Support NeoGAF

[charlequin]

The really irksome bit (and I know it isn't what you said, but it does crop up from time to time) is the outcry from PS360 owners when there is something good announced for the Wii that it would be so much better on PS360 instead.

I agree that this is extremely irksome, and its new particularly whiny evolution "this would be so much better as a $10 XBLA/PSN game" ever so much more so.

I see no reason that a developer's strategy should be based on the fallacious assumption that everyone can afford more than one console.

Developers don't really have a strategy for the Wii besides "don't look at it and maybe it'll go away!" :lol

My broader point here is really only that while the relative attention paid to Wii and PS360 is lopsided and misallocated, the actual specific titles usually aren't. A pretty large percentage of the time, a PS360 game really is better there than it would have been on the Wii (because it's based on a concept that was created for development on PS360.) This sort of thing is not what Wii support should look like; even in a world where the Wii got the level of development that matched its sales, it by rights ought to be stuff that the Wii is good at and well-suited for. A world in which third-parties concepted PS360 games and then downported them to Wii would not actually be an improvement from the current reality.

Besides that clarification, happy to drop the issue.

 

[Vinci]

It's usually considered that if you don't shit-talk Nintendo, you're pro-Nintendo, and that there's something wrong with you.

Sometimes I hate GAF.

I'm considered a Nintendo loyalist, I'm sure, despite the fact that I ignored the company for two generations in a row and only got back into them with the DS and Wii. I'm more of a PC gamer, though I don't have that reputation because - until this Modern Warfare nonsense - I haven't had anything to really say. It's been awesome, no worries. Now a 3rd party seems intent on turning the PC into a closed platform like some console - so yeah, I'll talk about it.

 

[gerg]

I'm considered a Nintendo loyalist, I'm sure, despite the fact that I ignored the company for two generations in a row and only got back into them with the DS and Wii. I'm more of a PC gamer, though I don't have that reputation because - until this Modern Warfare nonsense - I haven't had anything to really say. It's been awesome, no worries. Now a 3rd party seems intent on turning the PC into a closed platform like some console - so yeah, I'll talk about it.

The silence in response to my original question seems to suggest that the answer is so obviously "yes" that it doesn't warrant a response, or that the answer is so obviously "no" that it doesn't warrant a response. :lol

I don't like to think that I'm pro-Nintendo. I don't think that I'm pro- or anti-anyone, really. Of course, now I think that I'm simply delusional.

 

[phisheep]

My broader point here is really only that while the relative attention paid to Wii and PS360 is lopsided and misallocated, the actual specific titles usually aren't. A pretty large percentage of the time, a PS360 game really is better there than it would have been on the Wii (because it's based on a concept that was created for development on PS360.) This sort of thing is not what Wii support should look like; even in a world where the Wii got the level of development that matched its sales, it by rights ought to be stuff that the Wii is good at and well-suited for. A world in which third-parties concepted PS360 games and then downported them to Wii would not actually be an improvement from the current reality.

Now that I can agree with wholeheartedly.

The failed logic is the stuff that goes

1) We can't port awesome game X to the Wii because the Wii doesn't have the power
2) Therefore we won't do anything on the Wii at all because it obviously can't do awesome

which seems to me to display only a woeful lack of imagination.

 

[charlequin]

Now that I can agree with wholeheartedly.

The failed logic is the stuff that goes

1) We can't port awesome game X to the Wii because the Wii doesn't have the power
2) Therefore we won't do anything on the Wii at all because it obviously can't do awesome

which seems to me to display only a woeful lack of imagination.

Hooray! It's fun to agree about things.

 

[Kilrogg]

I'm considered a Nintendo loyalist, I'm sure, despite the fact that I ignored the company for two generations in a row and only got back into them with the DS and Wii.

You and me both.

@charlequin : I haven't forgotten how you reluctantly agreed with me once, you mean thing you ;(.

 

[schuelma]

Now that I can agree with wholeheartedly.

The failed logic is the stuff that goes

1) We can't port awesome game X to the Wii because the Wii doesn't have the power
2) Therefore we won't do anything on the Wii at all because it obviously can't do awesome

which seems to me to display only a woeful lack of imagination.

I do think its a bit more complicated than that, at least for western developers, who from the start heavily invested in HD technology. It wasn't a simple matter of turning on a switch and having quality Wii resources ready to go right then. Moving to the Wii in full would have meant a pretty big initial cost for a lot of these companies, and I think that the 360 software sales convinced them to stay the course (note, I'm not saying I agree with this, but I can see the train of thought).

 

[phisheep]

I do think its a bit more complicated than that, at least for western developers, who from the start heavily invested in HD technology. It wasn't a simple matter of turning on a switch and having quality Wii resources ready to go right then. Moving to the Wii in full would have meant a pretty big initial cost for a lot of these companies, and I think that the 360 software sales convinced them to stay the course (note, I'm not saying I agree with this, but I can see the train of thought).

I can see the train of thought, but there's an easy answer - which is that the Wii was built on Gamecube technology. Developers should to a large extent have already had the resources ready to go and with far far less investment required than for the HD stuff.

So I don't think this is any more than an excuse.

 

[schuelma]

I can see the train of thought, but there's an easy answer - which is that the Wii was built on Gamecube technology. Developers should to a large extent have already had the resources ready to go and with far far less investment required than for the HD stuff.

So I don't think this is any more than an excuse.

Someone in this thread or another, a developer, said a lot of companies GC guys moved right away to HD stuff. Don't know if that explains things or not.

 

[phisheep]

Someone in this thread or another, a developer, said a lot of companies GC guys moved right away to HD stuff. Don't know if that explains things or not.

Could easily be. Reminds of my programming days long long ago when online was new and sexy and every damn programmer and designer wanted online on their CVs and decried batch programming as old hat and never wanted to touch it again.

Batch programming and especially batch system design rapidly became a lost art, even though all the people who knew how to do it were still around. They just pretended to be busy when there was some batch work to be done.

 

[justchris]

Especially when people are asking for ports of 2+ year old games. I mean, let's say Mirror's Edge, Silent Hill 5, Resident Evil 5, Call of Duty MW1 (lol), BioShock, and Tales of Vesperia all get ported to the Wii and you want them all on the Wii.

