Playing Wii Music consists of either flicking the remote and Nunchuk or pushing any button of your choice, depending on the instrument selected. The idea is to pantomime the instrument, playing a note whenever you feel like it. There is no scoring, grading, or any other sort of evaluation.
If you time closely to your part in the song, you get something resembling the song you selected. But there's nothing preventing players from playing off the beat or when that part really shouldn't be playing. The end result is something that resembles "Twinkle, Twinkle" at best, and a collection of barnyard noises at the worst. Heck, some of the "instruments" aren't really instruments. Really? A dog suit? I cringed as I played with (and I use the term loosely) someone who selected what I can only describe as cheesy karate screams as the lead melody instrument for Super Mario Bros. Gag.
Making a simple music game anyone can play isn't a horrible idea, but the gamer(s) of the family will refuse to play this abomination. I admit that I did not check out the drum trainer mode due to a lack of motivation, but the main mode of Wii Music is the worst gaming experience I've had at any E3. I never would have predicted a Nintendo-developed title could hold that dubious honor. Rock Band and Guitar Hero do a fine job of engaging the whole family; I only hope retail sales representatives across the country can convey this to would-be consumers.
The scoring, grading, and evaluation will probably be in the finished product.
The game will almost certainly have a way of rewarding proper playing, it just won't beat you over the head every time you miss a note like other rhythm titles.
The scoring, grading, and evaluation will probably be in the finished product.Hmm, I don't know, with the everyone can play with smiles focus I'd expect: "You are all fantastic, have cookies, many cookies."
The game will almost certainly have a way of rewarding proper playing, it just won't beat you over the head every time you miss a note like other rhythm titles.
You haven't...
You've only seen impressions of a music game. That's hardly SEEING at all.
I suppose this lackluster E3 coupled with the announcement of WiiMusic have put people, err scratch that, the HARDC0R3 in a cynical mood. This is still Nintendo....and more importantly, this is still MIYAMOTO. Where's the faith?
Name any game he has had full control over that sucked?
You haven't...
You've only seen impressions of a music game. That's hardly SEEING at all.
I suppose this lackluster E3 coupled with the announcement of WiiMusic have put people, err scratch that, the HARDC0R3 in a cynical mood. This is still Nintendo....and more importantly, this is still MIYAMOTO. Where's the faith?
Name any game he has had full control over that sucked?
Given the fact that Nintendo was able to 1up the Rick Roll in one fail swoop is all the proof I need to cast judgement. --> http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=RgRriCJARvU
Blind optimism because Miyamoto is involved doesn't seem wise.
Personally, I thought Nintendogs was trash, and he was General Producer for that, but you may not care for that example. Yoshi's Story? He was a supervisor on that.
The game's sounding good to me. Everyone's complaining it doesn't allow failure, but that isn't true. According to these impressions, you can play badly. Yes, the game doesn't evaluate your playing, but what's wrong with that? You and your friends can judge yourselves - just like you do when you sing karaoke or freestyle rap. Why would you want it any different? A computer can't tell good sounding music from bad.
The game's sounding good to me. Everyone's complaining it doesn't allow failure, but that isn't true. According to these impressions, you can play badly. Yes, the game doesn't evaluate your playing, but what's wrong with that? You and your friends can judge yourselves - just like you do when you sing karaoke or freestyle rap. Why would you want it any different? A computer can't tell good sounding music from bad.
Hmm... sounds like I need to write-up my impressions...
Haha, I don't think I'll be able to find a pole long enough to touch this with.
Alot of critics were down on the WiiSports after playing it too. And you see how WiiSports has ended up doing.Also keep in mind that Nintendo hadn't gotten the sensitivity settings down when they first presented Wii Sports. Things turned out a lot better than what we were shown at E3 2006.
Alot of critics were down on the WiiSports after playing it too. And you see how WiiSports has ended up doing.Also keep in mind that Nintendo hadn't gotten the sensitivity settings down when they first presented Wii Sports. Things turned out a lot better than what we were shown at E3 2006.
What the hell is wrong with being an "uber leet gamer"? It's like people are trying to distance themselves from the hardcore just to defend Nintendo.
I don't want toys, I want games, dammit! Nintendo is welcome to make toys, but give those of us that don't want that some love as well. Right now we're getting no love, which is the crux of the issue.
Games are toys. Wake up.
