Topic: Stop making core games for the Wii!

[KDR_11k]

For this purpose a core game is a game that's designed in a pre-Wii fashion, designed for a traditional console with Wii controls added as an afterthought. Why do I want them to die? Because they abuse the system. The controls were designed for buttons but often have waggle thrown in just because the developer felt it was necessary. Even worse, some use the Wiimote sideways or even the classic controller. What's the point of having those games on the Wii? People complained about the Wii being a Gamecube 1.5, these games MAKE it a Gamecube 1.5! The Wii is the Wii, it can do more than a Gamecube 1.5!

A proper Wii game should not feel like the controls were a second choice solution that was only picked because the Wii couldn't do it any better, a proper Wii game should feel like the Wii is the proper fit for it. A proper Wii game is enabled, not hindered by the Wiimote. I don't want to play more lame excuses for Wii games that feel like the developer just took a design meant for an old console and mindlessly bolteed it on the Wii.

But I don't see this ending because the biggest offender will never stop. Who is the biggest offender? Nintendo themselves! Brawl was a GC game with prettier graphics. Galaxy was primarily a GC game with the Wii functions fairly non-essential for the gameplay. Batallion Wars felt retarded, why do I even HAVE a pointer to point at stuff when the game's designed around lock-on and unit commands are either following the lock or the current unit? Why couldn't I point and click to order a unit to a position? What is this crap, is that how you're going to sell your advantage over other consoles, by ignoring it? Give us more reasons to say "yes, the Wiimote was the right way to go"! Don't just throw core games at veteran gamers as if to say "you guys have no use for motion controls and could have stayed with the PS2"! Tell us why we need motion controls! Don't keep acting like motion controls are only intended for people who have never played a game before, I KNOW they're useful for making new games for veteran gamers too so stop copy-pasting your damn design documents and make a Wii game that deserves to be called one!

[ShyGuy]

I disagree.

[NWR_insanolord]

You had me until you implied that Nintendo shouldn't have made Galaxy.

[NWR_pap64]

I honestly don't see the point of this thread other than being a sarcastic troll bait thread.

Better state your real purpose, KDR.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

KDR has valid criticisms.

Then again, it will end up being a big "Bat Signal" to Ian.

[Luigi Dude]

[King of Twitch]

I can't help, I don't make games for Nintendo.

[ShyGuy]

I agree that games need to be dedicated to the controls, but it takes time. People still haven't figured out the touchscreen completely.

[BlackNMild2k1]

How about, "Start make core games designed from the ground up for the Wii!"

and no, I did not read more that the 1st sentence of the OP before replying

[Ian Sane]

Then again, it will end up being a big "Bat Signal" to Ian.

Wouldn't that be an "Ian Signal" then?   His usage of the expression "core games" is one that I think only he uses but he's right in that a lot of Wii games make no real use of the Wii's unique features.

What's the point of having those games on the Wii?

Well ideally we should want the best games to be on the Wii.  Whether or not they support motion control shouldn't matter.  It just has to be a good game.  If anything I think forced motion control hurts the Wii more than anything.  If one can't find a good use for the remote they should just use the classic controller.  Use whatever works best for the game you're making.

But I don't see this ending because the biggest offender will never stop. Who is the biggest offender? Nintendo themselves! Brawl was a GC game with prettier graphics. Galaxy was primarily a GC game with the Wii functions fairly non-essential for the gameplay. Batallion Wars felt retarded, why do I even HAVE a pointer to point at stuff when the game's designed around lock-on and unit commands are either following the lock or the current unit? Why couldn't I point and click to order a unit to a position? What is this crap, is that how you're going to sell your advantage over other consoles, by ignoring it?

The problem I think is that motion control is overrated, or least it is in it's current form.  Future enhancements to it might make it more the standard Nintendo wants it to be.  I don't think Nintendo is not using motion control on purpose.  I think there's the possibility they just CAN'T do better.  They CAN'T think of a better idea.  They probably wanted to make a Mario game that used it but found that it controlled like **** unless it was only minor usage.  They probably tried to make it work with SSB Brawl and discovered that flailing your arms about to the extent you would have to for that game was physically tiring and not fun.

But these games are still great.  I'm happy Nintendo made them.  I have no problem with being upset that the Wii is effectively a Gamecube 1.5 (you paid money for a new console for games that Nintendo could have made for the Gamecube after all) but you really can't complain that those games exist because they're great.  A great game is still a great game.

I would prefer they do a better job at "proving" the motion control concept.  I dislike forced motion controller, like waggle, entirely because it sucks.  If it didn't, well that would be fucking great.  I hope Nintendo figures it out.  I don't think they will though.  Not with just the remote as is.  We'll see what Motion+ can do.

Maybe they would do better though if their "gamer games" weren't all sequels and thus had to follow a convention created with the old controller.  How much can you innovate when there are expectations about how your games plays like?  Instead of making a Mario game and spinning your wheels trying to figure out how to implement motion control into the Mario formula how about you come up with gameplay concepts that use the remote and then make a new IP around it?  What a concept!