Eeeeh, I don't think anyone is really begging for ports of those games. I think most people are just whining that they weren't ported back when they were going concerns, and are using them to lament a port-barren future. A lot of people at this point have either gotten another console or given up on playing the games they don't have access to. It's more along the lines of, "They never ported Resident Evil 5, so it looks like I'm not going to be getting any real Resident Evil games to play."

No one is asking that. Again, I've stated that I clearly understand the publisher's approach here and why a terrible publisher like Activision wants to downgrade everything under the sun to have every single game it makes appear on everything down to TI180 calculators. I just don't understand the consumer approach and motivation behind celebrating that sort of behavior or preferring that to developing original content specifically made for the Wii and just getting a second console for all the games you've spent the past three years whining about not getting Wii downgrades.

Then you're looking through the eyes of the wrong consumer. The greater majority of consumers want specific games, rather than just going for whatever is best that month. Not all of them are the multiconsole GAFfer that buys one or more games every month. In fact, that's the minority. Look at it from the perspective of the person who doesn't have the money to buy multiple consoles or more than 5 or 6 games a year, or who just doesn't have the time to play more than 5 or 6 games a year, even if they have the disposable income.

And you can't think of any reason why such a person wouldn't prefer to get the games they want, rather than some theoretical game that might be perfectly built for the console they have, with no guarantee that it'll be something they actually like?

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Someone in this thread or another, a developer, said a lot of companies GC guys moved right away to HD stuff. Don't know if that explains things or not.

There's also the fact that stuff designers are learning in school these days (since basically 2005) have nothing to do with Wii development.

 

[phisheep]

Oh dear, obviously we can't let it lie. One more time.

I'll just reiterate:
- Buying a second console and 6 year old games costs the exact same as buying 6 brand new games, so asking for a port of 6 games and claiming a console can't be afforded does not make fiscal sense. The higher the number of games you want, the more you save by buying a second console instead of waiting for full price ports.

I never asked for ports. Ports is not what I want. Just a sensible amount of good development on Wii.

It only ‘does not make fiscal sense’ on the assumption that I am currently buying all games at full price. Not true.

Financially, the problem is one of cashflow and credit. If you don’t want to take out credit, then you have to forego something – probably a years worth of games (at full price, longer if you get them discounted) – to save for a new console. Do I want to do that? No I don’t – and it is my choice.

I have seen MANY people on GAF who have identified at least a half-dozen games they want on PS3/360, expressed their desire for ports, and identified cost as the reason why they don't pursue a second console.

Cost as in cashflow probably, following the same logic as above. Makes perfect sense to me.

- If you buy 20+ games a year, you can afford every console and by the end of the generation you'll have a huge by any standard library on all of them. Assuming a 5 year console generation, that's 100 games during the generation. Spread over 5 consoles/handhelds, that's still 20 games a console. That's more use per console than most single console owners get out of theirs over the whole generation.

No. Not if you are still buying the 20+ games a year (and then only if they are full price), because that is what you are spending the money on. If you do without for a year then maybe you could afford the consoles – or maybe you’ll have taken up knitting instead.

You can't spend the same money twice.

- If you're the kind of person who is thrifty with gaming expenditures, you're used to waiting a long time for things to get affordable. Complaining about not being able to play a specific game right now doesn't make any sense. There are plenty of great $10 classics available right now, and if you won't pay more than $10 for a game, help yourself. But it doesn't make sense to complain that the console you have doesn't have a port of the game you want to play if you're not going to buy it until it ends up cheap anyway.

I never said ports, and I never said right now. I am already thrifty in gaming expenditures, which means your financial equation that I can afford another console (based on the assumption that I buy all my games new) is flawed, probably out by a factor of four.

- If you genuinely can't afford a second console (for example, by setting a personal entertainment budget month of $60 US, you'll have enough for a console and several full price games at the end of the year) then buying a substantial number of games is probably living beyond your budget to begin with. Don't buy ten games a year if you don't have enough money to buy ten games a year.

Um, excuse me, your logic here seems to be that if I can’t afford a second console I shouldn’t be buying any games for the one that I have got.

Utterly bonkers.

This analogy is self-evidently silly because
1) most people in north america finance or lease cars rather than buying outright--most people can't afford a car as a purchase at all, or if they can it's a used car.
2) cars are two orders of magnitude more expensive than a console ($199 for a console, $19,900+ for a car is not uncommon)
3) a second console plays different games than the first one whereas a second car just enables more efficient driving when two drivers or two or more passengers want to go to different places at the same time.

1) I’m not in North America. Plus the same logic applies to leasing. If I can afford to lease one car does that mean I can afford to lease two? No it doesn't.
2) Not the cars that I drive! (10/12 years old, fully depreciated and then some)
3) Still relevant, because when you are driving one car/using one console you are not driving/using the other one, so your return on investment is less

So I don’t see this as self-evidently silly at all

All very reasonable.

... so why is this hypothetical person with tons of real-life financial stressors pining for a half-dozen Wii ports that they can't afford even if the ports existed? Why are they buying 15+ games a year to begin with?

Er, did I mention it’s not about ports? I’m not pining for ports. As for why I’m buying games – I’m a gamer, it is one of the things that gamers do.

My budgeting advice, which wasn't patronizing, it was serious, was offered because I don't understand how, setting aside that I've already mentioned that it wouldn't actually cost more to buy a second console than buying the ports full price, someone who is well budgeted (IE not on a fixed income, housing:income ratio lower than 30%, no crippling debt maintenance payments, etc) can be unable to spend $500 over the run of a year, and people who do fall under those categories ought to seek a hobby other than gaming.

As I mentioned, your calculations are flawed - assuming, as they do, that I buy games at full price, and ignoring cashflow/credit.

As to not understanding how etc.- you may want to try sometime having your income drop by 85% owing to a recession. It is not something that I can recommend. Now, I’m in a far better position than many other people, in that I can recover from this, though it will take 3-4 years to do it.