What the hell is wrong with being an "uber leet gamer"? It's like people are trying to distance themselves from the hardcore just to defend Nintendo.
I don't want toys, I want games, dammit! Nintendo is welcome to make toys, but give those of us that don't want that some love as well. Right now we're getting no love, which is the crux of the issue.
Games are toys. Wake up.
The way I see it, this thing is implemented as such: there is an active current note or chord at any given time. when you flick your remote or whatever it takes to make a sound, that active note/chord is played. In theory, that means that you'lll always play a "correct" note or no note at all. But it didn't sound all that good in my opinion, even when people tried to play as you'd expect if you knew the song. (God forbid you play a song you don't know, because there aren't obvious visual cues.)
This is getting into pretty ridiculous semantics, but if we accept Jonny's definition of toys as tools for entertainment, all games fit that defintion as well, so all games are toys. But not all toys are games. Games are a subset of toys. So saying "I don't want toys, I want games" is like saying "I don't want games, I want first-person shooters." Which doesn't make much sense because if you have a first-person shooter, you have a game, and if you have a game, you have a toy.
Wii Music is an electronic toy, but so is Resistance or any other Serious Game. Resistance may have more goals or rules, but in the end they're both just ways of entaining yourself* and killing time.
* Insert your own snide remark about how Wii Music isn't entertaining here.
Well, when we get to play the game six months later and have a positive experience that is completely contrary to what was reported at E3, should we continue to trust them?
I trust Miyamoto more than the NWR staff. If I have to choose TYP's word or Miyamoto's word. I choose Miyamoto's.
Steady direction contrary to it's decades of success. I think that is an incorrect evaluation of Nintendo's modern history and it glosses over the complaining of the enthusiast press the last two generations in regards to their "direction."
This is such a reductive argument. It's like you don't even appreciate your own hobby. Why go head over heels to define games as meaningless, purposeless, useless - merely to justify a game company making a **** game?
Also please note that I haven't made any claim that Wii Music is a game, or that Wii Music is good (even as a toy). I haven't played it, so I don't know, and I don't have any particular interest in justifying its existence. I'm just sayin' -- games are a kind of toy.
Even as the company moves steadily in a direction contrary to its decades long success? With Miyamoto at the helm?
So let me get this straight: you trust Miyamoto, a guy that gets PAID by Nintendo and has a vested interest in not giving it to you straight, over the NWR Staff, who give you their opinions for FREE only for the sake of informing you?
Who is more likely to give you an unfiltered, honest response to a question, Miyamoto or NWR? We aren't trying to sell you a product, and we don't want anything from you.
QuoteEven as the company moves steadily in a direction contrary to its decades long success? With Miyamoto at the helm?
Um... what? The N64 and Cube were both flops.
QuoteSo let me get this straight: you trust Miyamoto, a guy that gets PAID by Nintendo and has a vested interest in not giving it to you straight, over the NWR Staff, who give you their opinions for FREE only for the sake of informing you?
Who is more likely to give you an unfiltered, honest response to a question, Miyamoto or NWR? We aren't trying to sell you a product, and we don't want anything from you.
I hope Silks isn't still perma-ignoring me, but this is a false dichotomy. The correct answer to the question of who will give you an unfiltered opinion is actually a non-gamer, who has not set his gaming preferences yet. And the usage of "likely" is weak, because it leaves open the possibility that he is speaking an unfiltered truth, and you are being shaded by your preferences.
Also, please, we shouldn't be naive about our internet profession. Journalists also sell products, packaged as slightly dramatic interpretations of events, along with society-rupturing opinions, in order to sell advertising. Miyamoto may not have a vested interest in openly criticizing his own product, but likewise we aren't vested in the truth of it, good or bad. But were are interested in conflict, because every good story needs one. This I notice as my most read, loved, prized reviews are of garbage games GBA/DS that I rip a new asshole. So we shouldn't argue from the standpoint of objective ombudsmen as if there is nothing that could possibly influence our opinions, ever.
And I am genuinely starting to get sick of hearing what everybody thinks is a "game" and their own definition of it and what ISN'T a game and why the people who play the non/casual games are stupid brainless retards who don't deserve to exist.
Nintendo hasn't abandoned anybody. That's simply more drama to sell.
This is such a reductive argument. It's like you don't even appreciate your own hobby. Why go head over heels to define games as meaningless, purposeless, useless - merely to justify a game company making a **** game?
