendo didn't have a hard enough time getting 3rd party support.........
Wii doesn't need HD or Blu-Ray. However, developers constantly bellyache about how technologically inferior the system is. That sucks. I agree that Nintendo has to look out for itself, but they make an awful lot of selfish choices and they only change when they screw up. Would it be so hard to listen to what consumers and developers want? It's give and take. You can't make everyone happy, but you can meet half-way, you make compromises. Spending money to make money isn't the only long-term plan. Nintendo doesn't need to do that. At the same time, could Nintendo have made a better console for $250 with WiiSports and still broken even? I'd say no doubt about it.
Nothing is as easy and simple as people make it seem. Companies make choices every day which range from good to bad. I see many of Nintendo's choices with Wii somewhere in the middle.
I think you are misreading what Denjet said, he only used the cartridges to show that just because he wanted something doesn't make it the best move. In regards to whether Nintendo could have made a better console for 250$ and still broke even? I have no idea, and I doubt anyone here knows for sure, in fact we don't even know how much the Wii costs to manufacture. My guess is that it is around 200$, but that could be completely off, regardless I doubt they could have done much more with that price point and still broke even. The Wii is plenty powerful for most games on the market today, and I personally think it is more lazyness and fear of committing that is keeping companies from creating games for the Wii more so than its power.
Post by: denjet78 on February 02, 2007, 08:38:51 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock
Why would Nintendo have to pay Sony for Blu-Ray technology? Nintendo gets their disc drives from Panasonic who, from what I understand, happens to be on the Blu-Ray Association Board of Directions.
And cartridges? Are you serious? As if Nintendo didn't have a hard enough time getting 3rd party support.........
Wii doesn't need HD or Blu-Ray. However, developers constantly bellyache about how technologically inferior the system is. That sucks. I agree that Nintendo has to look out for itself, but they make an awful lot of selfish choices and they only change when they screw up. Would it be so hard to listen to what consumers and developers want? It's give and take. You can't make everyone happy, but you can meet half-way, you make compromises. Spending money to make money isn't the only long-term plan. Nintendo doesn't need to do that. At the same time, could Nintendo have made a better console for $250 with WiiSports and still broken even? I'd say no doubt about it.
Nothing is as easy and simple as people make it seem. Companies make choices every day which range from good to bad. I see many of Nintendo's choices with Wii somewhere in the middle.
It doesn't matter who Nintendo gets the BluRay drive and disks from, they're still going to have to pay royalties to use that technology. As or cartridges, I didn't say they were cost effective of the smart thing so do but I STILL WANT THEM! I HATE optical media. It's fragile and the only real thing developers have used it for is to fill games with stupid movies. I HATE HATE HATE IT! But that's my opinion.
As for whether or not Nintendo could have made a more powerful system for the same amount of money, well they probably could but you're going to have to loose some of the functionality that the system currently has and it still probably wouldn't be able to keep pace with the 360 or the PS3. You'd probably end up getting a few more effects or a couple more polygons. A $250 Wii means just that. It costs Nintendo at most $250 to manufacture it. A $300-$400 360 means a $400-500 actual cost that MS is eating in order to flood the market with overly expensive hardware. Nintendo never has, and hopefully never will, end up having to subsidize their hardware just to compete. It's an idiotic practice and I don't care who tells you otherwise.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 02, 2007, 08:53:58 PM
Post by: Adrock on February 02, 2007, 09:13:31 PM
It's established that Nintendo makes money on Wii, but developers are generally disappointed in the power of the hardware. The question is: could they have sacrificed those earnings for a more acceptable chipset? I'm not all together convinced that the Gamecube controller slots were necessary. I remain skeptical because of the digital click on the classic controller. Wii is also really small. I think we all appreciate the console not being a PS3-sized behemoth, but did Wii have to be that small? That costs extra too. Nintendo spent money on certain things in the Wii that could have been spent elsewhere.
Taking a major loss on a console is risky business and that isn't Nintendo's model. Still, Nintendo makes most of their money as a publisher. I think Nintendo could afford to make $0 per console if it meant developers were happier with the hardware. It's not just "a few more effects or a couple more polygons." The numbers might not mean much to you. Then again, you're not making the games.
I think Wii is capable of amazing games, just as I still think GCN is. But I'm not a 3rd party publisher/developer. I don't think it's necessarily about laziness or commitment. 3rd parties have a right to their own vision. If Nintendo can't help them realize that vision, that's Nintendo's problem because no one has to settle since they can take their business elsewhere. Nintendo can probably support a console by themselves, but they'll never reach past their niche without more support.
Post by: Kairon on February 02, 2007, 09:34:48 PM
It's a tradeoff. Some developers are upset about the hardware limitations, but are probably also relieved by not being pushed into the land of big-budget HD graphics. And publishers are probably sorta happy about the non-astronomical budgets too. Did you know Capcom spent $20 million developing Lost Planet for the X360? And $20 million advertising it?
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: denjet78 on February 02, 2007, 09:50:08 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock
Exactly, so they aren't paying Sony. They'd be paying Panasonic who provides the drives for them. And they're still paying to use DVD and even if they technically aren't since it's DVD based, then why couldn't the same be done with Blu-Ray.
It's established that Nintendo makes money on Wii, but developers are generally disappointed in the power of the hardware. The question is: could they have sacrificed those earnings for a more acceptable chipset? I'm not all together convinced that the Gamecube controller slots were necessary. I remain skeptical because of the digital click on the classic controller. Wii is also really small. I think we all appreciate the console not being a PS3-sized behemoth, but did Wii have to be that small? That costs extra too. Nintendo spent money on certain things in the Wii that could have been spent elsewhere.
Taking a major loss on a console is risky business and that isn't Nintendo's model. Still, Nintendo makes most of their money as a publisher. I think Nintendo could afford to make $0 per console if it meant developers were happier with the hardware. It's not just "a few more effects or a couple more polygons." The numbers might not mean much to you. Then again, you're not making the games.
I think Wii is capable of amazing games, just as I still think GCN is. But I'm not a 3rd party publisher/developer. I don't think it's necessarily about laziness or commitment. 3rd parties have a right to their own vision. If Nintendo can't help them realize that vision, that's Nintendo's problem because no one has to settle since they can take their business elsewhere. Nintendo can probably support a console by themselves, but they'll never reach past their niche without more support.
Okay... No matter where Nintendo gets the drives, they're still paying a royalty. Nintendo doesn't need to pay a DVD royalty because the system can't actually play DVD movies. And they don't need to pay royalties for the discs either because they're not standard DVD discs. No matter what, if Nintendo had put a BluRay drive into the Wii, whatever the cost for that drive was, some of that money would be going strait to Sony. There are no ifs ands or buts about it. Sony is a member of the BluRay Consortium, they basically own the format. Anyone uses it and they get money. True Panasonic does too but Sony gets the most out of the deal.
Throwing GC controller ports on the system probably cost them next to nothing. Controller ports have never been anything in the way of expensive. Besides, it gives perfect reverse compatibility with last generation software. Something neither Sony nor MS have been capable of doing. When you buy a Wii, you literally are buying a Wii and a GC. As for form factor, do you not remember how much grief Nintendo took for the GC? Considering how obsessed people seem to be with how their consoles look I really don't think anyone has the right to criticize that. Okay, you can still criticize it but come on, Nintendo has given us a very clean, very sharp and incredibly portable piece of hardware. Had they themselves not made such a big issue out of the size would you really be complaining now?
Okay, so you say Nintendo shouldn't make any profit at all on the hardware so they can make it more powerful. Done. Now at $250 you get a slightly more capable system. Oh, but you probably want a system that's as capable as the 360 at least. Okay, done. But now Wii costs $350-400. Still, developers won't be happy with the hardware. They can never have enough power, space, or tools. They won't be happy until all they have to do is press a button that says "Make Game" and still manage to rake in billions in profits, if not more.
And it's not Nintendo's job to save developers from themselves. There are a TON of horrible games released on every platform. Is that the fault of the platform maker or of the game developer? Besides, games today aren't about vision. They're about marketing. There are so many horrible games who's only redeeming feature happens to be that insecure teeny-boppers think they're cool. I'm sorry but it's not Nintendo's job to reinforce those stereotypes. And it's not their job to sell 3rd party games. They have their own software to worry about. Unless you think they should stop making games just so 3rd parties will feel better about themselves while still taking a bath on hardware costs again just so they can make 3rd parties happy.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 02, 2007, 11:35:07 PM
I've had more problems with carts than optical media, carts have batteries and other points of failure that aren't obvious, a disc needs a lot of scratching to fail and that's obvious at a glance and doesn't happen by itself.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 03, 2007, 02:44:37 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
It's a tradeoff. Some developers are upset about the hardware limitations, but are probably also relieved by not being pushed into the land of big-budget HD graphics. And publishers are probably sorta happy about the non-astronomical budgets too. Did you know Capcom spent $20 million developing Lost Planet for the X360? And $20 million advertising it?
This is why the Wii wins.
This is the reason EA is bringing 14 or so Wii titles out: the chances of making money on the Wii is MUCH higher than any other home console.
Post by: BigJim on February 03, 2007, 04:27:37 AM
Quote
In regards to yourself, I don't see you as an extreme person like SOME people here who are mostly negative, but I feel you have a bias against market growing games such as Wiisports, that attract people who may have never played a game before.
Well then let me clarify that I'm not against them. Nintendo and others can bombard the market to their hearts content with those types of games. My concern has only been the potential for distraction from AAA traditional games. And I base this concern on actual experience of having a dust-collecting GameCube for the better part of 2+ years.
For example, people kept claiming 3 or 4 titles within the next year as being proof positive that there is an adequate balance, and I'd claim back that 3 or 4 titles could mean a potential dust-collecting Wii for the other 8-9 months of the year for those that are more inclined towards those types of games. Then they countered back with such 3rd party titles as Red Steel that would be AAA titles. I said that it was questionable based on previews up to that point, and it was scoffed off as nebulous speculation. Turns out, it sucked... Just a little anecdote of the types of useless discussions that can happen here for the sake of defending before listening.
Back to my point. There's nothing wrong with WiiSports type games. The difference is, unlike many, I'm not sold on the notion that Nintendo is big enough to be able to satisfy everybody. When I've said this before, the first thing people say is how Brain Age was made in 4 hours... by 1.5 people... living out of a car... at night... under 3 feet of snow... with thumbtacks in their shoes, as proof that they take up no resources and the traditional games will just flow aplenty. Yet it doesn't matter if there is still a dust-collecting system under the TV. There's no guarantee, except in the minds of fans whose knee-jerk reactions are to defend the base rather than learn tolerance of alternate opinions and concerns.
I was a fanboy for a long time too, until the PR started to ring hollow and became more self-serving than customer-serving. When the messages that get repeated over and over are mostly excuses why NOT to do things, it got pretty old.
That being said, I'd buy Wii Play immediately if I can get it without a controller. So no, I'm not anti-wiisports, anti-minigame, anti-grandma or anti-whatever. I'm pro-volume of AAA traditional stuff, which was lacking for years, for whatever reason, be it those other types of games or not. If you do actually detect any condescension, it'd only be a little hobgoblin reaction in response to the brick wall thrown up in response to anything that doesn't spin Nintendo in a positive light. Surely I am the "brick wall" to them until I tow the line. But when discussions are framed to be any varying subtext of "Is Nintendo awesome, very awesome, or perfect" or "Is Sony doomed, dead, or so dead they're already reincarnated and dying again" or else risk someone freaking out, I wouldn't lose any sleep over my "brick wall" status. I don't really rely on a Nintendo fansite for open gaming discussions (no offense to the certainly intelligent ones here).
Quote
No, you're proving your own point. Over and over again you say it won't cost Nintendo much to do what you want them to do. How do you know that? You don't. But then you accuse other people of having unreasonable opinions, which again is just your opinion so really you don't have a leg to stand on.
No. My point was how many people adopt "the message" as a matter of fact and structure discussions on its basis. I gave a few examples, and you seem to be increasingly compelled to defend Nintendo by running away with those examples, avoiding/proving the main point, and putting words in my mouth. My point was made whether you understand what it was or not, so I consider the topic finished. If you're done being defensive, I'm fine having a reasonable HD discussion too.
Quote
Wii doesn't need HD or Blu-Ray. However, developers constantly bellyache about how technologically inferior the system is. That sucks. I agree that Nintendo has to look out for itself, but they make an awful lot of selfish choices and they only change when they screw up. Would it be so hard to listen to what consumers and developers want? It's give and take. You can't make everyone happy, but you can meet half-way, you make compromises. Spending money to make money isn't the only long-term plan. Nintendo doesn't need to do that. At the same time, could Nintendo have made a better console for $250 with WiiSports and still broken even? I'd say no doubt about it.
Agreed!
Post by: segagamer12 on February 03, 2007, 05:41:14 AM
Long before Sega was in my vocabular Nintendo meant Video Games. PERIOD.
Then along came Sega who embraced new game play ideas, empreaced new tehcnology, wasnt afriad to make bold moves and out rigth attack thier competition, and ever sicne then ALL of Nintendo's competitors have taken the same approach, which has worked for the most part. Despite all its problems, too many to post here, PS3 is still garnering a lot of attention from fans and still gets big 3rd party exclusives. Only time will tell if or when it fails but in the mean time its not safe to count it out just yet.
Look at it this was, it was NINTENDOS STUBBORNESS that bred the Playstation in the FIRST PLACE, so yeah I can see how fans, like myself and others, are disaponted by them being stubborn still. Dont get me wrong I LOVE the Wii, but not for the reasons Nintedno tells me to. I loveit because of the VC and GC games and because there is some fun new ways to play. Also the extra features do seam nice for me. I actualyl LIKE how Wii can do things 360 CANT, not gfx but other stuff.
So its back to topic at hand. Nintendo isnt going to please everyone. I LOVED GC to DEATH, for so many reasons I cant explain, yet I constantly felt cheated and disapointed. Wii has fixed SOME of GCs let downs but at the expenese of some of its strengths. So far I have not been too terribley disapionted other than online and as dumb as others think I am still dispaointed by no DVD playback, just because it is one feature the others have that wii dont.
So in conlusion I love the Wii but I still feel dispointed in certain aspects. Nintendo wont please everyone so deal with it.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 03, 2007, 06:16:01 AM
In this case, though, I'm not blaming Nintendo for graphics because all of the crap graphics we've seen have mostly been from 3rd parties who just don't give a crap.
Like I've said, MP3 will be the first REAL test of the Wii's graphics as it is built from the ground up for the console.
Post by: Adrock on February 03, 2007, 07:56:46 AM
Things like controller ports still cost money. And I didn't say they were expensive, I said they weren't necessary. Without them, Nintendo would still save money because they aren't being manufactured. And size isn't inherently tied to sleekness. Wii didn't need to be the size of 3 DVD cases to be sleek. It costs money to make a chipset smaller. For example, DS Lite was probably possible in 2004, but it wouldn't have cost $130. Nintendo sacrificed power for size. Wii didn't really need HD graphics, but Nintendo definitely aimed too low. If high-def graphics require something like 3 times the processing power, Wii could have been somewhere near the upper crust, non-HD area at $250 with Wii Sports still included. Nintendo managed to create Gamecube which is significantly better hardware than N64 and at the same entry price. In 5 years since GCN launched, Wii could have been far more capable. The technology is there, it just depends on which technologies you spend money on.
Good games today are about vision. The big publishers release games with great vision. If Nintendo wants support and they'll need it to attract gamers outside their niche, then it's their job to make sure developers are as happy as possible.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 03, 2007, 08:08:54 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: BigJim
That being said, I'd buy Wii Play immediately if I can get it without a controller. So no, I'm not anti-wiisports, anti-minigame, anti-grandma or anti-whatever. I'm pro-volume of AAA traditional stuff, which was lacking for years, for whatever reason, be it those other types of games or not. If you do actually detect any condescension, it'd only be a little hobgoblin reaction in response to the brick wall thrown up in response to anything that doesn't spin Nintendo in a positive light. Surely I am the "brick wall" to them until I tow the line. But when discussions are framed to be any varying subtext of "Is Nintendo awesome, very awesome, or perfect" or "Is Sony doomed, dead, or so dead they're already reincarnated and dying again" or else risk someone freaking out, I wouldn't lose any sleep over my "brick wall" status. I don't really rely on a Nintendo fansite for open gaming discussions (no offense to the certainly intelligent ones here).
