Support NeoGAF

[Amir0x]

Watch some HD videos of Nintendoland in action. Ugly it is not. And I highly doubt that Nintendo would make this game with pretty much all of their treasured (and some obscure) IPs unless the game itself was good. It’s definitively not a hardcore game, but if it can open people’s minds to more than just Mario, it could be a great key to unlock higher software hitrate. „F-Zero? That was my favourite in Nintendoland! I’ll take that!”

I would not have come to my conclusion if I hadn't watched videos of Nintendoland. It's one ugly game. It's like a "my first next-gen starter pack" or something, abuse of shaders without regard for quality, ugly overly busy look, divergent styles not melding well, hideous Mii's infecting every corner like a virus. Just a gross looking game all around visually. I've been in next-gen long enough to not have to lower my standards for that one, yikes.

Anyway, you clearly have more faith in Nintendo than I do. I don't have faith in any developer. They either deliver or they don't. I have never played a single mini-game compilation that was anything other than shit. Nintendo's own history with mini-game compilations is no different: shit, shit, shit. I doubt Nintendoland is going to buck the trend. If anything, the franchise whoring suggests to me that it really is going to be no different... it's trying to lure people into a sense of security with the game by abusing their nostalgia for different properties. It's still the same shallow, bite-chunk reject gameplay that always makes mini-game compilations terrible, concepts simply too lame to be given their own fully featured titles and instead make it into the land of party games. Some people like that sort of thing, though, and I respect that, but it's definitely not what I'm talking about when I say 'hardcore game' even if I did like that sort of thing.

I don't want a fucking F-Zero mini-game anyway, I want fucking F-Zero. Who would want such a downgrade?

Conversely, FPS/TPS (or almost any game revolving around pointing and shooting at something) are facing a massive downgrade on the Wii U because developers tend to not give a damn about peripherals and "hardcore gamers" are too resistant to any kind of positive change. Certain genres of sporting titles are also facing this downgrade without the remote as a default.

It's always one step forward, one step back. People didn't want to adopt the shooters/etc on Wii because it had grotesque online features and horrible visuals. The 'controls', which are only merely a billion feet below first best mouse+keyboard, weren't enough to offset everything we lost in Wii shooters. These things don't exist in a vacuum. It wasn't that gamers were "too resistant to positive change", as you put it. If those controllers existed from the start on a system with PS360 power and a 360 level of online functionality, I bet gamers would have adopted it more readily. Pointer IS the only decent thing about wiimote, after all.

Yeah, you are exactly right. It just seems less likely every day that the WiiU has any significant exclusives for Q1 or Q2 of next year, unless titles are delayed from the 'launch' window.

It's about marketing too, right? Just seems like poor marketing the WiiU was not shown with more games. I'm speaking anecdotally, but the general impression among gamers and average people ranges from 'what is it' to 'don't care'. I think the WiiU looks better than the wii and with a far superior launch line-up, but the way it's been marketed so far has been so bad.

It's true. But I am going to hold out final judgment on Nintendo's future direction for their shows they are gonna have in the Fall. If it's just more franchise whoring, I won't be too optimistic for Wii U.

I'll still buy it - I have to play Pikmin 3 - but it'll just mean another generation where a Nintendo console plays last fiddle.

 

[TheGreatDivide]

The IR pointer is the best thing about the Wiimote, but I hate it for traditional shooters. There's a fairly limited number of games in which it works well. It used to work for Zelda before they scrapped it for motion+ aiming.

 

[Amir0x]

The IR pointer is the best thing about the Wiimote, but I hate it for traditional shooters. There's a fairly limited number of games in which it works well. It used to work for Zelda before they scrapped it for motion+ aiming.

seriously why would they do that

that was like the only good wii addition in Twilight Princess!

 

[Alexios]

seriously why would they do that

that was like the only good wii addition in Twilight Princess!

TP's implementation wasn't much better than SS' imo. Sure, it used the pointer at least, but it felt fairly slow and laggy compared to other games' cursors still (and way below the best implementations, like Red Steel 2's - btw I prefer the sword fighting in that over SS too, although Ubisoft ruined it AC style with an overpowered parry move). Did they fix it for Crossbow Training, I never got it.

 

[boyshine]

seriously why would they do that

that was like the only good wii addition in Twilight Princess!

In typical Nintendo fashion I’m pretty sure the motion plus aiming in Skyward Sword was a testing ground for something on Wii U, since the Game Pad has motion plus, but no IR camera. It could’ve worked if there was any way to adjust sensitivity, but the way it was it felt like it was designed for play on a 400” screen. (Twilight Princess was amazing in this regard, afaik it still is the only game to feature sensor bar vs screen size adjustment AND sensor bar distance adjustment, which pretty much made the game pointer heaven.)

 

[manueldelalas]

In typical Nintendo fashion I’m pretty sure the motion plus aiming in Skyward Sword was a testing ground for something on Wii U, since the Game Pad has motion plus, but no IR camera. It could’ve worked if there was any way to adjust sensitivity, but the way it was it felt like it was designed for play on a 400” screen. (Twilight Princess was amazing in this regard, afaik it still is the only game to feature sensor bar vs screen size adjustment AND sensor bar distance adjustment, which pretty much made the game pointer heaven.)

