Topic: IMPRESSIONS: Wii Music

[Svevan]

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

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

[ShyGuy]

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."

[D_Average]

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

[NWR_Lindy]

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

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.

[Svevan]

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."

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

[shammack]

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.

[Jonnyboy117]

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

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

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

[shammack]

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.

[Deguello]

Even 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.

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

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

I 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.

[ShyGuy]

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

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

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

[Deguello]

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

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

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

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

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

[shammack]

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

[Svevan]

Even 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.

Artistic success.

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

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

I 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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."

Nintendo hasn't abandoned anybody.  That's simply more drama to sell.

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.

[Svevan]

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.

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

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

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

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

[ShyGuy]

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

[shammack]

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. 

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

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.

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

[Crimm]

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

[NWR_insanolord]

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

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

[Deguello]

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.

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

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.

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

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."

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

I 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.

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

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

[LuigiHann]

What's wrong with toys? Toys are cool.

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

[Jonnyboy117]

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

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

[Deguello]

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

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

[NWR_Lindy]

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

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

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

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

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

[ShyGuy]

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

[MegaByte]

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