Talk about straw man arguments, I don't think anyone here has said Nintendo is perfect, I like their strategy but feel they are dropping the ball in other areas as well. Obviously you haven't read many of my posts because I am not afraid to stand up against a Nintendo choice if I truly feel it is detrimental (their crappy online strategy for one). I'm not sure what the problem is with people relying on this "Nintendo fansite" for open discussion. This site has been one of the most informative and INTELLIGENT sites I've been too when it comes to gaming discussions. That includes sites like IGN, Gamespot, gamefaqs, Team Xbox, and myriad of others which I've been too. None even touch this one when it comes to balance and above all else rational debate. So I'd appreciate you not harpooning those of us who enjoy it here and do use it for open discussions. Personally I could care less if you respect or don't respect my opinion but there are others here that deserve a tad bit more credit then you are giving them. I usually respect your opinions but I think you are crossing the line a bit by throwing this site into the sludge that is most Nintendo or gaming discussion boards.
Post by: Kairon on February 03, 2007, 08:11:02 AM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 03, 2007, 08:20:04 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock
According to this, Blu-ray was developed by the BDA. I don't know how that translates to Sony getting most out of the deal.
Things like controller ports still cost money. And I didn't say they were expensive, I said they weren't necessary. Without them, Nintendo would still save money because they aren't being manufactured. And size isn't inherently tied to sleekness. Wii didn't need to be the size of 3 DVD cases to be sleek. It costs money to make a chipset smaller. For example, DS Lite was probably possible in 2004, but it wouldn't have cost $130. Nintendo sacrificed power for size. Wii didn't really need HD graphics, but Nintendo definitely aimed too low. If high-def graphics require something like 3 times the processing power, Wii could have been somewhere near the upper crust, non-HD area at $250 with Wii Sports still included. Nintendo managed to create Gamecube which is significantly better hardware than N64 and at the same entry price. In 5 years since GCN launched, Wii could have been far more capable. The technology is there, it just depends on which technologies you spend money on.
Good games today are about vision. The big publishers release games with great vision. If Nintendo wants support and they'll need it to attract gamers outside their niche, then it's their job to make sure developers are as happy as possible.
That all may be true, but there are other contributing factors to Nintendo's descision, in Japan it is almost a luxury to have a small, yet capable system. The Wii design was mostly made around what the Japanese consumer wanted. Not sure what you mean by attracting consumers out of their "niche" the Wii seems to be doing just that, getting people who have never held a game controller can now play, that is definately expanding the market. So I'm not clear what you mean by their "niche" and what that entails, because Wii has been one of the fastest selling consoles in history UNLIKE Gamecube or N64. Regardless though we still don't know yet what the Wii can do graphically because it is, at the least 2 times more powerful than the GC.
P.S. BTW ARbok just between you and me, I would have preferred Nintendo sacrifice the size of the Wii for more graphical power. But I also understand that it has benefits as well, especially in a societies where "smaller" is better even if it can't do as much.
Post by: Adrock on February 03, 2007, 09:26:55 AM
Yes, I understand Japan prefers small systems. Wii could have been bigger allowing the console to be more powerful and still be considered small.
Nintendo still very much appeals primarily to their core audience of Nintendo fans. That's what I mean by niche. Right now, Wii is still selling off of its newness because the lineup isn't really all that impressive. I don't think you can make the claim that Nintendo has expanded the market yet. Wii may have piqued the interest of non-gamers, but they're not necessarily buying consoles.
I'm not saying a more powerful console is the absolute solution to all Nintendo's troubles. It would've helped though.
Post by: BigJim on February 03, 2007, 09:48:16 AM
Quote
Talk about straw man arguments, I don't think anyone here has said Nintendo is perfect, I like their strategy but feel they are dropping the ball in other areas as well. Obviously you haven't read many of my posts because I am not afraid to stand up against a Nintendo choice if I truly feel it is detrimental. I also am sorry you feel you are so much better than other people here because it is "Nintendo fansite" who do rely on it for open discussion. This site has been one of the most informative and INTELLIGENT sites I've been too when it comes to gaming discussions. I've been to a ton of different sites, and none even touch this one when it comes to balance. So I'd appreciate you not harpooning those of us who enjoy it here and do use it for open discussions. Personally I could care less if you respect or don't respect my opinion but there are others here that deserve a tad bit more credit then you are giving them. I usually respect your opinions but I think you are crossing the line a bit.
I probably wasn't referring to you then.
One doesn't have to proclaim Nintendo's literal perfection to see how silly it is for some folks to defend any possible counter-point one can bring up. When they can do no wrong in most discussions you partake, and I've sadly been in plenty here, it's actually a bit humorous and I wouldn't qualify them as open discussions. It's gotten better since some fresh blood has come in. That is somewhat refreshing.
Is it snobby to think propaganda repetition is not intelligent discussion? Hmm, probably so. So perhaps you are correct and I should re-evaluate that. However, as I said, I certainly don't blanket the entire forum or all its users. But I have certainly seen plenty of it before. Maybe I look at too many bait threads and not enough at other stuff.
Ok, wanna talk graphics?
The Wii didn't need HD, but I do think graphics were definitely low-balled for $250. I also believe that a fairly priced HD system is possible without being entirely cost-prohibitive (for us or Nintendo).
(Before I say anything else, this entire issue is all a what-if scenarios anyway. We're all talking fantasy here. So nobody needs to be defensive.)
A blue laser diode (either format) is definitely out of the question because of its cost prohibitive... ness? Is that a word? Cost prohibitivization? Did I make a new word? Anyway, it's anti-affordable, much less available, and won't be for a while longer evidently. So they'd have to stick with regular DVD media, which isn't a big deal (IMO).
They don't need to match 360 bit-for-bit to achieve close to visual parity. If anything we know Nintendo appreciates design elegance. Most developers have more of less said that the Xbox is a gnat's penis more powerful than GameCube. If that is true and it was achievable at that big price gap, then we know the appreciable benefit for design optimization. 360 is definitely designed better than the BX1 (you can't do much worse than a system slapped together with virtually OTC parts in 18 months) but it's still a bit inefficient.
I do believe that they could put together a reasonable 720p HD system at $299 and be at or close to break-even. Any offset could still be made up fairly quickly. Go nuts and launch with a party game that needs a lot of controllers. Wii XXXTreme Sports! There. You're caught up.
Aside from hardware, Nintendo has software revenue streams that Sony and MS don't even come within the same hemisphere of touching. Nintendo also doesn't have extraneous business interests that suck additional tens of millions from their bottom line. They could be more aggressive on hardware, price fairly, and still be healthy if they chose. $600 million healthy? I don't know, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it even if I were a shareholder.
I know a higher price flies in the face of "Blue Ocean". But like I said we're talking what-if scenarios. This would be the dawn of the "Yellow Snow" strategy. There's plenty of precedent in consoles proving that people will pay more for what they want. In this strategy, Nintendo would "piss" off their fanboys by pricing it higher and offering more of what people other than their shrinking base wants in a console. It's brilliance! Everybody loves a rebel... err, a Revolution?
Being the value provider, the GameCube's "Purple Rain" strategy, only got them so far. About 15% to be specific. So value only accounts for so much. People 'wanted' PS2 and they paid for it.
But seriously, yes, I do think $299 is doable for "virtual" parity with 360.
Or they could have at least delivered a premium SD unit at a break-even $250. Some more pipelines wouldn't kill anyone. The Wii as it is is not Nintendo's best foot forward for gamers. It's almost "politically" designed for profit/cost, being a pimped GCN, and the GCN itself profited very handsomely at $100 for a long time. Last I heard it had an under $60 BOM per unit towards its end?
Post by: Mario on February 03, 2007, 09:53:41 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 03, 2007, 10:24:00 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock Nintendo still very much appeals primarily to their core audience of Nintendo fans. That's what I mean by niche. Right now, Wii is still selling off of its newness because the lineup isn't really all that impressive. I don't think you can make the claim that Nintendo has expanded the market yet. Wii may have piqued the interest of non-gamers, but they're not necessarily buying consoles.
Huh?
I KNOW the Wii has expanded its marketshare already. I've lined up for Wiis four times now: the people lining up with me have not been the same people you'd expect to see lining up for a game console.
Beyond that, I've shown the Wii to people, people who don't have a clue in hell about games or gaming, but they HAVE to have a Wii after trying it. These are people who would never touch a game system in their lives but the Wii has sent these people out to the stores in search of one after only one Wii Sports play session.
Post by: Kairon on February 03, 2007, 10:50:41 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: BigJim
I know a higher price flies in the face of "Blue Ocean". But like I said we're talking what-if scenarios. This would be the dawn of the "Yellow Snow" strategy. There's plenty of precedent in consoles proving that people will pay more for what they want. In this strategy, Nintendo would "piss" off their fanboys by pricing it higher and offering more of what people other than their shrinking base wants in a console. It's brilliance! Everybody loves a rebel... err, a Revolution?
Wait a second... they're doing this already. The console is pissing off some traditional fans... and people ARE paying more for what they want... in this case what they want being Wii Sports experiences because otherwise by all conventional wisdom the hardware would be cheaper.
This IS yellow snow! OMG!
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 03, 2007, 11:02:26 AM
Post by: TerribleOne on February 03, 2007, 01:25:33 PM
With that being said.. i think that Nintendo should had compromised a bit for a more capable system. Developers shouldn't be blamed for crappy games just as much as nintendo shouldn't be blamed for emphasis on cost-efficiency because they're both businesses trying to profit and just like nintendo didn't feel the they needed to make the system HD.. developers won't want want to spend the same resources for a Wii title vs a PS3 or 360 title.
Post by: ThePerm on February 03, 2007, 01:48:58 PM
Post by: Kairon on February 03, 2007, 01:54:06 PM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: denjet78 on February 03, 2007, 02:00:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: TerribleOne
i think that Nintendo should had compromised a bit for a more capable system. Developers shouldn't be blamed for crappy games just as much as nintendo shouldn't be blamed for emphasis on cost-efficiency because they're both businesses trying to profit and just like nintendo didn't feel the they needed to make the system HD.. developers won't want want to spend the same resources for a Wii title vs a PS3 or 360 title.
I don't think it would have made much of a difference if the system was a little more powerful. Look at what happened with the GC. It was practically on the same level as the XBox but a lot of developers (see: all) managed to make games on it that looked worse than the average PS2 game. All that power going to waste. I can completely understand why Nintendo gave graphics the heave-ho this generation. They played that game last generation and got crapped on for it. Why put something in your system that almost no one is going to take advantage of?
You could of course argue that developers "could" bring the same graphically intense games to the Wii as they're bringing to the PS3 and 360 but I don't think so. The only way that's going to happen is if Nintendo becomes a mini-me. They've always done their own thing and so developers will have to do something different for the system. Does that mean that developers have to avoid high end graphics? No. But they most likely will because in the end they're all cheap-ass bastards.
Post by: Kairon on February 03, 2007, 02:19:24 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: denjet78
I don't think it would have made much of a difference if the system was a little more powerful. Look at what happened with the GC. It was practically on the same level as the XBox but a lot of developers (see: all) managed to make games on it that looked worse than the average PS2 game. All that power going to waste. I can completely understand why Nintendo gave graphics the heave-ho this generation. They played that game last generation and got crapped on for it. Why put something in your system that almost no one is going to take advantage of?
You could of course argue that developers "could" bring the same graphically intense games to the Wii as they're bringing to the PS3 and 360 but I don't think so. The only way that's going to happen is if Nintendo becomes a mini-me. They've always done their own thing and so developers will have to do something different for the system. Does that mean that developers have to avoid high end graphics? No. But they most likely will because in the end they're all cheap-ass bastards.
QFT.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: TerribleOne on February 03, 2007, 02:27:12 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: denjet78
I don't think it would have made much of a difference if the system was a little more powerful. Look at what happened with the GC. It was practically on the same level as the XBox but a lot of developers (see: all) managed to make games on it that looked worse than the average PS2 game. All that power going to waste. I can completely understand why Nintendo gave graphics the heave-ho this generation. They played that game last generation and got crapped on for it. Why put something in your system that almost no one is going to take advantage of?
Hmmm.. i see what you're saying but i don't think the last generation should be used for any indication because of all the factors that led to it, i.e; Disc size, 3rd Party Title sales, GC's consumer composition. However when i mentioned it should had been a bit more powerful i was thinkin more about the future because i believe it will hinder the Wii in a few years when the 360 and PS3 get price cuts and the newness of the Wii wears off. Think about why Sony fumbled the PS3 because Microsoft forced the next Gen on them when they were very happy with the PS2, which is still selling like hotcakes NOW, many systems and years later. Who wouldn't want that kind off success.
Post by: denjet78 on February 03, 2007, 02:56:35 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: TerribleOne
Hmmm.. i see what you're saying but i don't think the last generation should be used for any indication because of all the factors that led to it, i.e; Disc size, 3rd Party Title sales, GC's consumer composition. However when i mentioned it should had been a bit more powerful i was thinkin more about the future because i believe it will hinder the Wii in a few years when the 360 and PS3 get price cuts and the newness of the Wii wears off. Think about why Sony fumbled the PS3 because Microsoft forced the next Gen on them when they were very happy with the PS2, which is still selling like hotcakes NOW, many systems and years later. Who wouldn't want that kind off success.
The thing is, you just proved that Wii doesn't need any more power. The PS2 is, in your words "still selling like hotcakes". The most inferior system of last generation is selling better than vastly superior next gen systems. Obviously power isn't everything. As for the newness of the Wii, if developers are smart, it won't wear off. There are just so many ideas out there that have yet to even be imagined. We'll have to wait and see how that plays out though. I have faith in Nintendo. 3rd parties? Not so much.
Let me put it this way. I'm not against graphics. I actually like nice graphics. They're pleasing to the eye. It would be nice if the Wii could even blow the PS3 out of the water. But they're not of the massive importance that most people make them out to be. Focus too much on the graphics and you loose sight of what's really important. I'd put up with N64 level graphics if it meant the games were incredibly fun. Well, maybe not that bad.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 03, 2007, 03:11:14 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: TerribleOne
and the newness of the Wii wears off.
Like how the newness of the DS wore off?
Games matter. Graphics in games do not matter to the extent that a few graphically excellent games will cause a system to outperform another system with many more games of the same gameplay caliber but lesser graphical extent. It just doesn't work that way.
I'm not worried about the Wii at all. The only question left is how quickly the Wii will outsell the 360 in the US (and the world over).
Post by: TerribleOne on February 03, 2007, 03:50:11 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: denjet78
The thing is, you just proved that Wii doesn't need any more power. The PS2 is, in your words "still selling like hotcakes". The most inferior system of last generation is selling better than vastly superior next gen systems. Obviously power isn't everything. As for the newness of the Wii, if developers are smart, it won't wear off. There are just so many ideas out there that have yet to even be imagined. We'll have to wait and see how that plays out though. I have faith in Nintendo. 3rd parties? Not so much.
My apologies, when I mentioned PS2 i failed to also note that I used it because of its' relationship with the other systems. PS2 wasn't as inferior to the GC n xbox as the Wii is to the 360 n PS3. I'm thinking about 2009 and 2010 when all systems are giving us all they got.
BTW I dont think we can use the DS as an example of anything because it's a whole different monster from console gaming and pointing out it's number #1 shows nothing about the status of the Wii. Plus did you enjoy your GC less because it was #3 last gen?
Post by: Kairon on February 03, 2007, 03:58:46 PM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: denjet78 on February 03, 2007, 04:18:08 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: TerribleOne
My apologies, when I mentioned PS2 i failed to also note that I used it because of its' relationship with the other systems. PS2 wasn't as inferior to the GC n xbox as the Wii is to the 360 n PS3. I'm thinking about 2009 and 2010 when all systems are giving us all they got.
BTW I dont think we can use the DS as an example of anything because it's a whole different monster from console gaming and pointing out it's number #1 shows nothing about the status of the Wii. Plus did you enjoy your GC less because it was #3 last gen?
You're making assumptions now. No one knows exactly how powerful any of these new systems are. The gap between Wii and PS3/360 could very well be smaller than the gap between PS2 and GC/Xbox. You don't know anything about, well, anything. Until these systems are dead and gone you simply cannot make those kinds of comparisons. And even then it's still subject to even whether or not developers really tried to take advantage of the hardware.