[Flames_of_chaos]

Oh my, Ian makes sense. One thing I thing about some Wii games is that they offer good amount of control options which allows gamers to pick which control option that they are more comfortable with. Personally I like Wii's motion controls and IR pointer functionality especially if they are implemented well, all I really care about is if a game is awesome, controls well, is engaging, and fun.

Just because something is on Wii doesn't mean that it has to be forced to use motion controls, or if a game is on the DS and is forced to use touch screen controls. Games with bad controls and broken controls exist on all platforms, so I think it's easier to criticize a developer who did a bad job at a game rather than what game or type of game being on a specific platform.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

It's been years since Doki Doki Panikku brought Mario the ability to hold & throw items in a game.  Now, we're able to throw frisbees and play Disc Golf with Lotion Puss.

It's about time we closed that generational gap and introduced action games where we can make our characters toss objects around to overcome obstacles and enemies and such.  Maybe Mario can lob a turtle shell over a high wall, bank it off a farther wall, and strike a switch that was on the opposite side of the first wall that Mario obviously couldn't get to.  Junk like that.

So not only are our hands more literally in the game (swinging swards or sports clubs, things we already know about), but our hands should affect the behavior of in-game objects with greater variety now (lobbing turtle shells, grenades, swinging a ball&chain, making waves on ropes or curtains or fabrics, scooping/carving material into various shapes, virtual whiteboard effects, playing catch, refined flashlight aiming, etc).

And it'll be much much more than "hold straight to turn right, turn right to crash into the siderail."

[Mop it up]

I disagree that ALL games need to be made specifically for Wii and use every single one of its features (even games like SSBBrawl and Mario Kart Wii use a feature the GameCube didn't have: online play, and Miis in Mario Kart), but I do agree Nintendo needs to do (and should have done) more to prove the Wii controller as a "standard" for ALL game types. However, this probably hasn't happened because the technology isn't yet strong enough, so I guess we'll have to wait...

[Guitar Smasher]

So what does that make New Play Control?  Somewhere in between (if that's possible)?

I really think Nintendo would be better off if they tried to make games like they did for the NES: from scratch.  NES didn't sell because Mario featured the Mario character, or because Zelda was another Zelda game.  They were fresh exciting games that appealed to the non-video-gamers (of the time).  Wii Sports is this.  Ideally, they should design games around controls, and not the other way around, which is what I think KDR is emphasizing.  If they avoid existing franchises they'll be open to new experiences, and likely better ones.

Of course that isn't to say they should stop making core games.  A good game is a good game, take MarioKart Wii for example. 

[NWR_pap64]

What I find funny is that to a certain extend some of the games KDR mentioned can't be done on the Wii...

For example, in Galaxy there are scenes in which you use the pointer to guide Mario in a bubble through some obstacles. This would be very hard to replicate with traditional controls.

Using the pointer for aiming makes A WORLD of difference in some games. Resident Evil 4 on Wii was a completely different experience from the GC and PS2 version because it made the aiming extremely easy and using the knife was actually fun and needed.

I think KDR is right to a certain extend. Nintendo has said that while they would love to see more games revolve around the Wii Remote only it would be silly of them and third parties to try and tack on motion controls  where they aren't needed or don't work. Hell, everybody hates the NPC games because this point is proven.

I still want to know what is the purpose of this thread since KDR is making a BIG claim and want to know the circumstances.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

The circumstance is he's reached his boiling point.

Instant ramen ready in a minute.

[broodwars]

Well, a lot of the problems designing games around the Wii remote right now boil down to the Wiimote being way too inaccurate for any decent game based around a core gamer experience to function properly.  Wii developers have no choice but to use waggle because there are too few buttons, but because the Wiimote can't accurately sense movement (unless it's very broad movement) it just doesn't work.  We'll see what happens now that Wii Motion + has arrived, as it should allow developers to properly map controller functions to the thing and not suck (due to Wiimote inaccuracy, anyway).  But if anything we need more core games on Wii, not less.

[NWR_pap64]

But if anything we need more core games on Wii, not less.

For once we agree on something. I understand all about quality is more important than quantity, but I think the more diverse a gaming library is the more enticing is to the consumer.

The PSone and PS2 had huge game libraries, even if a few of them were only great. But still it made players happy because there was something to play.

[KDR_11k]

Boom Blox worked fine being designed around precise Wiimote motions. It's not very accurate when moved quickly but when moved slowly it seems to be sufficiently precise for most purposes. There's more the Wiimote can do than just thwack stuff with a stick, what about something like an archaeology game? Or a puzzle adventure game where you interact directly with your environments instead of using context sesitive actions? Hell, Zack & Wiki worked fine too.

I posted this because I was really annoyed by Nintendo's direction for E3 2009. "Core gamers" are a misnomer anyway, veteran gamers just want more complex games, not strictly core games but Nintendo doesn't seem to be making any effort to appeal to them with anything but core games, furthering the notion that core and veteran are the same thing and stand opposed to casual. Come on, with the control values as the focus instead of graphics a game for the veteran gamer shouldn't be very expensive to make and pull the last leg MS and Sony are standing on out from under them. Going against them with games that use traditional controls is a red ocean strategy (and I can't imagine many other reasons for Galaxy 2 or Other M, both are squarely aimed at veteran gamers), I thought Nintendo was going to avoid that? Draw their customers away with moves they cannot replicate! Make them face games they cannot make! Yes, that'll require innovation but isn't that what Nintendo is all about? Finding new ways to entertain people?