But I do find it patronising to be leapt on by a bunch of people and be told that I can and should buy another games console when I cannot afford it, and that I am therefore somehow debarred from wanting a better range of games on the one that I have got.

Now, can we let it lie?

 

[EDarkness]

I won't lie, I want some ports. Most notably, Bioshock, Bioshock 2, and Mass Effect. I don't care that people don't want them, but I would buy competent ports of these games in a heartbeat. Why? Because I want to play with the Wii remote and I think it would be awesome. I have a good PC and a 360 (and have Bioshock on the 360 and Mass Effect on the PC), but I'd much rather play with the remote and nunchuck. After playing Modern Warfare on the Wii, I think these games could be done and the loss of graphic quality would be fine by me.

My thing is there is no reason for these guys not to be able to make competent and high quality Wii games in genres I like. If they don't make them, that's fine, but they shouldn't complain when people don't buy their lesser quality games.

 

[Kai Dracon]

I've always imagined that deep inside the Nintendo war room, back when the Revolution specifications were finalized, Iwata and co. /had/ to have been honest with themselves about at least one thing: their system /would/ be inappropriate for ports of many of the epic, designed-for-power-console games that would be starting their development cycle soon.

In other words, they would have realized they were taking a calculated risk: that in the long run, they wouldn't need whatever the new Grand Theft Auto turned out to be, or Metal Gear Solid, and so forth. They might not have told the public that in the same words, because it could've been hard to phrase it without sounding as if they were saying gamers didn't need games like that at all and if it wasn't Wii-friendly, it was misguided to make it at all. Or sounding as if they were "admitting" their system was a weeny and couldn't compete with the accepted standard.

Instead, I sometimes feel what they actually projected is that publishers would see the audience the Wii attracted as worth of some parallel development, especially because it would be low-cost, and they hoped that the Wii would present an alternative to the games that would be mid-tier for the other systems.

By that turn, I'm willing to be they were genuinely surprised when the industry just went whole-hog down the path of nothing but AAA 20 million dollar games and just shut down mid-tier development entirely. I'm not sure anyone could have foreseen - though we probably /should/ have - the industry so quickly spiraling into a vortex of greed and exploitation even if it was self-destructive. As someone else said not long ago, never forget: the people running super publishers this generation don't care if they destroy the game industry. They've made their millions and cashed their chips out. The Koticks of the world will just get a new job in another industry that's ripe for the picking.

Against that kind of absolute corporatist nihilism, Nintendo's high minded ideas for "saving" gaming* with the Wii may not be as obvious to everyone as Iwata thought. Never forget that every time you hear "Wii HD", it's a code word for something else: the industry wishing Nintendo will stop its course of disruption and behave like a "conventional" company - and when that happens, the Nintendo threat will be over and they'll just freeze the Wii out like they did the Gamecube.

The real threat is if Nintendo guts it out and redoubles their efforts to make sub-HD games that cost a fraction of what a Gears of War does, but sell four times as many copies. And continues to build up customers with new expectations and new values that don't align with what the hardcore gamers and the industry want.


*Anyone who still ignores what Nintendo has been saying about the direction gaming was taking because "they're just another company that wants money" is missing the point. Of course they want money. However, their specialty is gaming and Nintendo executives are not interesting in pillaging then finding a new group of suckers. The health of gaming and happy gaming customers is in the best interest of their business. Given how we've seen the giant publishers devise new ways to exploit customers, run franchises into the ground for short-term profit, and use marketing and hype to breed obsessive short attention span zombies and destroy the gaming community, Nintendo's "crazy talk" was pretty prophetic, I would say.

 

[ethelred]

Prince of Persia is a Western franchise that struck me as fundamentally misplaced on PS3630. It's a platformer, it's not mega-popular, and it's fundamentally less tuned to the 18-35 mindset than its iterated version Assassin's Creed, so it bombed on impact -- but I think it could've been nurtured into something vaguely popular and successful on Wii.

I agree! In fact (despite the fact that I think I'm viewed as waaaaaaaaay more anti-Wii than you!), I was on this bandwagon back in 2006! I think Prince of Persia could've been a great opportunity for Ubisoft on the Wii, and I thought that way back before launch. It would've been an excellent chance to integrate sensible motion controls in a serious, mid-tier, core-focused game that had always relied more on fluid and acrobatic gameplay than on heavy processing or visual prowess. But boy did they screw the pooch on that one (not that I'm complaining too much, since what they eventually did with the series on PS360 turned out super and, shockingly, is one of the best looking games this gen).

I never asked for ports. Ports is not what I want. Just a sensible amount of good development on Wii.

Then brother, I hate to pull a Carly Simon here, but this song ain't about you. The whole flow of this conversation started when you specifically interjected yourself into a question directed at someone who was asking for ports of two year old games and defended his perspective. If it was not your intention to defend that desire, you probably chose the wrong issue to champion. If you're not interested in ports, then none of what was being said or questioned was really directed at you in the first place. My original question was aimed at someone else who was asking for that.

But I do find it patronising to be leapt on by a bunch of people and be told that I can and should buy another games console when I cannot afford it, and that I am therefore somehow debarred from wanting a better range of games on the one that I have got.

There's nothing at all wrong with wanting more and better games on the Wii. But there is a problem with just wanting a bunch of high end developers to port all their games down from PS360 to the Wii, and if someone's position is that they desperately want these games to play, then the only sensible thing for them to do is to get the system that plays them, not endlessly complain on message boards. Again, if this does not apply to you then logic says it does not apply to you.

Eeeeh, I don't think anyone is really begging for ports of those games.

But the person I was questioning, which started this whole tangent, was begging for ports of those games. Not only that, but he was arguing that Activision should be rewarded for finally delivering a port of a two year old game while other companies should be punished for developing from-the-ground-up content on the Wii!

Then you're looking through the eyes of the wrong consumer. The greater majority of consumers want specific games, rather than just going for whatever is best that month. Not all of them are the multiconsole GAFfer that buys one or more games every month. In fact, that's the minority. Look at it from the perspective of the person who doesn't have the money to buy multiple consoles or more than 5 or 6 games a year, or who just doesn't have the time to play more than 5 or 6 games a year, even if they have the disposable income.