A lot of people were convinced that the PS2 was more powerful than the GC, and looking at most of the games that actually came out for the system it was difficult to circumvent that reasoning. Once in a great, GREAT while did we see that the GC was more or less on par with the XBox. Most of the time though, developers simply refused to attempt to tap the power of the system.
Using the DS/PSP situation may not be completely fair but it is honest. However much you want to completely separate handhelds and consoles they do have one major thing in common: They both play games. They don't have 100% baring on each other but I'm certain they have more than most people are willing to give them credit for.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 03, 2007, 04:57:27 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: TerribleOne
BTW I dont think we can use the DS as an example of anything because it's a whole different monster from console gaming and pointing out it's number #1 shows nothing about the status of the Wii.
I don't see why not. I've been making comparisons between the Wii and DS since before the Wii's launch and they've all been spot-on, thus far. Both consoles went up against graphically superior pricey behemoths and, using their innovative new approach to gaming, they're both kicking ass and wooing developers who previously hated Nintendo.
I see no reason not to compare the two when both take such an immensely similar approach.
Quote
Plus did you enjoy your GC less because it was #3 last gen?
Due to the fact that it had very little 3rd party support and an overall lack of decent titles, being #3 definitely cut into my enjoyment of the console because half the time I had nothing to play on it.
Post by: Adrock on February 03, 2007, 07:15:56 PM
Wii is not in the same position as PS2 was. Using DS or PS2 as proof why Wii didn't need to be more powerful is extremely misguided. GCN may have been more powerful than PS2, but Nintendo basically didn't everything they could to make the console a hard sell to both consumers and 3rd parties.
Nintendo is still playing catch up. Having inferior hardware is working against them. It only doesn't matter when you're on top. Publishers will release games on inferior hardware if there's money to be made. Wii is getting more support, but it's still pretty lacking. 3rd parties are wary of the platform because Nintendo has dropped the ball so many times and they were last place. Wii is selling well now which is great. This will hopefully lead to more support.
A more powerful console is a more attractive money making endeavor. Graphics are the first thing consumers see. If publishers can't use that to sell their games, support is likely to wane. If 3rd parties can't make the games they want to make on the console, support will decline as well. Wii titles look dated now, in the next year or so they'll look even more dated next to PS3 and 360. If Nintendo isn't on top or close to it by then, it's going to be tough for them.
Post by: Kairon on February 03, 2007, 07:19:15 PM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: denjet78 on February 03, 2007, 07:59:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock
I don't like the Wii/DS comparison. Nintendo has never been anything but number 1 in the portable market. That changes the entire comparison. Wii against 360 and PS3 is a totally different scenario than DS against PSP. Nintendo is coming off of last place. A company's placement in the market cannot be ignored. Despite the similar philosophy (attract new gamers, innovation and so on), such comparisons are unfair.
Wii is not in the same position as PS2 was. Using DS or PS2 as proof why Wii didn't need to be more powerful is extremely misguided. GCN may have been more powerful than PS2, but Nintendo basically didn't everything they could to make the console a hard sell to both consumers and 3rd parties.
Nintendo is still playing catch up. Having inferior hardware is working against them. It only doesn't matter when you're on top. Publishers will release games on inferior hardware if there's money to be made. Wii is getting more support, but it's still pretty lacking. 3rd parties are wary of the platform because Nintendo has dropped the ball so many times and they were last place. Wii is selling well now which is great. This will hopefully lead to more support.
A more powerful console is a more attractive money making endeavor. Graphics are the first thing consumers see. If publishers can't use that to sell their games, support is likely to wane. If 3rd parties can't make the games they want to make on the console, support will decline as well. Wii titles look dated now, in the next year or so they'll look even more dated next to PS3 and 360. If Nintendo isn't on top or close to it by then, it's going to be tough for them.
Nintendo has completely thrown out the ideas of positions and power and graphics are certainly not what's selling Wiis. If graphics were as important as you say they are there would be Wiis sitting on store shelves everywhere. No, it seems graphics are only that important in your head, which makes that your opinion.
As for all this talk of 3rd parties taking games to other platforms because they feel that they won't be able to express their "true vision" using the inferior Wii hardware, could everyone who actually thinks this is an honest and useful argument please put on tinfoil hats so we can recognize you as the idiots that you are from afar? No developer making any game for any console that has ever existed in history has ever been able to realize their vision. They have always had to scale back and/or make due with hardware limitations. If not, we'd all be playing in holodecks in completely realized universes that would go on and on into infinity.
And this is an ESPECIALLY retarded argument when you realize that developers main decisions concerning graphics this generation are going to be weighing whether they'd rather make a game on Wii or PS3 because the lighting and shadows look a little bit better on one over the other. Of course the fact that they could actually create an entirely new type of gameplay instead of just rehashing the same games over and over again will never come into the equation. This is such a non point that I have no idea why I'm even taking the time to respond to it. Probably because I'm a glutton for punishment. Or maybe because I'm just looking for someone else who realizes how stupid this whole situation is.
Post by: Kairon on February 03, 2007, 08:02:53 PM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: jasonditz on February 04, 2007, 03:44:56 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 04, 2007, 04:37:41 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock Nintendo is coming off of last place. A company's placement in the market cannot be ignored.
Like how Sony's first place finish last gen is clearly what's carrying the PS3 into first place this gen?
Dude, no offense, but wake UP. EVERY generation is a completely new battlefront, a whole new war and Nintendo has seen to it that this war has a whole new set of rules. Currently, Sony is in dead last and there are NO games coming out for the PS3 this year which even begin to offer a glimmer of hope of changing that. You're honestly going to look at that situation and tell me that last gen still counts?
And the DS vs. PSP argument stands. Why? Because the PSP was outselling the DS until Nintendogs hit (aka. the blue ocean software). The PSP was the console which everyone was lauding as the system which would finally kill Nintendo in the handheld market, and despite boasting superior graphics and a new media format for watching movies, it went on to FAILURE.
Oddly enough, the PS3 also boasts superior graphics and a new media format for watching movies, and we all know where IT is at present.
Quote
A more powerful console is a more attractive money making endeavor.
Wrong. A more powerful console means higher development costs. Did you miss Namco's statement about how Ridge Racer will need to sell at least 500,000 copies on the PS3 before it will break EVEN as a development project?
Quote
Graphics are the first thing consumers see. If publishers can't use that to sell their games, support is likely to wane. If 3rd parties can't make the games they want to make on the console, support will decline as well. Wii titles look dated now, in the next year or so they'll look even more dated next to PS3 and 360. If Nintendo isn't on top or close to it by then, it's going to be tough for them.
And the PS2 titles looked IMMENSELY dated no less than a year after the GC and Xbox launched, and clearly, that's what did the PS2 in, right? I mean, it's not like it went on to have a 50 million console lead over both its competitors despite having inferior graphical capability or anything...
Seriously, think about this crap before you say it. More than a month after the xmas rush has come and gone, people are STILL lining up in the morning to get Wiis as though the console was first launching. This didn't happen for the 360 and it sure as hell ain't happening for the PS3.
Graphics don't matter: it's ALL about gameplay. Historically, graphically inferior systems have won the console war EVERY SINGLE TIME! If what you're saying was even remotely true, Wiis would be gathering dust all over store shelves and PS3s would be impossible to find.
Post by: jasonditz on February 04, 2007, 05:23:23 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_BrotherQuote
Originally posted by: Adrock Nintendo is coming off of last place. A company's placement in the market cannot be ignored.
Like how Sony's first place finish last gen is clearly what's carrying the PS3 into first place this gen?
Dude, no offense, but wake UP. EVERY generation is a completely new battlefront, a whole new war and Nintendo has seen to it that this war has a whole new set of rules. Currently, Sony is in dead last and there are NO games coming out for the PS3 this year which even begin to offer a glimmer of hope of changing that. You're honestly going to look at that situation and tell me that last gen still counts?
I agree with him to some extent... the PS3 wouldn't be doing as well as it is (which isn't very well) were it not for the success of the PS2. There's absolutely no reason to buy a PS3 right now besides using it as a cheap Blu-Ray player. But a lot of people loved the PS2 and that fact alone got it a lot of sales that it otherwise wouldn't have.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 04, 2007, 05:58:18 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: jasonditz I agree with him to some extent... the PS3 wouldn't be doing as well as it is (which isn't very well) were it not for the success of the PS2. There's absolutely no reason to buy a PS3 right now besides using it as a cheap Blu-Ray player. But a lot of people loved the PS2 and that fact alone got it a lot of sales that it otherwise wouldn't have.
I agree that the brand name had some power, but the point is, brand name didn't carry ENOUGH power and it never will.
The GC likewise didn't besmirch the Wii's good name to the point where people aren't buying it. Quite the opposite: people who probably never even heard of a GC are buying a Wii without having any prior knowledge that Nintendo still makes games at all.
I bet there are a lot of people who bought a Wii and then LATER saw the Nintendo logo and said, "Oh, cool: they're making games again!"
Like I said, new generations aren't just a rehash of all the same sh*t from the previous generations again. This time, Nintendo is using its market disruption strategy to throw everything up in the air, including the definition of the word "gamer".
I understand that brand name can carry power, but once people try the Wii, all the power of brand just outright vanishes and the viral marketing effect takes over.
Post by: segagamer12 on February 04, 2007, 06:12:44 AM
Atari 2600 took on the Intellevision head on and lost, being graphically inferrior 2600 didnt have a chance.
NES took on the SMS headon and SMS being graphicaly superior won the console war.
SNES and Genesis were nearly dead tie, yet the vastly superior 3d0 and neo geo murdered them in sales.
The more powerful and Saturn and the super powerful n64 crushed the puny PSx
The Xbxo stood up and pissed on sonys grave.
or how Game gear killed GB before it even began. Or Nomad crushed the GBA.
Or PSP stopped Ds from taking off.
Yeah history repeats itself.
Post by: MarioAllStar on February 04, 2007, 06:28:54 AM
Post by: segagamer12 on February 04, 2007, 07:31:01 AM
Post by: Adrock on February 04, 2007, 11:36:17 AM
Quote
denjet78 wrote:
...could everyone who actually thinks this is an honest and useful argument please put on tinfoil hats so we can recognize you as the idiots that you are from afar?
Are insults really necessary? Are you really that passionate about this? Dude, you're on an internet forum discussing videogames, for sobbing out loud......
Anyway...
Quote
smash_brother wrote:
Like how Sony's first place finish last gen is clearly what's carrying the PS3 into first place this gen?
PS3 is also $600. Regardless, Sony's coming in first place is one of the reasons anyone is even bothering with PS3. People trust that the Playstation brand will have the titles they want to play. The previous generation always counts. PS2 had nothing its first year, but people bought it and 3rd parties supported it. If Sony hadn't won last generation, they wouldn't have the 3rd party support it does now?
Quote
And the PS2 titles looked IMMENSELY dated no less than a year after the GC and Xbox launched, and clearly, that's what did the PS2 in, right? I mean, it's not like it went on to have a 50 million console lead over both its competitors despite having inferior graphical capability or anything...
Oh please. Sony also had almost every 3rd party eating right out of its ass. If Nintendo had that kind of near universal support from big name publishers, graphics wouldn't matter. But they don't, so their hardware is working against them.
Quote
Graphics don't matter: it's ALL about gameplay. Historically, graphically inferior systems have won the console war EVERY SINGLE TIME! If what you're saying was even remotely true, Wiis would be gathering dust all over store shelves and PS3s would be impossible to find.
I hate the "graphics don't matter" argument. They matter. You can't say they don't. People care about graphics. And it's not all gameplay. Otherwise, crappy games wouldn't sell, but they do. People buy crappy games all the time.... often because they look good.
Wii is selling because it's new. PS3 isn't selling because it's $600. This has nothing to do with graphically inferior consoles winning the console war. There is no connection there. That's like saying that all a company has to do is release a graphically weaker console to win the console war. You can't reduce any console war to a graphics battle because there are too many factors to consider.
I'm not saying that if Wii was more powerful, it would suddenly change everything. I'm saying it would help. Publishers are embracing this so-called HD era. Obviously, there's money to be made otherwise no one would make high-def games. It's easier to market a graphically impressive game. That's one of the reasons publishers push graphics so hard. Now, I've already said Wii didn't need HD and I still stand by that, but undercutting Wii's power was not the best thing Nintendo could have done.
Post by: Kairon on February 04, 2007, 11:44:23 AM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 04, 2007, 11:57:44 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock
PS3 is also $600. Regardless, Sony's coming in first place is one of the reasons anyone is even bothering with PS3. People trust that the Playstation brand will have the titles they want to play. The previous generation always counts. PS2 had nothing its first year, but people bought it and 3rd parties supported it. If Sony hadn't won last generation, they wouldn't have the 3rd party support it does now?
I agree that what little support they're getting is due to the strength of the PS2 brand name, but look at the bigger picture here.
The PS3 is doing abysmally, developers are jumping ship due to immense development costs and the system is being blasted to hell by everyone.
Meanwhile Nintendo, last gen's loser, still can't keep their system on the shelves. How badly did the GC tarnish the reputation of Nintendo systems? We won't find out until the Wii actually stays on shelves so we can see how far the demand goes.
Again, I hear what you're saying, but hear what I'M saying: the generation jump calls all bets off. What more proof of this do you need?
Quote
Oh please. Sony also had almost every 3rd party eating right out of its ass. If Nintendo had that kind of near universal support from big name publishers, graphics wouldn't matter. But they don't, so their hardware is working against them.
That's the point: despite having terrible graphics by comparison, the PS2 still won because it had the GAMES.
Quote
I hate the "graphics don't matter" argument. They matter. You can't say they don't. People care about graphics. And it's not all gameplay. Otherwise, crappy games wouldn't sell, but they do. People buy crappy games all the time.... often because they look good.
I like good graphics, too, but graphics have NEVER decided the winner in a console war, ever. When faced with that fact, what other conclusion can I come to? If graphics meant anything in a console war, somewhere along the lines, we would have seen a case where the more graphically capable system triumphed.
Quote
Wii is selling because it's new. PS3 isn't selling because it's $600. This has nothing to do with graphically inferior consoles winning the console war. There is no connection there. That's like saying that all a company has to do is release a graphically weaker console to win the console war. You can't reduce any console war to a graphics battle because there are too many factors to consider.
The Wii isn't winning because it has worse graphics. The Wii is winning because it has awesome gameplay and the gameplay is awesome enough that no one cares about the graphics. Also, the $250 price point is a huge selling factor for the console.
Quote
I'm not saying that if Wii was more powerful, it would suddenly change everything. I'm saying it would help. Publishers are embracing this so-called HD era. Obviously, there's money to be made otherwise no one would make high-def games. It's easier to market a graphically impressive game. That's one of the reasons publishers push graphics so hard. Now, I've already said Wii didn't need HD and I still stand by that, but undercutting Wii's power was not the best thing Nintendo could have done.
It's easier to market a graphically-impressive game, but the problem is, it's harder to sell a more expensive console because the internal hardware costs more and it's harder to convince developers to develop those games in HD when it increases development costs exponentially. Every Wii that gets sold is one more slap in the face to the whole "HD era" argument.
The fact is, these devs know they could have made the game for cheaper for the Wii due to the lax graphical standards. Combine that with its rapidly expanding userbase and you can understand why most devs are probably kicking themselves for not getting on the bandwagon sooner.
Also, I don't think they undercut the power on the Wii intentionally: I think the Wii is definitely capable of some very beautiful visuals, but the games that will push that envelope just aren't here yet.
Like I said, wait for MP: Corruption to show up: that's the game which will have been developed from the ground up to make proper use of the Wii's graphical hardware.
Post by: Adrock on February 04, 2007, 01:43:44 PM
Quote
smash_brother wrote:
Meanwhile Nintendo, last gen's loser, still can't keep their system on the shelves. How badly did the GC tarnish the reputation of Nintendo systems? We won't find out until the Wii actually stays on shelves so we can see how far the demand goes.
I think the last two generations did some considerable damage to Nintendo's credibility in the market. Nintendo used to be synonymous with "videogames." Now, Playstation is. A lot gamers look unfavorably on Nintendo, despite how well Wii has some thus far. I agree that we'll have to wait and see. It's too hard to tell if these new gamers can make up for the gamers Nintendo lost over the years or if Nintendo can get them back. But I still think Wii is selling as a novelty right now. It's intriguing because it's new.
Quote
That's the point: despite having terrible graphics by comparison, the PS2 still won because it had the GAMES.