I don't agree with this, SS controls were just bad; the playground was WSR; and the sword fighting, and everything else worked a thousand times better in WSR than SS.

I was very hyped about SS, but the controls just weren't well implemented.

It's sad, but TP's Wii controls worked better.

 

[Mooreberg]

Most non-gamer gamers who started with the Wii migrated over to iPhones and iPads etc. and Nintendo probably thinks they're not coming back.

I have figured this was the case as well. Which leaves me wondering what their plan is to win over people who had PS2 and Xbox 360 as their primary consoles for the past decade.

 

[boyshine]

I don't agree with this, SS controls were just bad; the playground was WSR; and the sword fighting, and everything else worked a thousand times better in WSR than SS.

I was very hyped about SS, but the controls just weren't well implemented.

It's sad, but TP's Wii controls worked better.

What do you disagree with? It’s not in your post at least....

 

[Shikamaru Ninja]

It seems to be expanding on the idea Nintendo had with Wii Sports, that someone who liked WS Boxing would buy Punch-Out or someone who liked the baseball game would buy Mario Sluggers. I'm sure Nintendoland is a testing ground for all of the franchises included and will probably have fully-featured releases later.

I think the analogy works better with Wii Play. Wii Sports (which Nintendo is working on right now for Wii U) doesn't have to make "Tennis" into "Mario Tennis" because tennis itself is a recognizable activity. Nintendo is evolving the idea of Wii Play into something with more personality. Can you imagine Smash Bros without Nintendo characters? Well the thematic appeal of a Nintendo virtual theme park is rather brilliant addition to the concept of variety games.

Nintendoland is mini-game compilation trash, which for my money is definitely not hardcore. But of course, the problem is that it's not really new either. It's still franchise whoring, it's till utilizing gimmicks, it's still refusing to flesh out one concept over the course of a game - the asymmetrical gameplay crowd may have their bullet point, but I only care about games confident enough about a particular form of gameplay to flesh it out into a fully featured titles. Shallow, bite-sized chunks of gameplay rejected for use from fully featured products is not my cup of tea. I understand that they may be someone else's, but party games/mini-game compilations are something that will never appeal to me and is certainly not what many people were asking for around here. And yeah, I don't think it's particularly big budget either. Nothing about it screams a ton of effort, from its ugly, overly busy art style, to its bite chunk mini-games, it's just the opposite of what people around here want when they say 'hardcore game.'

You are really passionate about hating this game. Much of it is clairvoyant since Nintendo has shown very little of it, but promised a much deeper package of content than you are already condemning it for. I do believe it will be the antithesis of something like Wii Play, and perhaps thats the content you are stubbornly expecting. But you have your opinion of course, but these random things came into my mind when reading your post.

1. What do you think of Smash Bros? Is it really a good game? How much does the Nintendo thematic help the game? I personally think it is a mediocre and shallow fighting game but it sells well and people forcefully like it because it is a Nintendo wet dream (my opinion folks). But with that in mind how does that affect something like Nintendo Land?

2. You state you don't like "mini-game compilations". But can i say that Ware Ware: Smooth Moves is one of the greatest, most brilliant variety games I have ever experienced? If you ever do any local multiplayer with friends (who game and don't game), this was a wonderful experience.

3. Back to point 1. I spent very little time playing Wii Play, Wii Sports, and even the fleshier Wii Sports Resort because I felt they were very shallow games. I would never defend those games and how little effort Nintendo put into them (which Miyamoto hampered the team again on Steel Diver and it spit back in their face). But with Nintendo Land. I kind of feel if you are a classic Nintendo fan, the game has you by the balls. When I saw F-Zero, Game & Watch, Metroid, Balloon Fight, Takamaru, and the other classic franchise theme parks. I got Smash Brother - itis. The fan in me needs the game because I want to hear the music, experience the visuals and tropes in each franchise. But alongside that, I started to read that the producer is asking for each of the twelve games, to be able to present themselves as a short game instead of being like one short sampling (Wii Sports, Wii Play).

 

[manueldelalas]

I have figured this was the case as well. Which leaves me wondering what their plan is to win over people who had PS2 and Xbox 360 as their primary consoles for the past decade.

I disagree with this too.

I agree that most of the DS casual base went to phones/tablets, but those experiences aren't the same as the experience casuals had with the Wii (which was local multiplayer, something non-existent on phones/tablets).

The Wii strenght was in games like Just Dance, Wii Sports, Wii Fit, etc; all of them experiences that are impossible to implement in tablets/phones.

Next generation will truly be the fight for the living room, because the features console offers surpasses those of Smart TVs by a mile, and I think Nintendo is in the right direction, and lauching at the right time.

What do you disagree with? It’s not in your post at least....

With the playground bit of the post... Zelda SS was the time when motion controls had to shine and prove to be superior, and it didn't happen.

 

[boyshine]

With the playground bit of the post... Zelda SS was the time when motion controls had to shine and prove to be superior, and it didn't happen.