And you can't think of any reason why such a person wouldn't prefer to get the games they want, rather than some theoretical game that might be perfectly built for the console they have, with no guarantee that it'll be something they actually like?[/QUOTE]

No offense, but I was asking a specific, targeted question at an individual who expressed a point of view that I find puzzling, at best. I am not sure why everyone is so determined to take that narrowly focused question and turn it into a theoretical retrospective on the hypothetical hearts and minds of Harry and Louise Mainstream Consumer. Because you're right, Harry and Louise aren't multiconsole owners, and they don't desire to be (nor do they come onto video game message boards and kvetch about Mirror's Edge not being on the Wii...), because they're too busy playing Wii Fit, Lego Star Wars, Guitar Hero, and... well, that's about it, isn't it? That's their perspective, and I don't really care to analyze it too deeply at the moment.

And you can't think of any reason why such a person wouldn't prefer to get the games they want, rather than some theoretical game that might be perfectly built for the console they have, with no guarantee that it'll be something they actually like?

I can only speak for myself here. I really don't want good developers wasting their time downgrading a bunch of games built for another system and tacking on poorly thought out motion controls onto them in order to get these square peg games into the round hole that is the Wii. And why would I? I have other systems, so if there's a game on them that interests me, I'll get it there. And I think that's what most people should do: if you're so very, very, very interested in the games that are on another system, you should get that system, and rarely are the circumstances so overwhelmingly sour that an individual can't make a few changes in order to procure that one secondary console that will satisfy their gaming desires. Maybe it isn't fair that someone might need two consoles in this day and age whereas before they only needed the PS2, but life is built on not being fair.

As far as the developers and publishers go, I would much rather they spend their time coming up with good, solid concepts specifically for the Wii. Again, speaking for myself here, I'm a hell of a lot more satisfied with my gaming experiences on this machine when they're made for it. I'm happy with a lot of the exclusives it gets. I think it gets some great games. I'd like more stuff like that. If you're not satisfied with the games the Wii receives and what you really want are downgraded ports of other system's games, then maybe the Wii isn't the console for you and maybe one of those other systems is.

 

[Penguin]

The thing I never got with Wii development is why people just like stopped pushing forward their ideas.

I remember stuff like Godfather Blackhand Edition and Medal of Honor Heroes 2 that come to mind. Both games were fairly average, but I felt made better with the inclusion of motion controls.

But the team that did Godather and Medal of Honor haven't done anything else on the Wii as far as I know. It doesn't have to be big budget, but it had fairly solid foundation to build on.

 

[justchris]

But the person I was questioning, which started this whole tangent, was begging for ports of those games. Not only that, but he was arguing that Activision should be rewarded for finally delivering a port of a two year old game while other companies should be punished for developing from-the-ground-up content on the Wii!

Okay, yes, I may have been a bit broad when I said anyone. Some people are just unwilling to give any quarter. They're good soldiers though, fighting the good fight.

No offense, but I was asking a specific, targeted question at an individual who expressed a point of view that I find puzzling, at best. I am not sure why everyone is so determined to take that narrowly focused question and turn it into a theoretical retrospective on the hypothetical hearts and minds of Harry and Louise Mainstream Consumer. Because you're right, Harry and Louise aren't multiconsole owners, and they don't desire to be (nor do they come onto video game message boards and kvetch about Mirror's Edge not being on the Wii...), because they're too busy playing Wii Fit, Lego Star Wars, Guitar Hero, and... well, that's about it, isn't it? That's their perspective, and I don't really care to analyze it too deeply at the moment.

I can only speak for myself here. I really don't want good developers wasting their time downgrading a bunch of games built for another system and tacking on poorly thought out motion controls onto them in order to get these square peg games into the round hole that is the Wii. And why would I? I have other systems, so if there's a game on them that interests me, I'll get it there. And I think that's what most people should do: if you're so very, very, very interested in the games that are on another system, you should get that system, and rarely are the circumstances so overwhelmingly sour that an individual can't make a few changes in order to procure that one secondary console that will satisfy their gaming desires. Maybe it isn't fair that someone might need two consoles in this day and age whereas before they only needed the PS2, but life is built on not being fair.

Well, my main point is that port begging is more whining than it is any actual request for most people. What most people mean when they say, "Assassin's Creed should be on Wii," is, "Someone should make a game in a similar vein to Assassin's Creed built from the ground up for Wii." The problem isn't so much that AAA developers aren't porting their game to the Wii, as it is there are entire genres that are being almost completely ignored on the Wii, that are more than possible there with the proper design. And while there are some really great games for the Wii, that does nothing for me if it's a type of game I have no interest in playing.

People are just lazy though, and rather than forming a coherent argument, it's just a hell of a lot easier to point to a game that is the type of game you like and say it should have been made for the Wii in the first place.

 

[donny2112]

I've always imagined that deep inside the Nintendo war room, back when the Revolution specifications were finalized, Iwata and co. /had/ to have been honest with themselves about at least one thing: their system /would/ be inappropriate for ports of many of the epic, designed-for-power-console games that would be starting their development cycle soon.

In other words, they would have realized they were taking a calculated risk:

Maybe this was lost in some revisionist history lesson or something, but they said upfront that they wanted to design the Wii to prevent easy ports. They wanted new experiences on Wii and not just what they got with the GameCube which was ports without anything specific for the Nintendo system. That doesn't mean that we can't still want more games that are on the other systems if we want that play-style. e.g. Dead Space, because all I really want is more RE4 Wii-style games; FPSs, because outside of The Conduit, they're all on other consoles.

Now I think financially third-parties should've been going out of their way to do whatever they could to simultaneously launch multi-platform games on the Wii as well as the PS360 by late 2007 or so. That doesn't mean that I would buy them or even personally want them, though. I simply think it would've been the much smarter business move for third-parties to make. The Wii ports could've been farmed out to smaller teams/outsourced teams, if necessary, and that would've added more work for people in the industry to do, as well. PS360 devs aren't burdened with "dirty" Wii development, smaller devs have steady work, and Wii owners at least get the opportunity to play all the multiplatform games.