But Nintendo doesn't have the games. That's my point. The 2 best games on the system (Wii Sports and Zelda) are made by Nintendo. PS3 and 360, despite being more expensive hardware, still have significantly more 3rd party support than Wii. Developers aren't jumping ship, they're allocating less exclusives. Be that as it may, PS3 still has more higher profiles titles in the pipeline than Wii, namely Final Fantasy XIII, MGS4, Devil May Cry 3, Lair etc.
Quote
I didn't say they don't matter, but they have NEVER decided the winner in a console war, ever.
Yes, you did. I even quoted you saying that graphics don't matter.
And my point isn't that graphics decide the winner of the console war. I'm saying that graphics matter and they matter because publishers and developers care about graphics. Console power influences the decisions of 3rd parties. Factor 5 and Silicon Knights are no longer developing for Nintendo (well, SK might be, but Too Human is gone). Regardless of what you think of their games, the truth is that Nintendo just lost support from 2 developers who were staunch Nintendo supporters. Major 3rd party publishers are still supporting the competition more. It is about the games, but Nintendo is often getting the shaft.
Quote
t's easier to market a graphically-impressive game, but the problem is, it's harder to sell a more expensive console because the internal hardware costs more and it's harder to convince developers to develop those games in HD when it increases development costs exponentially.
I don't think they undercut the power on the Wii intentionally: I think the Wii is definitely capable of some very beautiful visuals, but the games that will push that envelope just aren't here yet.
Microsoft doesn't seem to having any trouble selling an HD console at a semi-reasonable $400, except in Japan because it's Japan and MS is an American company. If it's hard to convince developers/publishers to support the platform and release games in HD, why does 360 have significantly more support than Nintendo? Why are they getting higher profile games.
I agree that Wii is capable of beautiful visuals. As I've said in several topics, I support the importance of art direction above sheer power.
Post by: segagamer12 on February 04, 2007, 02:34:26 PM
Sure some 3rd party games look like ps2 ports instead of steller GC games. so what 3rd parties never really push a system in the first place as a rule. There are exceptions but even durring GCs life Nintendo had to show off what it could do and it was only a bare handful of 3rd parties that stood up to the challenge.
If, and only then, when MP3 comes out if it doesnt look better than GC then we have a right to bitch about gfx. Rightnow Zelda looks amazing and it IS a GC game. And I play Wii side by side a 360 alot and to tell you the truth Wii holds up nicely on regualr tv just like Nintedno said. ANd thats both consoles running progressive scan.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 04, 2007, 02:40:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock
Microsoft doesn't seem to having any trouble selling an HD console at a semi-reasonable $400, except in Japan because it's Japan and MS is an American company. If it's hard to convince developers/publishers to support the platform and release games in HD, why does 360 have significantly more support than Nintendo? Why are they getting higher profile games.
I agree that Wii is capable of beautiful visuals. As I've said in several topics, I support the importance of art direction above sheer power.
Maybe because Microsoft was taking around a 200$ hit on each console sold too. Now why has MS been getting so much more support? Um that is a no brainer, the Xbox was relatively successful for publishers and the 360 was the first next-generation system on the market so they were hoping it would have a first mover advantage, while the Wii was a followup to the lackluster GC. But if you have been noticing third parties are starting to turn to Wii, and I would not be surprised to see that trend continue.
Post by: segagamer12 on February 04, 2007, 02:57:55 PM
honestly I dont think PS3 can recover. 360 also has one HUGE thing going for it Wii and ps3 dont have figured out yet and thats LIVE until ps3 gets its act together and Nintendo also, dont count it out of the equation.
now what was I saying...
Oh yeah see Publishers are starting to announce games for Wii already that were neglected on GC so I think that in and of itself is a testament of how quickly things can change.
Oh and I think you CAN garuntee or at least assume the least powerful consil will do better than the powerhouses because of two things, first it will be cheaper, and second the manufactorure will try HARDER to sell it vs someone who things thier powerhouse will sell it self. thats a proven trend as well. I dont have time to give examples but theres other here who could help.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 04, 2007, 04:27:55 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock
I think the last two generations did some considerable damage to Nintendo's credibility in the market. Nintendo used to be synonymous with "videogames." Now, Playstation is. A lot gamers look unfavorably on Nintendo, despite how well Wii has some thus far. I agree that we'll have to wait and see. It's too hard to tell if these new gamers can make up for the gamers Nintendo lost over the years or if Nintendo can get them back. But I still think Wii is selling as a novelty right now. It's intriguing because it's new.
1. The Wii tie-in ratio is something to the tune of 5:1 right now. Either these aren't all non-gamers or non-gamers violate their own nomenclature by purchasing twice as many games as gamers. These software numbers are pretty difficult to ignore as a "novelty".
2. Zelda has an 85% tie-in ratio for Wii purchases, meaning there are a lot more "gamers" coming back than one might think.
Quote
But Nintendo doesn't have the games. That's my point. The 2 best games on the system (Wii Sports and Zelda) are made by Nintendo. PS3 and 360, despite being more expensive hardware, still have significantly more 3rd party support than Wii. Developers aren't jumping ship, they're allocating less exclusives.
First of all, the Wii is in the first three months of its existence. NO system "had the games" that early on.
Second, look at the upcoming Wii release list.
Third, developers ARE jumping ship from the PS3.
Quote
Be that as it may, PS3 still has more higher profiles titles in the pipeline than Wii, namely Final Fantasy XIII, MGS4, Devil May Cry 3, Lair etc.
Yes, and look how much good those two year off titles are doing for the PS3.
Also, most of those are heavily speculated to be going multiconsole, especially if the PS3 continues to sell as abysmally as it has been.
Quote
Yes, you did. I even quoted you saying that graphics don't matter.
Reread my post. I edited it after I went back and checked if I actually did say that (before you posted this).
Quote
And my point isn't that graphics decide the winner of the console war. I'm saying that graphics matter and they matter because publishers and developers care about graphics. Console power influences the decisions of 3rd parties. Factor 5 and Silicon Knights are no longer developing for Nintendo (well, SK might be, but Too Human is gone). Regardless of what you think of their games, the truth is that Nintendo just lost support from 2 developers who were staunch Nintendo supporters. Major 3rd party publishers are still supporting the competition more. It is about the games, but Nintendo is often getting the shaft.
Developers follow the MONEY, repeat, $MONEY$. When the userbase of a console is large and the cost of development is cheap, games will follow. It's inevitable. The Wii already has 60% of the next-gen market in Japan, and that number can only increase as Nintendo pumps more Wiis out the door.
You think all of the Japanese devs aren't going to look at that and think REAL hard about which console they should be developing for?
And what's this nonsense about Nintendo getting the shaft? Nintendo is being offered more unique 3rd party games than both other platforms right now. 30 games promised from Banco, 15 from EA including exclusives and even Konami who has sh*t on Nintendo many a time before this has revealed four titles, one of them an original IP and another is a DDR game with Wiimote support, 4 player AND a completely new song library with no Mario attached as a crutch to sell the game.
At least two from Square (for the Wii), Ubi is offering support out the ass, Tecmo is supporting Nintendo again, SNK has pledged games, etc. etc.
Jeezus effin' Christ, what more do you WANT for a console only three months old?
Quote
Microsoft doesn't seem to having any trouble selling an HD console at a semi-reasonable $400, except in Japan because it's Japan and MS is an American company.
Actually, it's because the Japanese hate Microsoft. Apple is an American company and iPods are like air to the Japanese.
Quote
If it's hard to convince developers/publishers to support the platform and release games in HD, why does 360 have significantly more support than Nintendo? Why are they getting higher profile games.
Because the console has been out for a year already and it spent that year with no next-gen competition?
The rest is subjective: I happen to think a DQ game is a "high profile game", as is a FF, even if they're both spinoffs, and furthermore, it's only 3 months into the Wii's life. Let's wait at least the same amount of time it took the 360 to accrue all of these "high profile" games before we stamp our foot and declare the Wii undernourished.
Also, MS didn't make their 10 million mark which they had hoped to sell by this time. They fell short with something to the tune of 8.5 million sold (or "shipped").
In fact, given the year-long head start, MS has done horribly, basically squandering their lead by stumbling around with scant few decent titles. The Wii has already sold just under half of what it took MS a year to reach in three months.
I know you're trying to paint some doom picture for the Wii here, but I ain't seeing it. The 3rd party support being offered for the Wii is already better than most of the support the GC had and is CERTAINLY leaps and bounds above support being pledged for any console 3 months old.
On top of that, Nintendo still can't keep the Wii on store shelves, and this is true in the US, of all places, the location where Nintendo has traditionally had the hardest time moving product.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but even with its inferior graphics, the Wii isn't going anywhere but UP.
Post by: NWR_pap64 on February 04, 2007, 05:12:03 PM
True, these games might be updated ports of the PS2/XBOX versions with added controls, but even then these are highly loved and respected mature franchises. These franchises are basically pop culture icons. They are constantly parodied, mocked, celebrated and presented through many mediums. Hell, go to any Hot topic and you are bound to find Scarface anything, even underwear, for sale.
Then there was the talks of Reggie talking to Rockstar about bringing GTA to the Wii. These games are games that we only DREAMED of seeing on the GC. The GC never got this type of support in its lifetime, yet the Wii was able to get these in a lifespan of 3 months.
Nintendo is even creating their own "adult' franchises, Disaster: Day of crisis and Project H.A.M.M.E.R. Not to mention there's still Sadness, Prince of Persia and many other serious franchises heading for the Wii.
HELL, people even have hope for freaking SONIC THE HEDGEHOG because the Wii might tremendously revitalize a dying franchise. The jury is still out on the quality of the game, yes, but not even the XBOX 360 and PS3 version of Sonic next gen has gathered this type of hype and attention, when it is more than likely that the game will disappoint.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 04, 2007, 05:59:54 PM
Post by: Kairon on February 04, 2007, 06:05:20 PM
Nintendo said themselves: If they sell more than the GC but the market doesn't expand, then they've failed. I hold them to THAT measure as a fanboi, not to any marketshare number.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 04, 2007, 07:37:51 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
That's weird Phoenix. Long ago I realized that as a Nintendo fanboi, I didn't want Nintendo in first place. I wanted Nintendo to do what they do best: keep pushing the envelope of what games are and can do according to their own vision and creativity. The N64 was a GOLDEN age for me because almost every release was an eye-opening experience and genre-defining moment. Who cares if Nintendo has bragging rights? We don't game to brag, we game to live a little piece of magic. As long as that magic comes through, and Nintendo's financially stable so they can keep delivering, I really am ecstatic as a fanboi.
Nintendo said themselves: If they sell more than the GC but the market doesn't expand, then they've failed. I hold them to THAT measure as a fanboi, not to any marketshare number.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Well it matters to me in the way of 3rd parties, and I do fear that Nintendo can still mess things up which could end up hurting them in the long run. I especially think it is important for gaming itself that Wii succeeds because of the controls and the potential for revolutionizing gaming for generations to come.
Post by: Adrock on February 04, 2007, 07:59:25 PM
Quote
smash_brother wrote:
1. The Wii tie-in ratio is something to the tune of 5:1 right now. Either these aren't all non-gamers or non-gamers violate their own nomenclature by purchasing twice as many games as gamers. These software numbers are pretty difficult to ignore as a "novelty".
2. Zelda has an 85% tie-in ratio for Wii purchases, meaning there are a lot more "gamers" coming back than one might think.
I'll have to take your word on that ratio. Still, an awful lot of Wii titles are based on either cartoons or CGI movies. And the tie-in of Zelda to a Nintendo console isn't even a point. This doesn't prove that "gamers" are coming back. Rather, that Nintendo fans love Zelda.
Quote
First of all, the Wii is in the first three months of its existence. NO system "had the games" that early on.
True, but the best game on Wii is also available on Gamecube and the second best game came with the system. Third party titles have been, for the most part, a joke so far.
Quote
Jeezus effin' Christ, what more do you WANT for a console only three months old?
PS3, for all its failings, still has more support. 3rd parties have bigger games and more of them lined up for it. Wii is getting a lot of ports made "new" because they use the Wii Remote. Thanks but no thanks.
And seriously, look at the list of developers you gave me and the titles Wii is getting. Ubi Soft... the same Ubi Soft that shoveled Far Cry Vengeance into stores. The same Ubi Soft that pimped Rayman Raving Rabbids on Wii yet released it on PS2 also. The same Ubi Soft that is rereleasing Two Thrones... and still porting said rerelease to PSP.
I'm assuming by Banco, you mean Namco Bandai. Nintendo owns stock in that company yet Tekken 5: Dark Resurrection is available on Playstation Network and PSP. Tekken 6 is listed as a PS3 game. What are those 30 titles on Wii? I'm guessing we'll see some Naruto.
Tecmo released an anime styled golf game. That doesn't impress me.
Konami's new IP features a raindrop with a cutesy face. Talk about furthering stereotypes about Nintendo being "kiddie." Before you start tossing company names at me, look at the games they're bringing to Wii compared to the competition. It's not as impressive as you think.
Quote
I know you're trying to paint some doom picture for the Wii here, but I ain't seeing it. The 3rd party support being offered for the Wii is already better than most of the support the GC had and is CERTAINLY leaps and bounds above support being pledged for any console 3 months old.
No, I'm looking at the big picture. Nintendo isn't doomed. I'm not saying they're doomed, nor have I ever meant to say that. They're doing fine. It's just not as rosy as you're making out to be. My problem is when people are using early success as an indication that things have changed. I'd say things are in the process of changing but even that could change. As much as people like to brag about Wii doing well and PS3 not doing well, this picture isn't as clear as it seems. My fear is that as great as Nintendo is doing now, it won't last. It's too early. Most of the biggest games coming out for the platform are coming from Nintendo themselves. Despite Wii crushing GCN during the same time period in its lifespan, 3rd party support looks moderately better at best. Wii may have more games, but many of them are bad games.
I admit I'm cynical, but as a Nintendo fan who's seen Nintendo stumble so many times, I reserve that right. Nothing would make me happier than to see Sony fall (if you really want to know, I'd be happy to tell you). I'm a Nintendo fan and have been one my entire life though that's not the reason I hate Sony. I want Nintendo to succeed, but I'm not going to throw a party because they had a successful launch or because EA announced 15 titles (it's EA... please).
Post by: IceCold on February 04, 2007, 09:20:29 PM
QuoteYou seem to keep forgetting the GameCube launch. It was lukewarm at best. The tie-in ratio definitely] proves gamers are coming back, because the GameCube had nowhere near the launch success of the Wii.
I'll have to take your word on that ratio. Still, an awful lot of Wii titles are based on either cartoons or CGI movies. And the tie-in of Zelda to a Nintendo console isn't even a point. This doesn't prove that "gamers" are coming back. Rather, that Nintendo fans love Zelda.
Post by: Hocotate on February 04, 2007, 10:11:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock
True, but the best game on Wii is also available on Gamecube and the second best game came with the system. Third party titles have been, for the most part, a joke so far.
Third party support for the PS3 has been a joke, not the Wii. Tell me what is out now for the PS3 that is worth it please. Better yet, show me that list of games that won't be out for 2 years and that will be ported to 360. You know the games that are supposed to save Sony?
The Wii is taking a dump on the PS3 in all regions and the 3rd parties have seen this. The big name PS3 titles that we know about were in the works before anyone knew about Sony messing up. You can bet that just about every dev w/ a high budget PS3 titles in the works is cringing right now. The only game that can save the PS3 now is FFXIII imo, which was announced as a 2008 release which is way too late to save Sony.
Post by: Mario on February 04, 2007, 10:30:13 PM
Quote
True, but the best game on Wii is also available on Gamecube and the second best game came with the system. Third party titles have been, for the most part, a joke so far.
It's the best launch in Nintendos history. Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz and Red Steel are quality third party exclusives.
Quote
Tecmo released an anime styled golf game. That doesn't impress me.
Nobody cares. It's a quality game and that's all that matters.
Quote
Konami's new IP features a raindrop with a cutesy face. Talk about furthering stereotypes about Nintendo being "kiddie."
Who gives a flying truck? Nobody. If you want blood, seek mental help and/or buy Mortal Kombat Wii.
Quote
No, I'm looking at the big picture. Nintendo isn't doomed. I'm not saying they're doomed, nor have I ever meant to say that.
You're not saying anything at all. You're just putting a negative spin on everything everyone else says. Nothing has gone wrong with Wii, it's had the best launch it could possibly have, it's OK to be happy! Healthy too!