What? I didn't do any of those things. I like toys, and I don't think you're giving them enough credit. Look at something like Legos or Play-Doh. Those are "create your own play" with no rules, but it would be hard to convince me that building things with them isn't an engaging mental process. Even less "constructive" toys, like, say, action figures or dolls, depend entirely on your imagination and creativity for you to get anything out of them. Maybe that's not engaging in the sense you were using it, but I think there is value in it. And of course toys often have real world counterparts, origins, or application too -- a quick and dirty example might be the famous "drinking bird" toy, which has no practical use, but demonstrates several laws of physics. When I say that games are toys, it's not meant to disparage either of them.
Also please note that I haven't made any claim that Wii Music is a game, or that Wii Music is good (even as a toy). I haven't played it, so I don't know, and I don't have any particular interest in justifying its existence. I'm just sayin' -- games are a kind of toy.
I still disagree that games are a kind of toy. Toys, at least until recently, have always been physical objects; games have never been physical because they exist mentally. We create toys with our hands; we create games with our minds.
Some games behave similarly to toys, and some are not games at all (under a strict game theory definition, which does have purposes in our conversations here, no matter how much some want to stamp detailed discussion and definition out of our forum). Either way, calling games "toys" puts games on a different, and I believe lower, level.
If I recall correctly, Will Wright called Sim City a toy rather than a game. Is it on a lower level?
If I recall correctly, Will Wright called Sim City a toy rather than a game. Is it on a lower level?
He hasn't changed his haircut/'stache since 1989
I have a serious problem with the "noble savage" attitude towards art, as if one who has never touched a game before would know the best one ever if he played it. How is it possible for someone to play ONE game and then declare it good or not without any context or other games to compare it to? It's ridiculous: would the person who has never seen a film and has absolutely no knowledge of art history instantly identify Bergman, Fellini, and Kubrick as three of the great directors? (btw that's just a cross-section, don't get hung up on the directors I chose) Why does having no prior knowledge of an art somehow qualify you to judge it more than others? I admit that it's possible to become so immersed in something (anything) that you can't see the forest for the trees, but it's even more ridiculous to ask someone who has never seen a tree before whether it is healthy or not.
Great points. I agree. Everything influences our opinions. We have to cultivate good taste, not glorify "au naturale" perspective. I ultimately agree with Lindy's point, but it's true that things do influence us game journos just as much as anyone else. However, we at NWR are not paid for our opinions, we just give them. Take that for what you will.
I hope you don't think that's what I'm saying. Re-read what I said: I'm willing to defend any casual game to the ends of the earth. I'm fond of non-games too; I'm afraid Wii Music sounds like a sack of ****. When we say "toy" we're saying something more than "non-game."
I agree. Nintendo has changed, but that's different. I would expect them to change (innovation is what they're known for, on certain levels (but not in Zelda dammit)). Anyways, I'm not making the claim that Nintendo abandoned anyone, I'm just saying that their product is more diversified now. I love casual games. I just also want narrative games, and Nintendo isn't making as many as they used to.
If you really want an eye-opener, you should check out the PS1's launch library. The best game was Rayman, and that was a port. It took a year and a half before Resident Evil came out and actually made the PS1 worth buying... and that was even a SATURN port.
QuoteIf you really want an eye-opener, you should check out the PS1's launch library. The best game was Rayman, and that was a port. It took a year and a half before Resident Evil came out and actually made the PS1 worth buying... and that was even a SATURN port.
Sorry to nitpick but Resident Evil was made for the Playstation first and then ported to the Saturn. And Rayman was the only decent PSX launch game? What about Tekken or Ridge Racer? The PS2 however did have a horrible launch so you can always use that as an example and, well, the PS3 sure seems to as well... and the PSP.
Anyone questioning how trustworthy TYP's opinion is... it just seems like if this wasn't a Nintendo game no one would have any issue. If some third party, and let's say one with a good track record as well, was working on Wii Music and there was some hype for it but then TYP played it, was disappointed, and gave the same impressions it wouldn't be that big of a deal. It seems because it's almighty Nintendo that TYP's opinion must not be trustworthy. Be a fan but don't be a fanatic. This is a company trying to make money off of you. Why would you trust their opinion over anyone else's? Would Miyamoto EVER give a Nintendo game that had not been released yet a bad review? Of course not.
If this was revealed at Microsoft's or Sony's conferences everyone would be making fun of them.
No personal attacks please.