However that didn't happen, and now I'm on the "Nintendo should launch a new Wii in late 2010/2011 with 360+ power, integrated Motion+, Classic Controller Pro standard, standard online system, and some other 'innovation'" bandwagon. Nintendo's established motion controls, so they don't need to discourage Classic Controller controlling any longer. Developers are now at least aware of the advantages of IR/motion+ controlling, so they can reasonably decide themselves whether to add them or not. Therefore, making the porting environment easier shouldn't be a bad thing.

 

[onipex]

The thing I never got with Wii development is why people just like stopped pushing forward their ideas.

I remember stuff like Godfather Blackhand Edition and Medal of Honor Heroes 2 that come to mind. Both games were fairly average, but I felt made better with the inclusion of motion controls.

But the team that did Godather and Medal of Honor haven't done anything else on the Wii as far as I know. It doesn't have to be big budget, but it had fairly solid foundation to build on.

They can't make games people wont fund.

I really think that the most people in the industry want the Wii to go away. It really does go against the direction that many seem to want the industry to go in. I hated the direction that the industry was going in before the Wii came along so I hate the idea of Wii HD.

 

[EDarkness]

But the person I was questioning, which started this whole tangent, was begging for ports of those games. Not only that, but he was arguing that Activision should be rewarded for finally delivering a port of a two year old game while other companies should be punished for developing from-the-ground-up content on the Wii!

Personally, as crappy as Activision is, I'd say they they deserve some credit for at least attempting to get Wii games close to the 360/PS3 versions. As greedy as they are, it's something that other companies simply isn't doing. I don't personally care that a game is made from the ground up for the Wii if the game itself isn't appealing to me. Mini-game collection #4 that is made for the Wii isn't something I want to buy. I do want to buy a game LIKE Bioshock, and there's really no reason for there not to be games like it. Of course, we can debate this until we're blue in the face, but that's my feeling about it.

Also, being expected to buy lower tiered games like Madworld or dumbed down versions of games like Ghostbusters is silly too. The Wii is not a graphical powerhouse (we all understand that), but I'm not (and apparently a lot of people aren't either) going to roll over simply because some developer thinks the average Wii gamer is for kids or we all like niche games.

So with that in mind, I'm more than happy to give Activision props for trying to get Modern Warfare and World at War as close to the other versions. Sure the game comes late, but perhaps they'll launch with the other versions as well. Funny thing is, I've seen ads for the Wii version of Modern Warfare on different websites. Always gives me a chuckle considering they waited until the game came out to do so.

 

[ethelred]

Personally, as crappy as Activision is, I'd say they they deserve some credit for at least attempting to get Wii games close to the 360/PS3 versions.

I don't.

I do want to buy a game LIKE Bioshock, and there's really no reason for there not to be games like it.

Well, there are reasons, actually. You may not like the reasons, the reasons may make you very unhappy (though I'd be surprised if they can, seeing as you already come across like the most majorly self-hating Wii owner one could imagine), but reasons do exist.

Also, being expected to buy lower tiered games like Madworld...

Your loss! Plenty of the stuff I bought on the PS2, the PSX, the SNES, and whatnot would be considered mid-tier. And a good portion of those games were a blast. I'm happy to buy more niche products that I find appealing and that offer up fun and creative gaming experiences that aren't at all dependent on blockbuster budgets. I'm happy to get that kind of stuff on the Wii, too.

(not that Mad World in specific is one of the mid-tier games that appeals to me)

Regardless, it's the best you're going to get. Publishers are never at this stage going to change their minds and decide that the Wii is the place to put high budget, AAA, mega-blockbuster core games. That ship has not only sailed, it's hit the fucking iceberg. It will not change, period, so if you're able to convince yourself that you'll be satisfied with nothing but the few of those games that do get severely compromised downports from the other consoles, then good on you.

... or dumbed down versions of games like Ghostbusters is silly too.

Yeah, the Wii version of Ghostbusters looked like such ridiculous trash. :lol I'm glad I was never tempted, even for a passing moment, to have any interest in that. Instead I got the 360 version for 30$ and had a blast with it.

 

[AniHawk]

and had a blast with it.

Really? The game looked like your standard licensed garbage game.

People have said that the Wolverine game was pretty good too. I think I'll chalk it up to it being a pretty dry year for the 360.

 

[ethelred]

Really? The game looked like your standard licensed garbage game.

Well, your enjoyment would probably depend on how much you liked the movies. I absolutely loved Ghostbusters. So the game, while it didn't feature super gameplay (it did have pretty nice level design, though), still brought back almost the entire cast and it featured some pretty great writing. I seem to recall reading that they basically thought of the video game as Ghostbusters 3 when they were making it? I'm not sure, but hearing hilarious banter between Bill Murray, Ernie Hudson, Harold Ramis, Dan Aykroyd, William Atherton, Annie Potts, and Brian Doyle-Murray really made for a very fun experience for me. It kind of feels like it was Ghostbusters 3.

I think I'll chalk it up to it being a pretty dry year for the 360.

If you like. I don't feel I'm prone to that sort of overstatement, though. I mean, I only got 4 games for the 360 this year, two of which I thought were absolutely great, one of which I thought was a lot of fun (Ghostbusters), and one which I hated. I don't think buying more or fewer games would alter my opinions on any of these.

 

[AniHawk]

Well, your enjoyment would probably depend on how much you liked the movies. I absolutely loved Ghostbusters. So the game, while it didn't feature super gameplay (it did have pretty nice level design, though), still brought back almost the entire cast and it featured some pretty great writing. I seem to recall reading that they basically thought of the video game as Ghostbusters 3 when they were making it? I'm not sure, but hearing hilarious banter between Bill Murray, Ernie Hudson, Harold Ramis, Dan Aykroyd, William Atherton, Annie Potts, and Brian Doyle-Murray really made for a very fun experience for me.

Ghostbusters is one of my favorite movies ever, top ten stuff, up there with Back to the Future, and I even liked the second one. Aside from the levels not looking very interesting, the clips with Bill Murray weren't really funny. I don't think he was all that into it.