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 05, 2007, 05:52:38 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock
I'll have to take your word on that ratio. Still, an awful lot of Wii titles are based on either cartoons or CGI movies. And the tie-in of Zelda to a Nintendo console isn't even a point. This doesn't prove that "gamers" are coming back. Rather, that Nintendo fans love Zelda.
It proves that a lot of GAMERS are buying the console, since they're picking up a total gamer game along with it.
As for the ratio, last I checked it was 4.7:1 or something in all territories.
Quote
True, but the best game on Wii is also available on Gamecube and the second best game came with the system. Third party titles have been, for the most part, a joke so far.
How many 3rd party titles have YOU played?
I had a lot of fun with Red Steel, CoD3, Madden (three of my sports game-hating friends played it while I was away and loved it, especially the minigames), Rayman, Trauma Center, Super Swing Golf, Metal Slug and THDJ.
Quote
PS3, for all its failings, still has more support. 3rd parties have bigger games and more of them lined up for it. Wii is getting a lot of ports made "new" because they use the Wii Remote. Thanks but no thanks.
No, this is the support that developers promised Sony BEFORE the infamous Sony E3 press conference and the announcement of "599 US DOLLARS!!!!". The support that was promised BEFORE the PS3 launch was a dismal failure.
Guess what? That support probably won't remain exclusive: Square and Konami aren't such idiots that they would adhere to Sony's ridiculously pricey development costs and then not recoup their losses by porting these games to other consoles.
Quote
And seriously, look at the list of developers you gave me and the titles Wii is getting. Ubi Soft... the same Ubi Soft that shoveled Far Cry Vengeance into stores. The same Ubi Soft that pimped Rayman Raving Rabbids on Wii yet released it on PS2 also. The same Ubi Soft that is rereleasing Two Thrones... and still porting said rerelease to PSP.
Your point? It's support. It's not top-quality support, but these are the types of titles we laughed away when they were cancelled for the GC and released on the PS2. Total game library matters and in a very big way. I fully expect to get 90% crap, but that means that the 10% left over should be some excellent titles.
Quote
I'm assuming by Banco, you mean Namco Bandai. Nintendo owns stock in that company yet Tekken 5: Dark Resurrection is available on Playstation Network and PSP. Tekken 6 is listed as a PS3 game. What are those 30 titles on Wii? I'm guessing we'll see some Naruto.
I admit, I'm taking a wait and see approach to this myself, but support is still better than nothing.
Quote
Tecmo released an anime styled golf game. That doesn't impress me.
That's fine because it impressed a lot of people who aren't you and they bought the game.
Quote
Konami's new IP features a raindrop with a cutesy face. Talk about furthering stereotypes about Nintendo being "kiddie." Before you start tossing company names at me, look at the games they're bringing to Wii compared to the competition. It's not as impressive as you think.
What are they bringing to the competition? Are you talking about the promise of MGS two years off? It ain't gonna stay exclusive, trust me.
Quote
Despite Wii crushing GCN during the same time period in its lifespan, 3rd party support looks moderately better at best. Wii may have more games, but many of them are bad games.
I don't know if you REMEMBER what support was looking like for the GC around this time, but it was pretty damn bad. No developers were announcing games for it in droves. No devs were opening entire studios devoted to the GC (like EA and Disney are doing), and the GC was certainly anything but hard to find.
Quote
I admit I'm cynical, but as a Nintendo fan who's seen Nintendo stumble so many times, I reserve that right. Nothing would make me happier than to see Sony fall (if you really want to know, I'd be happy to tell you). I'm a Nintendo fan and have been one my entire life though that's not the reason I hate Sony. I want Nintendo to succeed, but I'm not going to throw a party because they had a successful launch or because EA announced 15 titles (it's EA... please).
Why dismiss EA? They didn't get to be the largest 3rd party developer in the world because no one buys their games. On the contrary: EA is huge in the American market, a market where Nintendo typically gets clobbered, and yet EA offering such support for the Wii ensures that it will at least have the staple sports games for a game system in NA.
I understand being cynical. What I don't understand is acting like the competition has this tremendous leg up on the Wii when everything I've seen quite clearly indicates that it does NOT.
Furthermore, what did you expect the Wii to have at this time? It's a new and unproven concept, one which I expected more developers to be hesitant on than what we've seen already. JUST LIKE THE DS, I knew it would take some time for the concept to really sink in and for devs to start bringing out the good games for the console, but that didn't mean those games weren't coming.
FFS, give it some time. If after a year, we don't have announcements of these "high profile" games which don't matter in the grand scheme of things anyway, then you can complain about the Wii's lack of software.
Post by: jasonditz on February 05, 2007, 06:27:00 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 05, 2007, 08:37:28 AM
Post by: segagamer12 on February 05, 2007, 09:02:31 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 05, 2007, 09:06:03 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 05, 2007, 09:13:25 AM
But yeah, Nintendo's handling of the DS against the PSP is what truly convinced me that they might have their crap together after all. I know a lot of people say that Nintendo will never be dethroned in the handheld market, but I think that such is an exaggeration because just as many people also thought that the PSP is what would finally beat Nintendo in the handheld sector and it definitely had the tools to do so, including the Playstation brand-name which most of the PSPs sold were no doubt sold upon.
After E3, it was obvious Nintendo had something special on their hands with the Wii, so much so that their angry competitors cancelled their E3 appearances from then on out of spite. All Nintendo has to do is not screw it up and they'll be 1st place this gen. They've already started so right that they'd have to do a tremendous amount of botching now to send things in the wrong direction.
The Wii already has the faith of many developers and the fear of many others, as in the "fear" that they made a mistake by not supporting it earlier.
Post by: Adrock on February 05, 2007, 10:43:20 AM
Quote
Icecold wrote:
You seem to keep forgetting the GameCube launch. It was lukewarm at best. The tie-in ratio definitely] proves gamers are coming back, because the GameCube had nowhere near the launch success of the Wii.
Gamecube at least had Melee 2 weeks after launch. If I didn't have a Wii, I could've gotten it's best game on a console I already had.
And can I have a link to this tie-ratio? Does it inculde VC games? And if I'm not mistaken, Wii Sports was sold separately everywhere else in the world and Wii Play is out everywhere except the US. Including Zelda, which according to smash_brother has an 85% tie-in, there's 3 of the 5.
Quote
Hocotate wrote:
Third party support for the PS3 has been a joke, not the Wii. Tell me what is out now for the PS3 that is worth it please.
Resistance: Fall of Man is better than any 3rd party Wii title. Regardless, what is out now is only part of the big picture. 3rd parties are giving PS3 more love than Wii.
Quote
Mario wrote:
Who gives a flying truck? Nobody. If you want blood, seek mental help and/or buy Mortal Kombat Wii.
It's not about blood. Gamecube got an assload of those kinds of titles and very little outside of games that appeal to that demographic. If these are the kinds of games Wii gets, then support hasn't really changed other than Nintendo more rushed kid's titles. Who cares? Any Nintendo fan should. I don't know about you but I wanr variety.
Quote
smash_brother wrote:
It proves that a lot of GAMERS are buying the console, since they're picking up a total gamer game along with it.
I'd buy this argument if it was a 3rd party title or at least a 1st party title that isn't tied to an already established franchise. How does Zelda selling well surprise you? Even Wind Waker sold well and I was like the only person on the eastern seaboard who liked the graphics.
Quote
How many 3rd party titles have YOU played?
I work at a video store. If it wasn't a movie/cartoon cash-in, I played it.
Quote
Guess what? That support probably won't remain exclusive
You don't know that. And besides, if they don't remain exclusive, they'll go to 360 which still means Nintendo isn't getting those games. Both 360 and PS3 are individually getting more support from 3rd parties. How can you argue this?
Quote
What are they bringing to the competition? Are you talking about the promise of MGS two years off? It ain't gonna stay exclusive, trust me.
I tried to ignore this the last 7 times you brought up Metal Gear Solid 4 being 2 years away. It's coming out at the end of this year. At least, Konami has shown the game to the public.
Most 3rd party titles are merely announced for Wii. We have no idea when many of them are coming out. I'm excited over Umbrella Chronicles, but Capcom has unveiled nothing about the game. When RE4 was announced, it took like 3 years for that game to come out. Additionally, we have a short trailer of The Crystal Bearers (despite Crystal Chronicles on GCN sucking every kind of ass there is). When is that game coming out? FFXIII may not be a 2007 title, but from the looks of it, neither is Crystal Bearers.
I'm curious. What are these big name 3rd party exclusives coming out on Wii this year? I can think of Dragon Quest Swords, No More Heroes, and maybe DDR: Hottest Party (though I have no idea when that's coming out). The biggest exclusives are still coming from Nintendo themselves.
Quote
Why dismiss EA? They didn't get to be the largest 3rd party developer in the world because no one buys their games. On the contrary: EA is huge in the American market, a market where Nintendo typically gets clobbered, and yet EA offering such support for the Wii ensures that it will at least have the staple sports games for a game system in NA.
I dismiss EA because they've supported every major console, except Dreamcast. They supported Gamecube and their titles were basically ignored. It's almost a moot point that they're supporting Nintendo because their titles don't perform as well on Nintendo hardware.
Quote
I understand being cynical. What I don't understand is acting like the competition has this tremendous leg up on the Wii when everything I've seen quite clearly indicates that it does NOT.
I'm not saying the competition has a tremendous leg up. I just see Wii as still fighting an upwards battle and there isn't enough reason right now to prove that they are necessarily winning that battle. As I said before...
Quote
I wrote:
Nintendo isn't doomed. I'm not saying they're doomed, nor have I ever meant to say that. They're doing fine. It's just not as rosy as you're making out to be. My problem is when people are using early success as an indication that things have changed. I'd say things are in the process of changing but even that could change. As much as people like to brag about Wii doing well and PS3 not doing well, this picture isn't as clear as it seems. My fear is that as great as Nintendo is doing now, it won't last. It's too early.
I'm not trying to put a negative spin on Nintendo's success. They've done a great job so far. However, Nintendo fanboys are clamoring about Wii's success like Nintendo has already won. That's where I disagree.
Post by: ShyGuy on February 05, 2007, 11:09:24 AM
Post by: jasonditz on February 05, 2007, 11:10:43 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: AdrockQuote
Hocotate wrote:
Third party support for the PS3 has been a joke, not the Wii. Tell me what is out now for the PS3 that is worth it please.
Resistance: Fall of Man is better than any 3rd party Wii title. Regardless, what is out now is only part of the big picture. 3rd parties are giving PS3 more love than Wii.
A matter of opinion... Resistance seemed like a game I've played a million times before. Now Dragonball Z with a Wiimote, that's an original experience.
Post by: Adrock on February 05, 2007, 11:18:44 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 05, 2007, 11:28:35 AM
Post by: Terranigma Freak on February 05, 2007, 11:29:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock
That's also an opinion.
How's that an opinion? You can any other fighting games out there that controls like DBZ? You know any other First Person Shooters out there with soldiers running around with aliens?
Post by: Mario on February 05, 2007, 11:29:55 AM
Quote
Resistance: Fall of Man is better than any 3rd party Wii title.
LOL
1. That is a Sony published title. It's more directly comparable to Excite Truck, which runs it down.
2. Not it isn't. BUT you can't say either way is a fact because people like different games! Going by sales more people think Red Steel is better. Though IMO Banana Blitz is better than both. Your points are just made up. You simply can not construct an argument like that.
Quote
The biggest exclusives are still coming from Nintendo themselves.
Obviously the biggest games are going to come from the BIGGEST GAME COMPANY. Third party games don't have a history of expanding markets unless it's something groundbreaking like GTA3. Nintendos own games attracted way more NEW users to DS than all third party games combined.
Quote
If these are the kinds of games Wii gets, then support hasn't really changed other than Nintendo more rushed kid's titles. Who cares? Any Nintendo fan should. I don't know about you but I wanr variety.
Variety, piss off. You're saying every colourful game is exactly the same. Guess what, if you replaced Pikmin enemies with tanks, it'd still be the exact same game, it would just have a more restricted audience.
I enjoy a good debate but this isn't even good, you're just making up things as you go along. It's not going to work anymore because this is my last post in this thread.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 05, 2007, 11:31:04 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock
That's also an opinion.
Not really, everything I've heard about the game is that it doesn't really do anything new, not to say it doesn't do it well, but it still plays like a basic 1st person shooter. Not only that but the company that created it may be "officially" 3rd party but they've been basically a Sony exclusive developer so that does not count. Also considering the fact that it has been the ONLY game on PS3 that has gotten any kind of praise says alot as well, with the rest being ports, or average to subpar games. I also would like to add that since Sony is not that great of a 1st party developer they funneled alot of their cash into Resistance to be their "killer app" so that also should be taken into account.
Post by: jasonditz on February 05, 2007, 11:31:36 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock
That's also an opinion.
Absolutely... I'm just saying, Resistance may be great for some people, and it's certainly visually impressive, but I found myself thinking that it brought nothing to the table that I wanted that I couldn't already have gotten from Timesplitters: Future Perfect
Post by: Adrock on February 05, 2007, 12:08:09 PM
Quote
Mario wrote:
Variety, piss off. You're saying every colourful game is exactly the same. Guess what, if you replaced Pikmin enemies with tanks, it'd still be the exact same game, it would just have a more restricted audience.
You're getting irritated by posts on an internet forum.... Sigh... Piss off? Whatever, dude.
You're oversimplifying my point or rather changing it entirely. Publishers are putting the same exact types of games on Wii. I fear we'll keep getting more and more of these games. We saw this happen on GCN. 3rd parties released tons of titles aimed at the younger demographic, many of them were ports. PS2 and Xbox got way more exclusives, across different genres. Right now, this hasn't really changed on Wii. I don't mind kid's titles, they play games too. However, a real change would see 3rd parties releasing games across different genres and age groups on Wii for different types of gamers. Wii would get all kinds of games, not just titles clearly aimed at younger gamers. Despite Nintendo's best efforts, Wii is still viewed as a "kid's console." I don't agree with it, but when a company like Konami unveils a game like Dewey's Adventure, I can't help but think back to what happened to Gamecube.
Quote
I enjoy a good debate but this isn't even good, you're just making up things as you go along. It's not going to work anymore because this is my last post in this thread.
You will be missed.
Post by: jasonditz on February 05, 2007, 12:14:08 PM
Post by: Adrock on February 05, 2007, 12:23:29 PM
Look, I'm not saying 3rd party support is absolutely terrible. It's improved from Gamecube, but it's no where near where it should be. I think we can all agree that Wii is doing exceptionally well in the market as of today. That being so, I don't think Nintendo's current 3rd party support reflects the recent success. That's why I'm not celebrating yet. Nintendo is still in the middle of a long battle. 3rd parties are watching the console closely, but they haven't really committed themselves to Wii. The largest teams are still being devoted to creating PS3 and 360 titles. I think Wii might see that support eventually, but it isn't here yet so I remain skeptical until that changes.
Post by: segagamer12 on February 05, 2007, 12:23:40 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 05, 2007, 12:24:14 PM
Post by: jasonditz on February 05, 2007, 12:31:24 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock
Yeah, but Godfather is on other platforms.
So are all those kid's titles.
Post by: Crave on February 05, 2007, 12:36:28 PM
Well, I see so far we have had quite the discussion. I see that a picture of Super Mario Galaxy was posted pretty early on in the thread, goodie one great looking game, oh yeah and MP3, any others? Show me a great looking 3rd pty title that pushes last gen cube status. At no time did I say the Wii was not as powerful as the Xbox 1, the topic title itself is in the form of a question. Honestly, nothing seems to do what I KNOW the Wii can do. RE4 for example, amazing game right...developers pushed the Gamecube to this limit. So my question and frustration is, why is this NOT the starting point for first gen Wii games? Oh they didn't have the dev kits in time...give me a break. Didn't developers just spend the last several years developing for the Gamecube? So we should see some great looking first gen Wii titles, and expect 1st gen Wii control at least. The whole reason for this post was to point out that I see alot of LAZY work, wall filler I call it, being released, and not kind of quality we all come to expect from Nintendo and it's developers. I know they can do better, which is why it upsets me.
Thanks to all who have added to this post.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 05, 2007, 12:54:03 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Crave
To the ones who were kind enough to notice "then" was incorrectly used when in fact "than" should have been...here is your cookie (insert golf clap here).