Though I'll be fair to Other M, we have no idea how it works so it might use motion controls in a great way but their advertising seems to be aimed at core values currently.

[Chozo Ghost]

What's the point of having those games on the Wii?

The point of making them on the Wii is because if they aren't on the Wii then they have to be on the PS3 or 360 or else not exist at all. If you don't like them, just don't buy them. I don't see why you are offended by them existing when no one is forcing you to play them.

And having them on the Wii even thought they can be done on other systems is important because not everyone owns these other systems. Most households that own video games will likely only have one system, which this generations fortunately happens to be a Nintendo system. If you're a Nintendo fan, why do you want them to abandon the hardcore audience and just focus on waggle party games?

[KDR_11k]

If you're a Nintendo fan, why do you want them to abandon the hardcore audience and just focus on waggle party games?

If you read my post why do you think I ever said that?

[NovaQ]

With the classic controller and sideways-Wiimote setups, Nintendo is allowing plenty of flexibility in game design (and also a means of covering their posteriors in case the Wiimote failed). I imagine they not only want the Wii to be accessible to as wide a range of potential customers as possible, but also to as many game developers as possible. I can't say a variety of options seems to be a bad thing.

I agree that releases in the "previous gen games + waggle" style need to decrease in favor of games with more complex motion controls. Ningurl's post with Mario throwing a turtle shell has some great examples of this, and I think (hope) Motion Plus is what will get developers to that more complex motion-controlled kind of game.

It sounds like the advent of quality in-game physics engines will play a crucial role in this, too. Again, Ningurl's turtle shell post shows just how necessary it will be for accurate physics to be in place for more in-depth motion controls to be truly fun. I know Brawl used a physics engine, but what else on the Wii has? Though I am wondering if Wii's processing power can handle competent enough physics, I also ask that question because I simply don't know the answer. (Though, I suppose if the physics-reliant Half-Life 2 could make it to X-Box, something at least that complex should be fine on Wii.)

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Boom Blox, Mario Galaxy, Kororinpa, Wii Fit, Wii Sports, Wii Play and more employ physics to dictate various gameplay behaviors.

[Ian Sane]

What I find funny is that to a certain extend some of the games KDR mentioned can't be done on the Wii...

For example, in Galaxy there are scenes in which you use the pointer to guide Mario in a bubble through some obstacles. This would be very hard to replicate with traditional controls.

Those are like isolated levels though.  Take those out, replace with different levels and if that was how it always was no one would notice and the game would end up just as great since the core gameplay remains.  Stuff like the bubble and the stingrays and such are more like mini-games but the basic Mario running and jumping around planets would remain in tact with traditional controls.  Something like Wii Sports though would lose so much of its charm with tradtional controls it would go from a killer app to bargain bin trash.

Come on, with the control values as the focus instead of graphics a game for the veteran gamer shouldn't be very expensive to make and pull the last leg MS and Sony are standing on out from under them. Going against them with games that use traditional controls is a red ocean strategy (and I can't imagine many other reasons for Galaxy 2 or Other M, both are squarely aimed at veteran gamers), I thought Nintendo was going to avoid that? Draw their customers away with moves they cannot replicate! Make them face games they cannot make!

Nintendo is in a different position now though.  Blue ocean made sense when Nintendo was the last place loser console with no clout.  Now they're the market leader.  They have the position of power and that lets them directly attack the competition.

And I don't see how trying to match the competion is a bad thing.  What sounds better?  Being different or having the same things they have plus MORE?  If Nintendo restricts the types of games to be made on the Wii then they are giving the competition an advantage.  Nintendo may be winning but Sony and MS can point to a HUGE pile of great third party games that use traditional controls and are not on the Wii because of the hardware difference.  That may not knock Nintendo from their perch but it's a pro for the competion and a con for the Wii.  Why give people a reason to check out the competition?  Why give them a reason to choose them over you?  I consider that sort of thing exactly why the Cube never went anywhere because Nintendo just handed out reasons to buy the competition instead of them.

What you're suggesting is to have a clear seperation between Nintendo and the others.  But how is that good for Nintendo?  That just creates two markets.  How well do you think the PS3 and Xbox 360 would be doing if, hypothetically, the Wii had comparable specs to them and still sold the numbers it did.  So it's like the PS3 with motion control.  Every third party game of significance would be on the Wii.  There would probably be a lot of multi-platform games but this "spin-off for the Wii; real game to the others" routine would not happen.  Right now Sony and MS are an alternative.  But what if they were just outright inferior with only their first party efforts and a few token third party exclusives to carry them?  They would be like the Gamecube but with an obviously weaker first party lineup.  In other words they would be FUCKED.  They're not because the Wii is just different, not better.

[ShyGuy]

I don't see how trying to match the competion is a bad thing.

Arms races are expensive, look at Sony this generation. This is not a business model to aspire too.