I think part of it is that I hold every single next gen game to a higher standard. They tend to not be so experimental most of the time, so there's less room for forgiveness. Plus, the higher price tag makes it harder to justify purchasing a game that isn't absolutely fantastic.

 

[Epiphyte]

Well, your enjoyment would probably depend on how much you liked the movies. I absolutely loved Ghostbusters. So the game, while it didn't feature super gameplay (it did have pretty nice level design, though), still brought back almost the entire cast and it featured some pretty great writing. I seem to recall reading that they basically thought of the video game as Ghostbusters 3 when they were making it? I'm not sure, but hearing hilarious banter between Bill Murray, Ernie Hudson, Harold Ramis, Dan Aykroyd, William Atherton, Annie Potts, and Brian Doyle-Murray really made for a very fun experience for me. It kind of feels like it was Ghostbusters 3.

And yet we heard the theme song for what, about 30 seconds at the beginning of the game and never again

How they managed to make that game without Ray Parker Jr blaring during, at very least, the final boss fight is an oversight so glaring it calls into question the quality of the game as a whole

 

[ethelred]

Ghostbusters is one of my favorite movies ever, top ten stuff, up there with Back to the Future, and I even liked the second one. Aside from the levels not looking very interesting, the clips with Bill Murray weren't really funny. I don't think he was all that into it.

Oh, I think he was into it, and I think he did a very good job. I think he was pretty dry in the game, but his acting matched the character. It fit with Venkman. Anyway, I can't speak as to the clips you saw or what you did or did not find funny, but I think the cast did an excellent job and I found the game's writing to be very funny.

The game obviously isn't as good as the original Ghosbusters, but I'd say I liked it more than Ghostbusters 2.

I think part of it is that I hold every single next gen game to a higher standard. They tend to not be so experimental most of the time, so there's less room for forgiveness. Plus, the higher price tag makes it harder to justify purchasing a game that isn't absolutely fantastic.

Well, as I said, I got it on the cheap. I waited to buy until Amazon did their recent Buy 2 Get 1 Free sale. Given Amazon's discount on it on top of that, it only ended up costing me (rough math) 26.52. I'm sure I would've been less satisfied had I bought the game for 60$, as I don't think it's a 60$ game.

And yet we heard the theme song for what, about 30 seconds at the beginning of the game and never again

How they managed to make that game without Ray Parker Jr blaring during, at very least, the final boss fight is an oversight so glaring it calls into question the quality of the game as a whole

:lol

Can't argue with that. The whole time I was expecting the full theme song to play for the ending credits, but they cut it off then, too. I commented to a friend afterward how weird I found that. I agree, it's a bit baffling they didn't play the full version of Ray Parker's song. Disappointing, even! But I liked the game otherwise.

 

[EDarkness]

I don't.

Cool. Everyone buys consoles for different reasons.

Well, there are reasons, actually. You may not like the reasons, the reasons may make you very unhappy (though I'd be surprised if they can, seeing as you already come across like the most majorly self-hating Wii owner one could imagine), but reasons do exist.

Heh, I know the reasons, but knowing them and liking them are two different things. I've come to accept the way it is, but being that these are forums, and are an open discussion of the biz in general, it's a good place to discuss and vent.

Also, contrary to popular belief, my Wii collection is pretty massive. I buy more Wii games than anything else, because I like to try different control options. I'm a sucker for that sort of thing. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem buying games for my other systems. I'm a bit of a game buying fool, though.

Your loss! Plenty of the stuff I bought on the PS2, the PSX, the SNES, and whatnot would be considered mid-tier. And a good portion of those games were a blast. I'm happy to buy more niche products that I find appealing and that offer up fun and creative gaming experiences that aren't at all dependent on blockbuster budgets. I'm happy to get that kind of stuff on the Wii, too.

(not that Mad World in specific is one of the mid-tier games that appeals to me)

Heh, I bought Mad World. Paid full price, too. I've bought plenty of mid-tier Wii games and most likely will continue to do so, but truthfully, that's not why I bought a Wii. Some games appeal to me and I generally avoid games that don't focus on motion controls. That's the biggest thing for me. That was the draw for me in the beginning and still is. What I want are the games I've played and enjoyed in the past with different control options.

The game of this generation for my household is still The Godfather. My roommate (who isn't a gamer by any stretch of the imagination) has put in over 200 hours into that game. It totally skews the average playtime numbers on the Nintendo Channel. Heh, heh. He was looking forward to playing Mercenaries 2 the same way since he was a huge fan of the first one and was deeply disappointed that it didn't get released. We ended up getting him the 360 version, but he couldn't get into it (many reasons for that).

I can and do buy games I want to play on the 360, but would just as easily buy the Wii version of big games if they were decent. My guess is that they'd get a lot of play in my house.

Regardless, it's the best you're going to get. Publishers are never at this stage going to change their minds and decide that the Wii is the place to put high budget, AAA, mega-blockbuster core games. That ship has not only sailed, it's hit the fucking iceberg. It will not change, period, so if you're able to convince yourself that you'll be satisfied with nothing but the few of those games that do get severely compromised downports from the other consoles, then good on you.

I don't see anything that matters compromised with Modern Warfare on the Wii. Graphics took a bit of a hit and it's not 60 FPS (hell, how many games are 60FPS these days anyway?), but the thing that matters, which is the gameplay, is fully intact and I think it plays great. That's all I can ask for. If people want to look at that as a shoddy downport, that's fine. The original game is still out there for people who want to play it.

Yeah, the Wii version of Ghostbusters looked like such ridiculous trash. :lol I'm glad I was never tempted, even for a passing moment, to have any interest in that. Instead I got the 360 version for 30$ and had a blast with it.

I bought the Wii version. <sniff, sniff> I couldn't help it, I'm a sucker for IR and motion controls. It's still not a great version and after a while it really kind of insults your intelligence. The controls are great, but it has a completely different feel than the 360 version. I wish they would have put the same amount of love into it as they did the other versions.