Well, I see so far we have had quite the discussion. I see that a picture of Super Mario Galaxy was posted pretty early on in the thread, goodie one great looking game, oh yeah and MP3, any others? Show me a great looking 3rd pty title that pushes last gen cube status. At no time did I say the Wii was not as powerful as the Xbox 1, the topic title itself is in the form of a question. Honestly, nothing seems to do what I KNOW the Wii can do. RE4 for example, amazing game right...developers pushed the Gamecube to this limit. So my question and frustration is, why is this NOT the starting point for first gen Wii games? Oh they didn't have the dev kits in time...give me a break. Didn't developers just spend the last several years developing for the Gamecube? So we should see some great looking first gen Wii titles, and expect 1st gen Wii control at least. The whole reason for this post was to point out that I see alot of LAZY work, wall filler I call it, being released, and not kind of quality we all come to expect from Nintendo and it's developers. I know they can do better, which is why it upsets me.
Thanks to all who have added to this post.
Well besides Capcom I don't think many 3rd parties really tried to push the GC much, they mostly ported their games over that were developed for PS2 and were done with it. So that compounded with the delay in development kits contributed to the lack of visual oomph, along with flat out lazy ports.
Post by: Chiller on February 05, 2007, 01:07:22 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Crave
The whole reason for this post was to point out that I see alot of LAZY work, wall filler I call it, being released, and not kind of quality we all come to expect from Nintendo and it's developers. I know they can do better, which is why it upsets me.
Thanks to all who have added to this post.
I think many would agree with that assessment. I suppose that, until they see a reason to stop being lazy, they will continue doing so. I think a lot of developers are still pensive. It seems they are waiting for a chance to say "see, there goes Nintendo, dropping the ball, again." IN the meantime, they will cram whatever they can down our throats, in an effort to accumulate a few quick sales before the buzz wears off.
Post by: Hocotate on February 05, 2007, 02:24:56 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock
Resistance: Fall of Man is better than any 3rd party Wii title. Regardless, what is out now is only part of the big picture. 3rd parties are giving PS3 more love than Wii.
Well there goes any credibility you could've hoped to have had here.... I'm debating whether I should quote that in my sig or not, but I wouldn't want to crush what little credibility you'd have left from the people who didn't see your post.
Since your taste in games is obviously very different from mine, we'll go by the sales... Tell me how well the PS3 software is selling.
Post by: Adrock on February 05, 2007, 05:45:06 PM
Quote
segagamer12 wrote:
besides that theres also scarface and Mk armageddon, another game GC didnt get, serioulsy dude your losing the argument so nows a good time to get out.
You're coming at me with Wii ports of last generation games. That says more about what Vivendi and Midway think of Wii. Those are total cash-in titles. Yeah, publishers need to make money, but they can make money releasing new titles instead.
Quote
jasonditz wrote:
So are all those kid's titles.
Yes, BUT after the ports, Nintendo still had more games aimed strictly for kids while other platforms get these cool exclusives across different genres, kids games included. Where were the fighting games? Where were the RPGs? Where were the first person shooters?
Quote
Crave wrote:
So my question and frustration is, why is this NOT the starting point for first gen Wii games? Oh they didn't have the dev kits in time...give me a break. Didn't developers just spend the last several years developing for the Gamecube? So we should see some great looking first gen Wii titles, and expect 1st gen Wii control at least. The whole reason for this post was to point out that I see alot of LAZY work, wall filler I call it, being released, and not kind of quality we all come to expect from Nintendo and it's developers. I know they can do better, which is why it upsets me.
Yes, exactly.
Quote
Hocotate wrote:
Well there goes any credibility you could've hoped to have had here.... I'm debating whether I should quote that in my sig or not, but I wouldn't want to crush what little credibility you'd have left from the people who didn't see your post.
Since your taste in games is obviously very different from mine, we'll go by the sales... Tell me how well the PS3 software is selling.
More childish insults...
I understand your point. They're NOT selling especially well YET PS3 is still getting the big name franchises. Maybe they'll get ported to 360, maybe not; the point is moot. If they get ported to 360 and not Wii, Nintendo still didn't get those games. Tell me why Final Fantasy XIII couldn't be made for Wii. Graphics is all I can think of so it's basically bullsh*t why games like that aren't coming to Wii. I think Final Fantasy XII looks PHENOMENAL on PS2. Imagine what they could do with Wii. Nintendo isn't getting those titles though. That's my point. Wii is flatout raping PS3... so why are those games still coming to PS3 and NOT Wii? That is why I don't buy everyone's assertion that PS3 support is dropping so greatly and support for Wii is that much different from Gamecube. Better, but not that much better. I believe Wii is the most attractive console. However, Wii is getting a lot of ass filler games. It's still not the priority to 3rd parties.
I'm waiting for major 3rd parties to step up and choose Wii over PS3 and 360 with games built from the ground up for Wii that won't be ever make it to a competing platform. I'd like to see new games though a major established franchise would also be proof of Nintendo's emerging 3rd party support. I remember when Capcom devoted the entire Resident Evil franchise to GCN... then built a PS2 version of RE4, even going as far as to repeatedly announce exclusivity then announce the PS2 version BEFORE the GCN version comes out. During the course of last generation, Capcom gave Nintendo 2 exclusives Resident Evil Zero and P.N. 03 while also supporting PS2 and Xbox with everything else that never made it to GCN. That's the kind of crap I'm weary of happening on Wii. Do I have any reason to believe otherwise? Not yet.
Post by: segagamer12 on February 05, 2007, 06:10:40 PM
Post by: Arbok on February 05, 2007, 06:49:50 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
Even though I may not agree on all Arbock's points ...
Arbock, the bastard offspring of mine and Adrock's?
Post by: Kairon on February 05, 2007, 07:18:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: AdrockQuote
I understand your point. They're NOT selling especially well YET PS3 is still getting the big name franchises. Maybe they'll get ported to 360, maybe not; the point is moot. If they get ported to 360 and not Wii, Nintendo still didn't get those games. Tell me why Final Fantasy XIII couldn't be made for Wii. Graphics is all I can think of so it's basically bullsh*t why games like that aren't coming to Wii. I think Final Fantasy XII looks PHENOMENAL on PS2. Imagine what they could do with Wii. Nintendo isn't getting those titles though. That's my point. Wii is flatout raping PS3... so why are those games still coming to PS3 and NOT Wii? That is why I don't buy everyone's assertion that PS3 support is dropping so greatly and support for Wii is that much different from Gamecube. Better, but not that much better. I believe Wii is the most attractive console. However, Wii is getting a lot of ass filler games. It's still not the priority to 3rd parties.
I'm waiting for major 3rd parties to step up and choose Wii over PS3 and 360 with games built from the ground up for Wii that won't be ever make it to a competing platform. I'd like to see new games though a major established franchise would also be proof of Nintendo's emerging 3rd party support. I remember when Capcom devoted the entire Resident Evil franchise to GCN... then built a PS2 version of RE4, even going as far as to repeatedly announce exclusivity then announce the PS2 version BEFORE the GCN version comes out. During the course of last generation, Capcom gave Nintendo 2 exclusives Resident Evil Zero and P.N. 03 while also supporting PS2 and Xbox with everything else that never made it to GCN. That's the kind of crap I'm weary of happening on Wii. Do I have any reason to believe otherwise? Not yet.
Great points and I pretty much agree, but it's sort of out of Nintendo's hands now ain't it? The only way it can be fixed is:
3. Publishers get their heads out of their collective rectums and adopt the Wii as a unique and dominant platform
2. Publishers get their heads out of their collective rectums and see that the Wii is gorging itself on marketshare and is a great moneymaking opportunity
and most imporantly...
1. Publishers use a time machine to travel to the past and start working on Wii games so it would be ready earlier instead of only getting onboard now after the fact.
Oh wait, time machines don't exist? I guess we'll have to wait to see how the third party situation plays out over the next 6 months then, because it's way too early for most latecomer developers getting their Wii kits just now to have anything announcement worthy (though there HAS been a lot of news of random developers starting Wii Projects...). So of course there's no info right now that the Wii's getting better third party support than it is, the situation will take several months to reverse itself!
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Pittbboi on February 05, 2007, 07:31:11 PM
Well, I one hand. I can understand the people who are happy that the Wii, even at this stage, is getting more third party support than the Gamecube did. More support is always a good thing and nothing to scoff at.
However, on the other hand, I agree with Adrock (surprise). It's good to see third parties praising the Wii and making games--any games--for it, but for the most part we're still seeing the same kind of support the Gamecube got, but in slightly larger numbers. We're still seeing a lot of ports of mediocre games from last gen systems, and a lot of games that follow that same graphical style that made the Gamecube known as the console for kiddies (I mean, really--Dewy? Looks like a fun game, and I applaud Konami for being one of the first to tackle Nintendo's new philosophy head on...but, Dewy?).
So far third parties seem to believe that they can make a quick buck on the Wii by porting older games or making quick mini-games. But what we haven't seen, and what a lot of people would be quite happy with, is an indication that third parties are going to take the Wii seriously this gen. So far the stuff created/announced specifically for--or modded heavily for--the Wii has been very safe, straight forward, low-budget games. Games that are guaranteed to sell for a low-cost input on behalf of the developers, or low-budget games that really won't put the developers at risk of a major financial loss should they tank. To me, that doesn't seem like developers falling head over heels for Wii: That's just developers realizing there's quick money to be made, but still too weary of a Nintendo console to make a serious commitment.
Geez, I know Nintendo wanted the Wii's main appeals to be ease of development and relative cheapness to develop for in comparison to the Xbox360 and PS3, but it's really starting to seem like developers are focusing a little too much on the "cheap" aspect.
I know I'm quite the pessimist, but even I'll be able to breathe easier when a developer/publisher comes forward with the guts to appropriate a large amount of resources to make a BIG Wii game comparable to what we know the competition is getting. When just one makes a real commitment to the Wii. You'll know this game because there'll be considerable hype; the graphics will be stunning, the gameplay will be [rumored to be] amazing, the power of the wiimote will be used for more than just gimmicky "draw a heart to do this move that could have easily been done with a button press" controls, and it'll be sporting a mature and unique graphical style and storyline that really pushes the envelope. This game does NOT have to be dripping in blood and knives and sex and tanks. Everything about this game will just look (and play) like whoever made it put their all into the game, and took a real risk for the sake of wanting to realize their vision on the Wii.
Xbox360 has those games. Even the PS3 is getting games like that, albeit a long ways from now. We have yet to see a game like that even announced for Wii.
Just an announcement would satisfy me at this point.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 05, 2007, 07:32:31 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Arbok
Arbock, the bastard offspring of mine and Adrock's?
You, my friend, need to get your doppleganger under control, here!
Quote
Originally posted by: segagamer12
No dude you misread what i said I ws talking about the MATURE titles coming I dont CARE if they are prots, NOONE SHOULD damn it they are games GC didnt get therefore games I DIDNT PLAY, get a clue.
Technically, Sega just won the argument, as I'll explain later...
From what I understand, Adrock, the problem you have with the Wii's current level of 3rd party support is that it doesn't measure up in terms of "mature"/high profile exclusives being brought to the console, is that correct?
The problem with your gripe is that you're holding the industry to a double standard by expecting this to happen right out of the gate. You see, the reason why "mature" exclusives are released on consoles like the 360 is because that's the target demographic of the console, same goes for the PS2 and to a lesser extent the PS3 (except that there are 1.5 million waiting to be sold on ebay, hence the sales numbers).
The Wii is arguably too much of a different animal to do such a thing, and yet that's just what you're expecting will happen.
There has NEVER, before now, been a console which could rightfully claim its target demographic to be "everyone". Even the mighty PS2 had a target demographic and that demographic was "gamers".
Now the Wii is a brand new console, new idea and comes from a company with a less than favorable track record for home consoles, especially when it comes to sales of "mature" games on their hardware. Given those circumstances, I find it perfectly natural that 3rd parties aren't announcing Wii exclusive mature/high profile titles yet: they need more PROOF that this little white box can indeed live up to its own hype.
However, I should point out that dramatic leaps of faith toward the Wii are already being made:
1. Red Steel was a "mature" title which took a big gamble on the Wii's launch and, from what I hear, it paid off in spades.
2. Like Sega said earlier, it doesn't matter that these titles are ports: these are titles which would not have been released on the GC. Hell, Godfather was passed up for a GC release earlier last year but was redone with the "Blackhand" controls especially for Wii. Same goes for Scarface which also would not have shown up on the GC. The fact that these titles are showing up on the Wii means that 3rd parties are testing the waters of the Wii to see if the console can actually BE the console for everyone.
3. Both EA and Disney have opened dev studios to work exclusively on Wii titles. That, and Ubisoft and EA are now both on record saying that they want to be the biggest 3rd party publisher on the Wii. The last time a developer said that about a Nintendo platform, it was probably said about the NES.
Considering that the Wii is only three months old, these are BIG steps to the Wii receiving those "mature" exclusives you mention. We need to thank Ubi (though their sales are thanks enough) for Red Steel being the catalyst which made a lot of developers reconsider Nintendo platforms as acceptable for mature franchises because it was previously the common opinion that this is not the case.
I still think you're asking for way too much, Adrock. The Wii is not specifically targeted toward older audiences, thus it's only natural that the games of a similar nature won't follow suit until 3rd parties are certain there is a market for them, and as we know with Red Steel, Godfather, Scarface and Mortal Kombat, developers are busily testing those waters.
From everything I've heard, they're pleased with the results. Once it has become widely accepted that the Wii can push sales of mature titles, the mature/high profile titles will come. We've also yet to learn what the 30 Banco titles and 15 EA titles are. I'm quite certain that we're not looking at 30 Naruto games, as you're quick to dismiss Banco's efforts. Maybe we'll have a Soul Caliber or Time Crisis game in there. As for EA, both Scarface and Godfather are EA games, meaning that it's readily possible that EA could be bringing a "mature"/high profile exclusive to the Wii (there were supposedly 3 exclusives in the lineup of 15 games).
Also, there's something you need to consider here which you have yet to address: any console in a market basically has an "I WIN" button when it comes to receiving the most exclusives and games. That, of course, is to have the highest marketshare, and in Japan, they already have the highest next gen marketshare by leaps and bounds (60%). If the Wii can pull the same trick in the US, then they win by default, and the beauty of winning Japan is that it WILL help them win in the US and other territories.
Again, I think the Wii will do JUST fine, regardless of whether or not the 3rd party titles take a bit longer than they would with a traditional console from a more reputable company.
Post by: Kairon on February 05, 2007, 07:36:25 PM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Pittbboi on February 05, 2007, 07:44:33 PM
Quote
Say what you want about Ubi's rushed and ported offerings, but they put money behind that game, and if it hadn't have had to make launch, it would've been better than what we see today
I'll give you that. Red Steel definitely suffered from not having enough time and not having access to complete dev kits until Nintendo woke up one day and realized developers might actually need them to make good Wii games.
I guess I should add "it'll be undeniably good" to my criteria,
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 05, 2007, 07:52:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ArbokQuote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
Even though I may not agree on all Arbock's points ...
Arbock, the bastard offspring of mine and Adrock's?
I am getting so confused lol. Your guy's names sound so familiar, oh well! Maybe I'll just call you both A, that way I will be right :-P.
Post by: segagamer12 on February 05, 2007, 07:55:59 PM
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 05, 2007, 07:59:18 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: segagamer12
thanks smash that was a lot more detialed than mine but drove the same point home.
I knew that's what you were getting at and you're right: the key difference is that devs are willing to try mature games on the Wii whereas the GC would have nothing of the sort.
Post by: Kairon on February 05, 2007, 09:06:22 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: PittbboiQuote
Say what you want about Ubi's rushed and ported offerings, but they put money behind that game, and if it hadn't have had to make launch, it would've been better than what we see today
I'll give you that. Red Steel definitely suffered from not having enough time and not having access to complete dev kits until Nintendo woke up one day and realized developers might actually need them to make good Wii games.
I guess I should add "it'll be undeniably good" to my criteria,
LOL. Aside from that last bit there Pittboi, Red Steel is/was your game. Here's hoping that Ubi Soft gets a good design team on the sequel.
But an Exclusive Zorro? I'm not quite sure what to make of it...
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: NWR_pap64 on February 06, 2007, 04:09:22 AM
So to make sure:
Godfather=EA
Scarface=Sierra.
Post by: segagamer12 on February 06, 2007, 06:44:40 AM
Post by: Adrock on February 06, 2007, 06:53:51 AM
Quote
smash_brother wrote:
However, I should point out that dramatic leaps of faith toward the Wii are already being made.
1. Red Steel is ONE game that wasn't a port. How is this different than on Gamecube? I could argue that Rogue Leader (also rated Teen by the ESRB) was a "mature" title.
2. See, the problem with these ports is that they were released last year on more popular platforms. Most people who wanted to play those games already bought them. Sure, some people who didn't buy those last year may to buy them, but very few are going to buy them again for Wii. That leads to relatively low sales numbers on Wii and those publishers coming to the conclusion that Wii is not a good console for "mature" titles which, in turn, will lead primarily to more games aimed at younger demographics. Those companies are trying to make a quick buck on the popular Wii and the quickest way to do that is through ports. Even with low sales, they are likely to turn a small profit because few resources were spent porting the games. What happens when there are no more last generation games to quickly port to Wii? That's why Nintendo needs publishers to release new games (new IP or established franchise) to "test the waters."
3. I've already said my piece concerning EA. As for Disney, are you referring to Fall Line Studios? From what I gather, they're a sister subsidiary to Disney-owned Buena Vista Games, which happens to support 360 and PS3 as well. To me, that doesn't sound like Wii is getting exclusives, especially given Disney's history of whoring out their franchises. I wouldn't be surprised if they simply developed the Wii version of multiplatform games, same goes with EA. Yes, support is support, I guess. It's better than nothing, but don't act like this is a "leap of faith" since both of those companies support every platform.
And of course both EA and Ubi Soft are going to say they want to be the biggest publisher on Wii. They're not going to say they want to be the second biggest or the third biggest. That's just PR.
Wii isn't targeted toward older gamers and I'm not saying it is or should be. I'm saying that in order for Nintendo to keep expanding its marketshare it needs a wider selection of games, not mostly kid's titles and a few genre games for everyone else. Wii release lists don't point to it changing in the next several months. That leaves the market open for Sony to come back with their big exclusives. Marketshare right now is a non-issue. It seems to me that 3rd parties are still banking on PS3 to deliver, despite Nintendo's early lead. If Nintendo continues they way they are now, the games will come. However, by that time, Sony may hit its stride. A price drop and some huge titles will quickly reverse their fortunes. That doesn't automatically mean doom and gllom for Nintendo. It means that this console race is anyone's for the taking. I agree, Nintendo is doing just fine and I've continually said this. You've been acting like Nintendo is on its way to winning and that Sony is on its way to losing. During the N64 days, Nintendo didn't have that same support that Sony has with PS3 which is why Nintendo continually lost marketshare to Sony. As much as I absolutely despise Sony, I can't count them out. There's no reason to as long as they still have the support they have from 3rd parties. I don't think that's such an outrageous assessment.
Post by: NWR_pap64 on February 06, 2007, 07:03:15 AM
It might be a port of the PS2 version, but this is a HUGE change right there.
If this doesn't even convinces you that the Wii is changing Nintendo's affair with third parties and mature titles, NOTHING WILL.
Here's the link:
http://ir.take2games.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=228854
Post by: Adrock on February 06, 2007, 07:10:49 AM
Post by: Kairon on February 06, 2007, 07:23:37 AM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 06, 2007, 08:08:30 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock
1. Red Steel is ONE game that wasn't a port. How is this different than on Gamecube? I could argue that Rogue Leader (also rated Teen by the ESRB) was a "mature" title.
Star Wars is a kids movie by Lucas' own admission. Red Steel is a FPS built around shooting people in the face and slicing them up. Just because there's no blood doesn't make it any less of a violent game.
Quote
2. See, the problem with these ports is that they were released last year on more popular platforms. Most people who wanted to play those games already bought them. Sure, some people who didn't buy those last year may to buy them, but very few are going to buy them again for Wii. That leads to relatively low sales numbers on Wii and those publishers coming to the conclusion that Wii is not a good console for "mature" titles which, in turn, will lead primarily to more games aimed at younger demographics.
Thing is, I haven't heard anything bad about ports and their sales numbers. Moreover, this is still progress for the Wii and that's the real point here. Your argument is that these are being released a year later. My argument is that the GC never would have seen this games at all but these companies feel comfortable spending the money to bring them to the Wii.
Also, Godfather is being revamped for Wii controls, even being called the "Blackhand" edition. I know MK is doing something similar. Not sure about Scarface, though.
Quote
3. I've already said my piece concerning EA. As for Disney, are you referring to Fall Line Studios? From what I gather, they're a sister subsidiary to Disney-owned Buena Vista Games, which happens to support 360 and PS3 as well. To me, that doesn't sound like Wii is getting exclusives, especially given Disney's history of whoring out their franchises. I wouldn't be surprised if they simply developed the Wii version of multiplatform games, same goes with EA. Yes, support is support, I guess. It's better than nothing, but don't act like this is a "leap of faith" since both of those companies support every platform.
Moving development resources to work solely on your platform is not something the GC saw very much of...if at all.
By your own admission, the Wii's success is far from set in stone. Choosing to focus more heavily on Wii development under these circumstances is very much an act of faith, as far as I see it.
Quote
And of course both EA and Ubi Soft are going to say they want to be the biggest publisher on Wii. They're not going to say they want to be the second biggest or the third biggest. That's just PR.
Uh, yeah, but no one, and I mean NO ONE, was coming out to say, "We want to be the biggest 3rd party dev for the GC!" because, that's right, no one cared.
Companies don't just say these kinds of things at random. EA said they wanted to be the biggest for the Wii and DS while Ubi actually said they wanted to the biggest in the entire industry and they felt that the Wii was their ticket to that title.
Quote
Wii isn't targeted toward older gamers and I'm not saying it is or should be. I'm saying that in order for Nintendo to keep expanding its marketshare it needs a wider selection of games, not mostly kid's titles and a few genre games for everyone else. Wii release lists don't point to it changing in the next several months. That leaves the market open for Sony to come back with their big exclusives. Marketshare right now is a non-issue. It seems to me that 3rd parties are still banking on PS3 to deliver, despite Nintendo's early lead. If Nintendo continues they way they are now, the games will come. However, by that time, Sony may hit its stride. A price drop and some huge titles will quickly reverse their fortunes. That doesn't automatically mean doom and gllom for Nintendo. It means that this console race is anyone's for the taking. I agree, Nintendo is doing just fine and I've continually said this. You've been acting like Nintendo is on its way to winning and that Sony is on its way to losing. During the N64 days, Nintendo didn't have that same support that Sony has with PS3 which is why Nintendo continually lost marketshare to Sony. As much as I absolutely despise Sony, I can't count them out. There's no reason to as long as they still have the support they have from 3rd parties. I don't think that's such an outrageous assessment.
I know what you're saying, but I think the Wii's real competition is the 360. Sony has just done so much to sabotage itself that I can't see them as a real threat just yet. Sony is also banking heavily on Bluray and as such seems perfectly content on following that ideal all the way to their own demise. If they released a DVD version of the PS3, I'd say that maybe their sanity is coming back, but Sony has just plunged off the deep end and I KNOW 3rd parties are seeing this as well, hence why many 3rd party games were being cancelled before the console even launched and, other than those games which were promised before Sony's E3 disaster, they don't seem to have much else in the way of support.
Also, we have Manhunt being released for the Wii as the ONLY next gen console. Frankly, I myself am scratching my head as to why the Wii would be the next gen exclusive for a game which I'm sure would sell well on the 360 and one the PS3 would want for potential sales.
Post by: Kairon on February 06, 2007, 08:17:13 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
I know what you're saying, but I think the Wii's real competition is the 360. Sony has just done so much to sabotage itself that I can't see them as a real threat just yet. Sony is also banking heavily on Bluray and as such seems perfectly content on following that ideal all the way to their own demise. If they released a DVD version of the PS3, I'd say that maybe their sanity is coming back, but Sony has just plunged off the deep end and I KNOW 3rd parties are seeing this as well, hence why many 3rd party games were being cancelled before the console even launched and, other than those games which were promised before Sony's E3 disaster, they don't seem to have much else in the way of support.
Also, we have Manhunt being released for the Wii as the ONLY next gen console. Frankly, I myself am scratching my head as to why the Wii would be the next gen exclusive for a game which I'm sure would sell well on the 360 and one the PS3 would want for potential sales.
I agree. I think that MS has taken a substantial lead and that the PS3 is just priced too high: even with exclusive games like FFXIII and MGS 4, the PS3 is facing an immense uphill battle against the 360. Nintendo was VERY smart to comepletely sidestep that slugging contest, as well as offer a cheap development path...
Which is why ManHunt is on the Wii and not the 360 or PS3 right now: they can be cheap and not have to completely redo the engine, the art, and dump loads of money into HD. As a publisher, they get some serious bang for their buck: PS2 AND Wii in one fell swoop, last gen and next gen, one the installed base lead and the other trending to become the installed base lead. It's just such a perfect business space to be in profitwise! Why waste money on anything more?
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Pittbboi on February 06, 2007, 09:04:18 AM
Quote
I agree. I think that MS has taken a substantial lead and that the PS3 is just priced too high: even with exclusive games like FFXIII and MGS 4,
Which is why I'm hoping to high heaven Squeenix gets with the program and moves FFXIII to the Xbox360. It may be too late for it to come to Wii, but if I have to buy another console to get my Final Fantasy Fix, I would much rather purchase a 360.
Post by: Adrock on February 06, 2007, 09:07:27 AM
Quote
smash_brother wrote:
Star Wars is a kids movie by Lucas' own admission. Red Steel is a FPS built around shooting people in the face and slicing them up. Just because there's no blood doesn't make it any less of a violent game.
My point is that Rogue Leader and Red Steel are both "mature" titles. Red Steel, like Rogue Leader, is ONE game for the platform. It's a start... just like Rogue Leader was a start but I don't consider it a leap of faith.
Quote
Thing is, I haven't heard anything bad about ports and their sales numbers. Moreover, this is still progress for the Wii and that's the real point here. Your argument is that these are being released a year later. My argument is that the GC never would have seen this games at all but these companies feel comfortable spending the money to bring them to the Wii.
What I've described in my previous post is a very real scenario. It's happened before. That's how publishers work. They had no faith in GCN to sell those kinds of games so when they did release games, they were aimed at younger gamers.
Still, they're cashing-in on old games using new hardware. It's some form of progress, but the point is still misleading. I don't think you really get my argument. So I ask again, what happens when there are no more last generation games to quickly port to Wii?
These 3rd parties aren't taking advantage of Wii hardware. They're going for the quick buck while they can.
Quote
Moving development resources to work solely on your platform is not something the GC saw very much of...if at all.
Every multiplatform game is proof of this happening in one way or another. They go to different teams either in house or a developer is commissioned to work on a specific console version. The difference here is Wii's new controls and non-HD graphics though there is no real indication that the Wii games be better or different. It's support, I'll agree to that.
Quote
Companies don't just say these kinds of things at random.
It's still PR. Don't take it for more than it actually is.
Quote
I know what you're saying, but I think the Wii's real competition is the 360.
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.... which actually reminds me of the Teacher's Strike episode of the Simpsons......
Quote
Also, we have Manhunt being released for the Wii as the ONLY next gen console. Frankly, I myself am scratching my head as to why the Wii would be the next gen exclusive for a game which I'm sure would sell well on the 360 and one the PS3 would want for potential sales.
With all the hoopla over next gen systems, PS2 continues to do well. There's too much money to be made there. To me, the Wii version exists as a combination of Reggie Fils-Aime's negotiations with Take-Two/Rockstar and because it'll probably be a near exact port of the PS2 version, outside of Wii Remote support.
Yes, a step in the right direction. I won't argue that. As I said before, consistency is necessary and Nintendo needs to continue to get these types of games long after they're developed primarily with the PS2 in mind.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 06, 2007, 10:15:48 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock
My point is that Rogue Leader and Red Steel are both "mature" titles. Red Steel, like Rogue Leader, is ONE game for the platform. It's a start... just like Rogue Leader was a start but I don't consider it a leap of faith.
I'm still going to have to disagree with that sentiment.
Shooting a person in the face in Red Steel and hearing the "melon sploit" headshot noise for an instant kill is not the same as watching a tie-fighter explode.
Every teenager I've talked with on the subject of Red Steel loved it, and why? Because of the VIOLENCE: shooting people in the face, cutting them up with a sword, detonating a car next to them and watching the body sail through the air.
I call Red Steel "mature" because the only thing separating it from an M-rating was enduring blood after you shot/sliced someone. The same level of human carnage was NOT seen in Rogue Leader, not by a longshot.
Quote
What I've described in my previous post is a very real scenario. It's happened before. That's how publishers work. They had no faith in GCN to sell those kinds of games so when they did release games, they were aimed at younger gamers.
I'm not saying it's not a real scenario, but consider that these companies could be porting games targeted at younger audiences to the Wii but instead of doing that, they're doing so with mature titles which would have done horribly on the GC.
Quote
what happens when there are no more last generation games to quickly port to Wii?
Like we said, games like Manhunt 2 start showing up, and if Manhunt 2 sets the standard for the Wii's violence potential, then that opens the door for basically everything.
Quote
These 3rd parties aren't taking advantage of Wii hardware. They're going for the quick buck while they can.
Actually, a number of them ARE, like with EA adding the ability to rough people up with the Wiimote and nunchuck to Godfather.
Here's the thing, though: if these games sell well, then these 3rd parties will be encouraged to release MORE games for the Wii, and that's when exclusives start entering into the picture.
Quote
Every multiplatform game is proof of this happening in one way or another. They go to different teams either in house or a developer is commissioned to work on a specific console version. The difference here is Wii's new controls and non-HD graphics though there is no real indication that the Wii games be better or different. It's support, I'll agree to that.
With the sheer number of 3rd parties which had axed GC support last gen, support like this is leaps and bounds ahead of what most of us expected Nintendo would have.
Also, most of these companies are experimenting with Wiimote controls, Splinter Cell, DBZ and Far Cry, for example, all took the Wiimote and made use of it in ways which hadn't been done before. Again, these ports aren't just your standard "bring it over and remap the controls" nonsense: in the case of MK and Godfather, the gameplay is being altered to make better use of the Wii controls.
Quote
It's still PR. Don't take it for more than it actually is.
I know it's PR, but PR is optional and the wrong type of PR can bite a company square in the ass if they're not careful. For example, if EA said, "We want to be the biggest 3rd party publisher for the N-Gage", that's the type of thing which would get them laughed at for years to come, but they didn't say that because it's not something a dev would want to laud.
But regardless, it shows ENTHUSIASM for the Wii as a console. Ubi wouldn't say something like "the Wii is our ticket to #1!" unless they actually believed that this could be the case.
Quote
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.... which actually reminds me of the Teacher's Strike episode of the Simpsons......
I definitely think the 360 is more of a threat. Unless the PS3 sees a complete 180° turnaround, I can't see it being a threat to the still rising Wii.
Quote
With all the hoopla over next gen systems, PS2 continues to do well. There's too much money to be made there. To me, the Wii version exists as a combination of Reggie Fils-Aime's negotiations with Take-Two/Rockstar and because it'll probably be a near exact port of the PS2 version, outside of Wii Remote support.
Yes, a step in the right direction. I won't argue that. As I said before, consistency is necessary and Nintendo needs to continue to get these types of games long after they're developed primarily with the PS2 in mind.
I have no doubt that this is indeed Reggie's handiwork, but I'm still surprised that Manhunt was the game chosen to bring over.
However, note that three different studios are working on the three different versions of the game: the PS2, PSP and Wii versions are all being done by different developers in completely different parts of the world. I expect the Wii version will be substantially more than just a minor PS2 upgrade.
Something I should also mention is that developers tend to follow suit when a platform maker acts a certain way, like how MS wants the xbox to be aimed entirely at older audiences and 3rd party devs follow suit.
This is true of Nintendo as well, but one thing we now see Nintendo doing is investing in its own "mature" franchises like Project Hammer and Disaster: Day of Crisis. If Nintendo sends the message that they're willing to pursue these kinds of games, then it will make 3rd parties feel that much safer in bringing games of a similar theme to the Wii.
Post by: Kairon on February 06, 2007, 01:04:59 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
Something I should also mention is that developers tend to follow suit when a platform maker acts a certain way, like how MS wants the xbox to be aimed entirely at older audiences and 3rd party devs follow suit.