Can't argue with that. The whole time I was expecting the full theme song to play for the ending credits, but they cut it off then, too. I commented to a friend afterward how weird I found that. I agree, it's a bit baffling they didn't play the full version of Ray Parker's song. Disappointing, even! But I liked the game otherwise.

I believe the whole song plays in the Wii version with the credits. Not sure why the HD versions didn't do it, though.

 

[AniHawk]

I hold every single next gen game

the really sad thing here is that I started typing this sentence thinking "every single HD-system game"

 

[justchris]

I don't.

Oh I disagree, they certainly deserve some credit. I mean, there really is not a lot lost when porting something like Guitar Hero or Call of Duty. Yes, there are games that, down ported to the Wii, would lose too much to be worthwhile. Not every game, or even the majority of games, on the 360/PS3 fall into this category. I think they deserve credit for knowing what games to port and what games to let go since they aren't reasonably port-able, and so don't fit their business strategy.

That's...that's pretty much all the credit they deserve though.

 

[Bizzyb]

I think at some point however, even Nintendo (especial NoJ) has to realize that fundamentally, people who make games are artists. The console is ther canvas/clay whatever.

Artists are visionaries. To an extent, Nintendo and their Wii helped developers and gamers alike experience the "art of gaming" in a new way - and this is commendable.

But where once the Wii provided artists with a new outlet for creativity through its innovation, it's now actually limiting these same artists by it's lack of comperable sophistication in its visuals and functionality. We now "get" motion control, thanks to Nintendo. But just because motion control is good, doesn't mean graphics are irrelavent, or that they're not important to artists and gamers.

IMO Wii has given the world a new way to think about interfacing with games. As I said, this is commendable. But I have to believe that most artists would like to see their on-screen creations LOOK as innovative and beautiful as they play. Gaming history has taught us that Visuals are important to people. Nintendo has taught us that interface and interaction are of equal importance. But Nintendo should not think that visuals no longer matter.

If anything, Video Games are INTERACTIVE Art, first and foremost. Visuals should not be the main concern when making "video game" art. I would rather feel more connected to the game in the way I interact with it than how many polys I see on screen or how well that brick wall is bump mapped.

In this way I think the Devs/Artists are coping out by not going with the Wii and challenging themselves with lesser hardware but more opportunistic gameplay control/interaction possibilities

 

[Bizzyb]

Excellent way to sum up the situation.

Every season that passes is another missed opportunity. EA couldn't be bothered to give Wii owners Dead Space and Mirror's Edge a year late, but then they bailed on the Wii with Dragon Age and Dante's Inferno as well.

I have to give lots of credit to Activision because bringing out Modern Warfare two years late is still a move leaps ahead of every other publisher out there insisting on spinoffs (Soul Calibur Legends, Dead Space Extraction) and laziness (Chop 'Till You Drop, Madden 10). They deserve every ounce of success on the Wii and hopefully Modern Warfare (the only "AAA"-ish core title from a 3rd party on Wii this year) will bear them some reward.

WRong! Silent Hill: Shattered Memories is coming out in December and you fuckers better buy it!

 

[ethelred]

Oh I disagree, they certainly deserve some credit. I mean, there really is not a lot lost when porting something like Guitar Hero or Call of Duty. Yes, there are games that, down ported to the Wii, would lose too much to be worthwhile. Not every game, or even the majority of games, on the 360/PS3 fall into this category. I think they deserve credit for knowing what games to port and what games to let go since they aren't reasonably port-able, and so don't fit their business strategy.

They don't! Gosh, do you really not see the problem here? They're porting a two year old game and having it released in stores the same day as the sequel is coming out on the PC, PS3, and 360. How many of the more casual gamers (or core gamer parents and grandparents) do you think are going to buy Modern Warfare Reflex thinking they're getting the big new in-demand everyone's-talking-about-it Modern Warfare 2? I mean, what better way to get Wii owners to front money for Modern Warfare 2's development without actually going through the effort of putting Modern Warfare 2 on it? There's no doubt at all in my mind that this is Activision's reasoning, and it's totally sleazy. It'd be like if Rolex actually decided to start selling Rolox watches to people who don't know any better.

 

[rpmurphy]

Meh, as long as the port is playable, you get to play it without having to shell out money on another platform. And 2 years is nothing special. We've all waited for games that have taken way longer than 2 years to make. I'm pretty sure many people buy consoles for a certain favorite franchise title that would take like 4 years to be released, but it doesn't really matter because of the other great games that come out in the meantime.

 

[EDarkness]

They don't! Gosh, do you really not see the problem here? They're porting a two year old game and having it released in stores the same day as the sequel is coming out on the PC, PS3, and 360. How many of the more casual gamers (or core gamer parents and grandparents) do you think are going to buy Modern Warfare Reflex thinking they're getting the big new in-demand everyone's-talking-about-it Modern Warfare 2? I mean, what better way to get Wii owners to front money for Modern Warfare 2's development without actually going through the effort of putting Modern Warfare 2 on it? There's no doubt at all in my mind that this is Activision's reasoning, and it's totally sleazy. It'd be like if Rolex actually decided to start selling Rolox watches to people who don't know any better.

I totally agree with you and I think that sleezy doesn't even begin to describe the whole situation. However, I'm not going to kick the guys who did the work, especially if they did a good job. Treyarch deserve some props for the job they did on the game, and while I think Activision sucks some serious ass, I'll take one for the team to support the studio who tried to get it done. If only there was another way to give them credit without giving Activision anything...I suppose I could buy it used, but it's damn near impossible to find used U.S. Wii games here in Japan.

 

[Black-Wind]

I have been reading some replies here I don't agree with the notion that a call for "Wii HD" is a call for Nintendo to stop disrupting. The notion that, in some way, it validates the direction games were going before the Wii came. Maybe someone can explain that to me because that Maelstrom guy and his essay rants is just too much for me (I go to his blog anytime something interesting happens just to see him type up 3-4 essays about that and other things that happened in that day . . . never read them, just like to see how much he will rant).

Nintendo's reasoning for not going HD like the other 2 was because at the time it was bleeding edge tech that was costly and HD hadn't become common place in the house hold. They were the cheaper choice for both the buyer and devs. And over time dev cost have gone lower and lower for HD and the consoles have become much cheaper to produce and HDTVs have become cheaper and cheaper. Hell, I did a bit of research on the matter and it would appear that over half the house holds today have HDTV screens (between 51% to 53% depending on the report) which is much higher then 2006's numbers.

It would also appear that 3rd parties just aint gonna be the ones to "bring over the core gamers". They aint gonna down port their big projects to the Wii no matter how port happy they are and they have given up on even trying to sell the more core-ish games they do make for it. And at the same time the HD twins are trying to jump into the blue ocean . . . I will be the first to say I think both will fail to make large gains in the area but they have taken notice at least.

Nintendo has never wanted to ONLY target the blue ocean, as Regg shows they would love to have big 3rd party port happy titles on their system. In some cases it just isn't possible because of lack of power on the Wii and in others its simply because they don't want to deal with making a whole other game for the most part.

I don't think WiiHD would be going back on Nintendo's word. I believe they can try to target both core and expanded groups with it if done right, not leaving one behind for the other. They can either try to hold out for the next w/e years with what they have (and the case with 3rd parties doesn't look to be changing anytime soon) or they can try to do something . . . that something being something IDK but feel is Wii +/HD.

 

[Metal Gear?!]

Hey now, the Wii version of Ghostbusters isn't inferior at all. While the game has some really gorgeous environments on the PC/360, the Wii version's cartoon art syle actually works very well and the animation on the characters is actually better. Also the Wii version misses a couple of sequences/levels and has a much less impressive final boss. However the levels and segments that are there are longer and have more puzzle elements. The gameplay is notably improved with the pointer control versus gamepad or heavily accelerated mouse control, automatic capture stream switching, and the lack of having to constantly vent your backpack. I'd say all that, plus the splitscreen co-op, make the Wii version closer to the definitive version. And yes, it has the theme song.

Wolverine is also a good game for PC/360. Not a great game, but an actual good game, which is very rare for movie licensed games, and extremely rare for those that come out at the same time as the movie. It helps that Raven was developing a Wolverine game on their own and then the movie just happened to be coming out soon but not too soon (as with Sea Dogs > Pirates of the Caribbean) so they slapped the name on it, and you can tell since the game has very little to do with the movie and is ridiculously bloody like a Wolverine game should be but the movie wasn't.

If we want to talk about games where the Wii version is a joke, well, just look at Wolverine. But not Ghostbusters.

 

[Haunted]

And yet we heard the theme song for what, about 30 seconds at the beginning of the game and never again

How they managed to make that game without Ray Parker Jr blaring during, at very least, the final boss fight is an oversight so glaring it calls into question the quality of the game as a whole

Ha, well said! I remember thinking the same thing at key moments in the game, and again during the credits. I actually waited out the credits - which I rarely do for these games - just because I was so sure it had to be coming on any minute now. :lol

the really sad thing here is that I started typing this sentence thinking "every single HD-system game"

Oh noes, the propaganda is working!

 

[Vagabundo]

MW reflex is awesome: moar plz...

 

[phisheep]

Then brother, I hate to pull a Carly Simon here, but this song ain't about you.

Fair enough. Sorry for ranting back at you in that case.


Meanwhile, back on topic:

Obviously if Nintendo were to rework the Wii so that it is more amenable to ports, this would only have an impact on the software market if developers choose to make those ports.

And if they do, then the impact on the console market is only going to go one way - namely, it won't stop anyone buying a Wii (because there are plenty of other reasons for buying a Wii because of the motion controls, Nintendo IPs and so on) but it might stop some people from buying a PS3 or a 360 (because they'll get the games they want on the Wii).

Because of that, any developer porting to the Wii is potentially taking a customer off one of their primary platforms. And no developer in their right mind is going to do that.

So I can't see that developers will support the porting. Nor will Microsoft and Sony.

As for Nintendo, why would they really care if people buy a few more PS3s and 360s? What is important to them is whether people are buying and playing the Wii.

So I can't see that this argument that Nintendo needs to upgrade to compete holds any water at all. They'd just spend a whole load of money and still be frozen out just like GameCube was.

Now, this might change next year if and only if Sony and Microsoft make any inroads into the Wii's primary market with their new motion controls. Yes, it's M&S that have to upgrade to compete rather than the other way round. But so far Sony don't show the intent and Microsoft don't show the capability to do that.

 

[Effect]

WRong! Silent Hill: Shattered Memories is coming out in December and you fuckers better buy it!

That will only sell if they bother to advertise it and I don't think they will at all.

 

[Kosma]

How does the MP work in COD: Reflex?

 

[Effect]

I think we have to look at the possibility and I think a guarantee that even if the next set of consoles are all on the same level how developers treat Nintendo isn't going to change. You will still have Sony and Microsoft still all to willing to pony up money in order to get publishers to only release their games on their systems or to release it on their systems first. They will pay so that their system is the lead sku. Nintendo will never do that. They never have and I really doubt they ever will. Things really won't change.

The best direction for them I think, as suggested before, might be for them to perhaps close of the system to 3rd party developers and to increase their 1st party development and stick with their 2nd party developers. If a 3rd party wants to put out a game on the system they'd have to be approved by Nintendo and follow their guidelines in terms of quailty to make sure they aren't trying to flood the system. Perhaps let a studio within the 3rd party become a second party developer for a franchise. That might mean less games but I think the quailty would shoot through the roof. Which would make impluse buys less of an issue since you are sure to get a decent game on the system.

The alternative to this I think is what we have now no matter what Nintendo does with the systems. If they accommodate 3rd party developers by not releasing to much they don't fill the gap or offer things Nintendo can't or won't. If they provide a powerful system for the time on par with the others they don't make games or just offer up ports that can be very questionable. It's always something that takes place that stops them from getting good support. There are exceptions of course.

 

[Effect]

How does the MP work in COD: Reflex?

Great. The Ground War mode (I think it's called that) isn't there and the number of players is set at 10 in a game total. However the MP is the same as in the other versions of the game. Getting into a game is a breeze as well. At least it has been for me. Takes a few seconds for things to connect and have not experienced any lag at all.