This is true of Nintendo as well, but one thing we now see Nintendo doing is investing in its own "mature" franchises like Project Hammer and Disaster: Day of Crisis. If Nintendo sends the message that they're willing to pursue these kinds of games, then it will make 3rd parties feel that much safer in bringing games of a similar theme to the Wii.
Hahahahaha no. Eternal Darkness.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: segagamer12 on February 06, 2007, 01:14:08 PM
Post by: Adrock on February 06, 2007, 01:36:46 PM
Quote
ok first adrock GETOVER IT, Rogue Squadron doesnt even COMPARE ITWAS A 64 GAME OF COURSE IT WAS GOING TO BE ON GC DUH!
Um, ok... that made sense.... LucasArts could've published that game on whatever platform they damn well pleased. Factor 5 also could've developed for Sony... which is what they're doing now.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 06, 2007, 01:48:13 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Hahahahaha no. Eternal Darkness.
True, but that was only one game. The other two "mature" projects Nintendo pursued were Twin Snakes and Geist. That's 3 in all of the GC's life.
They're already planning on having two out this year: Hammer and Disaster: DoC.
Hopefully, they'll keep at it rather than releasing a scant few mature titles.
Post by: Kairon on February 06, 2007, 02:20:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
They're already planning on having two out this year: Hammer and Disaster: DoC.
They'll probably get delayed. And Hammer is NOT a "mature" title at all. It's an action game for kids. Just look at the robot design... and lack of guns...
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: segagamer12 on February 07, 2007, 05:51:39 AM
Post by: darknight06 on February 07, 2007, 08:31:15 AM
Post by: Adrock on February 07, 2007, 08:41:12 AM
Quote
It was directly targeted towards SW fans, who are also CHILDREN beleive it or not.
There are Star Wars fans who aren't children, believe it or not. I admit that Rogue Leader appeals primarily to Star Wars fans and to a lesser degree shooter fans, but there's nothing about the game that suggests that it is targeted at a younger audience. A statement like "kids like Star Wars so Rogue Leader isn't a mature title" doesn't make sense. There are depictions of relatively realistic violence and death. We're not seeing spaceships zoom around, but it's not cartoon violence.
I distinctly remember the interview where Lucas says Star Wars was targeted toward kids yet Princess Leia frenches her brother (yeah, she didn't know, but still) then becomes Jabba's slave, Jango Fett (unfortunately) gets decapitated, Anakin gets dismembered and burned after slaughtering a bunch of young Jedi and so on. The adventure and heroism along with the various fantasy elements involved in Star Wars make it appealing to kids (and adults alike). That doesn't necessarily make Star Wars a kid's movie nor is everything associated to it inherently for kids. The movies are filled with images and themes that are decidedly not appropriate for children.
Post by: segagamer12 on February 07, 2007, 08:53:22 AM
and I am not saying just cuz itrs star wasr its for kids, there *are* star wasr games target towards older demograph, Rogue Leadert WASNT one of them.
Post by: segagamer12 on February 07, 2007, 08:54:13 AM
Post by: Adrock on February 07, 2007, 10:31:36 AM
Quote
its was still regared as appropriate for children so calling it mature is a strech no matter hwat you say.
Twilight Princess is still regarded as appropriate for children and I would still call that "mature."
And you still haven't explained why Rogue Leader targets younger audiences nor have acknowledged the subjective nature of the word "mature."
Post by: Louieturkey on February 07, 2007, 12:10:56 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: AdrockQuote
its was still regared as appropriate for children so calling it mature is a strech no matter hwat you say.
Twilight Princess is still regarded as appropriate for children and I would still call that "mature."
And you still haven't explained why Rogue Leader targets younger audiences nor have acknowledged the subjective nature of the word "mature."
Actually, TP is considered appropriate for Teens or older. Under 13, parents are suggested against allowing them to play. The actual ratings on the game are there for a reason.
Post by: Adrock on February 07, 2007, 01:03:36 PM
Also, I'd say Twilight Princess is just as "mature" as Ocarina of Time which was rated E by the ESRB. The initial print even had red blood, something Twilight Princess does not have. The ending is particularly less daring than both Ocarina and The Wind Waker, which has Link stabbing Ganon/Ganondorf in the forehead respectively. I don't think that's appropriate for children. I'm not debating ratings. I'm arguing the elusiveness of the word "mature."
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 07, 2007, 03:06:58 PM
As for Rogue Leader, why was it Teen? For ships exploding? Was there any actual human death shown in the game?
I ask because it has been years since I played it...
Post by: segagamer12 on February 07, 2007, 03:09:22 PM
I said it was targeted towards kids but I may have been a little hasty in saying that I cant rememebr exactly what I was trying to say but i know that Rogue leader is in no way a MATURE title. It has depth and it has challenge but so does Super Mario Bros 3 and NONONE in thier right mind will call that MATURE. get a clue and get over it.
Post by: Arbok on February 07, 2007, 03:11:58 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
As for Rogue Leader, why was it Teen? For ships exploding? Was there any actual human death shown in the game?
Yes, you can gun down foot based troops in the Rogue Squadron series (had to do so in the first to get some medals).
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 07, 2007, 03:27:20 PM
I vaguely recall a mission where you shoot storm troopers on foot. Was that the case? EDIT: Ah, thanks.
Even so, I wasn't arguing the rating for the game so much as the edge the game gave the console. A FPS vs. a flight sim shooter stand pretty far apart, as far as genres go. The FPS genre has always been about violence: you can't have a game which involves shooting people in the face and not have it based around violence.
Plus, Red Steel aspired to be a dark and gritty game, one which told a story of the Japanese criminal underworld. It wanted to be seen as dark and mature.
Rogue Leader just can't be mature and "cool" in that same way. Like I said, every teenager I talked to who had played Red Steel loved it for the cool factor. Considering how badly the GC did by comparison, having that "cool" factor right out of the gate is definitely a plus for the Wii. When Red Steel was the first game announced for the then "Revolution", I was immensely glad to see it because it meant that the first impression the gaming world would have of the Rev was of a dark and gritty crime-based FPS and that this image might carry the Rev further along into the mature limelight.
I can't be certain that this was the case (despite that Red Steel sold extremely well), but I can say that it certainly didn't hurt to offer up a mature franchise that would go on to sell well on a Nintendo platform as proof to other devs that such a thing can indeed happen.
Post by: segagamer12 on February 07, 2007, 03:39:43 PM
Anyways thinking of rogue squadron makes me return to craves original topic and thinking bakc to one of the best looking GC games and seeing it was a launch title and it looks better than most, not all but most, of what Wii has I can sorta see why people are disapointed in it graphically.
Post by: Kairon on February 07, 2007, 03:53:05 PM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: segagamer12 on February 07, 2007, 08:15:59 PM
Post by: Crave on February 08, 2007, 03:14:07 PM
Developer: Julian: Yes. I'm so disappointed knowing exactly what the Wii can do -- and I still think nobody knows it better than we (no pun intended) [laughs]. I really have to say, boy, am I disappointed! They all have finally figured out, five years into the hardware's life cycle, how to do at least basic shaders and a rim light, but that's what everybody does. But I still don't see enough bump and normal-mapping, if any. I still don't see enough post effects, although you would have insane fill-rates with Wii. I don't see any of that. I was digging out Rebel Strike the other day and was looking at it, and we had some people who were visiting ask, "Why isn't anybody else doing this on Wii?" And I am at a loss. I really am.
Just goes to show, we are not the only ones noticing. And they brought up some of our points from this thread..interesting my dear Watson.
Post by: Kairon on February 08, 2007, 03:22:52 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Crave
IGN: Resident Evil 4 was a beautiful GCN title. Rogue Squadron was doing things at launch that developers still haven't done on Wii. Why do you think that is? Are studios getting sloppy on Wii?
Developer: Julian: Yes. I'm so disappointed knowing exactly what the Wii can do -- and I still think nobody knows it better than we (no pun intended) [laughs]. I really have to say, boy, am I disappointed! They all have finally figured out, five years into the hardware's life cycle, how to do at least basic shaders and a rim light, but that's what everybody does. But I still don't see enough bump and normal-mapping, if any. I still don't see enough post effects, although you would have insane fill-rates with Wii. I don't see any of that. I was digging out Rebel Strike the other day and was looking at it, and we had some people who were visiting ask, "Why isn't anybody else doing this on Wii?" And I am at a loss. I really am.
Just goes to show, we are not the only ones noticing. And they brought up some of our points from this thread..interesting my dear Watson.
ARGH! ARGH! AAARRRGGGHHH! KAIRON SMASH!!!
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Blue Plant on February 08, 2007, 03:44:22 PM
Post by: NWR_pap64 on February 08, 2007, 04:31:08 PM
As for that quote, let me tell you this...If they are truly worried that third party developers are being sloppy when making Wii games why aren't THEY making a difference by making a game that's both graphically astounding and with engaging gameplay?
I'm sure most of the games that are working on are for the PS3 and XBOX 360 and actually have little interest on the console.
Not to mention that he is talking about GRAPHICS, not gameplay. Factor 5 are pretty much a bunch of graphics whores since they DID make some of the most graphically beautiful games in the N64 and GC era. Of course they would be concerned that developers are not making games with great graphics.
Until the day they actually announce plans for the system, anything they say will be full of hypocrisy and ignorance.
Post by: oohhboy on February 08, 2007, 05:26:33 PM
Rare on the other hand is a different story as they have fallen from grace. Their N64 games are so good that I am still playing them today. Having played their newer games I wonder what happened. A real shame.
Post by: segagamer12 on February 08, 2007, 06:14:06 PM
Just Checkout the turrican games, the first wasnt as impressive as the second but when you see all the little things they did with it you gain a lot of respect for that game. Tehres alot going on all at once and the game doesnt slow down at all. Mega Turrican was esily on par with Super Turrican, maybe even better I didnt play Super that much, but I know they really psuhed the Genny harder than any one else I can think of off the top of my head.
Thie N64 games looked top notch also. I totaly agree with this Factor 5 defiantley tries to push gfx, but you knwo what tehy aslo get teh gameplay down too for the most part. anywyas thast all I had to add I must defend them every chance I get Mega Turrican is still my alltime favorite Genesis game by far.
Post by: Darc Requiem on February 09, 2007, 01:13:59 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Blue Plant
Big fat ego.
Ego? He's telling the truth. Factor 5 did things with the GC that no one else did and the fact that developers can't equal what they've done on the GC with the Wii points to their laziness. Ubisoft I'm looking at you!!
Post by: Mario on February 09, 2007, 01:29:29 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 09, 2007, 03:05:24 AM
Don't know about how it plays yet, but the game looks gorgeous.
Post by: NWR_pap64 on February 09, 2007, 03:55:20 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Darc RequiemQuote
Originally posted by: Blue Plant
Big fat ego.
Ego? He's telling the truth. Factor 5 did things with the GC that no one else did and the fact that developers can't equal what they've done on the GC with the Wii points to their laziness. Ubisoft I'm looking at you!!
That's a rather unfair statement.
Simply because Factor 5 knows how to push the envelope in terms of graphics it doesn't mean that ALL developers should too.
It's true that some of the Wii games been unimpressive in terms of graphics, but its unfair to say that ALL developers are lazy, since some are truly putting a lot of effort into their games, and some, SHOCK, actually care about gameplay more than graphics!
So again, its stupid of Factor 5's behalf to say that because they were able to push the envelope with graphics every developer should follow suit.
Besides, the developers are the ones that decide how far they should push the graphics. Capcom did some amazing things with RE 4 on the GC and Square could be making a game for the most technically unimpressive console and they would STILL make a simply beautiful looking game.
Post by: segagamer12 on February 09, 2007, 04:57:45 AM
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on February 09, 2007, 05:06:24 AM
QuoteBut the problem is that even though developers don't have to put in 110% effort to push the wii graphically, they aren't even putting in enough effort to push the GC and the Wii is atleast 2-3 times more powerful. 60% of the games look like 1st Generation GC games if you leave out RS from F5 which looked like a 4th Gen GC that came out at launch. F5 was using 8 layers of effects at launch on the GC, but the best Ubisoft can come up with on the Wii is a graphical presentation that would push the PS2 into slowdown at moments.
Originally posted by: pap64Quote
Originally posted by: Darc RequiemQuote
Originally posted by: Blue Plant
Big fat ego.
Ego? He's telling the truth. Factor 5 did things with the GC that no one else did and the fact that developers can't equal what they've done on the GC with the Wii points to their laziness. Ubisoft I'm looking at you!!
That's a rather unfair statement.
Simply because Factor 5 knows how to push the envelope in terms of graphics it doesn't mean that ALL developers should too.
It's true that some of the Wii games been unimpressive in terms of graphics, but its unfair to say that ALL developers are lazy, since some are truly putting a lot of effort into their games, and some, SHOCK, actually care about gameplay more than graphics!
So again, its stupid of Factor 5's behalf to say that because they were able to push the envelope with graphics every developer should follow suit.
Besides, the developers are the ones that decide how far they should push the graphics. Capcom did some amazing things with RE 4 on the GC and Square could be making a game for the most technically unimpressive console and they would STILL make a simply beautiful looking game.
I'm not a graphics whore or anything, but I think its fairly obvious that most games so far have been extremely lazy(graphically) or just ports of existing games, and not even ports of the most graphically enhanced version of those games, but ports from the PS2 version.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on February 09, 2007, 07:24:55 AM
Post by: Mario on February 09, 2007, 12:14:56 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
Oddly enough, it looks as though the first company to really push the envelope with graphics on the Wii will be Sega, with Sonic: SR.
Don't know about how it plays yet, but the game looks gorgeous.
Banana Blitz (single player) looks great too.
Post by: Adrock on February 09, 2007, 12:56:06 PM
Quote
BlackNMild2k1 wrote:
I'm not a graphics whore or anything, but I think its fairly obvious that most games so far have been extremely lazy(graphically) or just ports of existing games, and not even ports of the most graphically enhanced version of those games, but ports from the PS2 version.
Yeah... I know.... It's looking up though. Metroid Prime 3 is going to blow our faces off and that shouldn't be too far off... or at least it better not be considering it was supposed to be a launch title... then not a launch title... then a launch title again... then a "sometime after March 2007" release.
Quote
Four days ago, Mario wrote:
...this is my last post in this thread.
Sorry... *happy face emoticon* lolololololololooloolloloollklllopkl;z
Post by: jasonditz on February 09, 2007, 02:12:20 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: oohhboy
Rare on the other hand is a different story as they have fallen from grace. Their N64 games are so good that I am still playing them today. Having played their newer games I wonder what happened..
Not to oversimplify, but Free Radical Design happened. Rare lost too many good people in a short period of time and they never really recovered.
Post by: BranDonk Kong on February 09, 2007, 04:09:38 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 09, 2007, 08:42:32 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Brandogg
I don't think Sonic looks all THAT great. Sonic Heroes looked better, or at the very least just as good as the new one, on the Xbox. Oh, and it sucked miserably too, just like every 3D Sonic game EVER MADE.
I have to agree, not to mention that most of the visuals may be more of an illusion since not a whole lot is going on "underneath" the hood and the enviroments are limited in size. Which is why I don't care much for visual debates, because some games aren't requring as many resources so they can pretty things up (Take Fight Night for example).
Post by: Adrock on February 09, 2007, 10:24:57 PM
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 10, 2007, 04:21:53 AM
First of all, some of the draw distances are HUGE, rendering objects WAAY off in the distance (ironically, this was FarCry's claim to fame, and yet it looked awful). They're not taking advantage of a small memory footprint to do these visuals.
Second, look at some of the lighting and particle effects, like the dust flowing through the light filtering in from the windows in the Evil Foundry video.
I don't know how this game plays but it's pretty damn apparent that a substantial amount of love went into its graphics.
Post by: ShyGuy on February 10, 2007, 04:23:49 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 10, 2007, 04:37:28 AM
The only issue here is that I find it surprising that Sega was the first company to put some graphical effort into their games on the Wii.
Post by: Ceric on February 10, 2007, 05:03:21 AM
Post by: IceCold on February 10, 2007, 07:43:58 AM
QuoteFrom the videos I've seen of Sonic Heroes (Xbox), Secret Rings looks much better..
I don't think Sonic looks all THAT great. Sonic Heroes looked better, or at the very least just as good as the new one, on the Xbox. Oh, and it sucked miserably too, just like every 3D Sonic game EVER MADE.