I never talked about the „playground”.. I only talked about pointer controls, and how the motion plus implementation for pointing probably was a testing ground for future Wii U games. I even say that the pointer controls in TP are superior.

 

[zroid]

I'm not sure why they need to "justify" moving away from motion controls (and, in a way, they aren't). Nintendo plays to the beat of its own drum; they obviously think there's not much left for them to innovate in the Wii remote space, so they're doing something different.

Incidentally, what they're doing now isn't all that different from what they've been doing on handhelds for a while now. Either way, this is what they have ideas for, so it's what they're making.

And of course Wii remotes aren't going away. They're probably going to remain an integral part of the Nintendo home console experience -- just not the only part.

 

[marc^o^]

I'm not sure why they need to "justify" moving away from motion controls (and, in a way, they aren't). Nintendo plays to the beat of its own drum; they obviously think there's not much left for them to innovate in the Wii remote space, so they're doing something different.

And of course Wii remotes aren't going away. They're probably going to remain an integral part of the Nintendo home console experience -- just not the only part.

This.

And wiimotes won't go away because there are almost 200 millions of them on the market. To give a perspective in 5 years all iPhones combined sold 250 millions. How far can wiimotes go? 300 millions? 500 millions?

There are at least 8 games at launch that can be played with 4 people using wiimotes. It gives Wii U a signature already, it's a local multiplayer beast. Thanks to the role wiimotes play.

 

[Amir0x]

You are really passionate about hating this game. Much of it is clairvoyant since Nintendo has shown very little of it, but promised a much deeper package of content than you are already condemning it for. I do believe it will be the antithesis of something like Wii Play, and perhaps thats the content you are stubbornly expecting. But you have your opinion of course, but these random things came into my mind when reading your post.

I am passionate about hating all mini-game compilations, no matter who they come from. I have never enjoyed one (Wario Ware discussion below). It's very emblematic of what I hate about the worst of gaming. It's low common denominator tripe, almost always, and Nintendoland seems worse to me because it's also franchise whoring. It seems to me you're listing this (the franchise whoring) as a positive aspect of the game, though, which I can't relate to.

1. What do you think of Smash Bros? Is it really a good game? How much does the Nintendo thematic help the game? I personally think it is a mediocre and shallow fighting game but it sells well and people forcefully like it because it is a Nintendo wet dream (my opinion folks). But with that in mind how does that affect something like Nintendo Land?

I agree with you completely on Smash Bros. I don't like those games at all. I really don't. Even when I just play them to try to experience their Mother content, it is a painful experience. I can't stomach the way they pare down the fighting game experience and add in 'random' elements like the item drops so that someone can get lucky. For me, fighting games are about skill only. And if you take out all that fluff, all you're left with is something that is like a galaxy away from the depth of something like Virtua Fighter, and so it's of no value to me.

2. You state you don't like "mini-game compilations". But can i say that Ware Ware: Smooth Moves is one of the greatest, most brilliant variety games I have ever experienced? If you ever do any local multiplayer with friends (who game and don't game), this was a wonderful experience.

As I've said earlier, Wario Ware seems to be an exception, but I'm talking about the single player. Nobody in my family cared about the multiplayer in those games, couldn't stomach them for more than a minute, and none of my friends want to go near Wario. But I think Wario is quite distinct from any other mini-game compilation, just discussing the single player. With Wario Ware, the point is you never have time to focus on how shallow the individual tasks are. The depth of the gameplay comes in how the game forces you to continually adjust your play style to most efficiently complete the bits of gameplay that are being quickfired at you. The quickness and shortness of the gameplay chunks is the point and the challenge, and so it's making the weakness of every other mini-game compilation its strength.

Although Smooth Moves I especially couldn't get into, because there is no way I was going to participate in those shitty motion gestural crap that is so unreliable in Wii games. Half the time it didn't read my gestures correctly, the other half it was making me do something so retarded I didn't want it to anyway.

3. Back to point 1. I spent very little time playing Wii Play, Wii Sports, and even the fleshier Wii Sports Resort because I felt they were very shallow games. I would never defend those games and how little effort Nintendo put into them (which Miyamoto hampered the team again on Steel Diver and it spit back in their face). But with Nintendo Land. I kind of feel if you are a classic Nintendo fan, the game has you by the balls. When I saw F-Zero, Game & Watch, Metroid, Balloon Fight, Takamaru, and the other classic franchise theme parks. I got Smash Brother - itis. The fan in me needs the game because I want to hear the music, experience the visuals and tropes in each franchise. But alongside that, I started to read that the producer is asking for each of the twelve games, to be able to present themselves as a short game instead of being like one short sampling (Wii Sports, Wii Play).

I mean I can understand that some people find value in that sort of thing. It's similar to the way I'd probably buy anything with Mother content in it. But the difference is I'm not then going to call that something appealing or good just because it has Mother content in it. That nostalgia stuff does not make me like games. I have no interest in playing F-Zero or Link or Mario in abhorrent mini-games. I only have an interest in playing them in their complete, fully functioning titles. What is the appeal for me in playing this sort of thing? In the end, they can say what they want about the twelve games, but there is not going to be enough resources in the world to make any of them competitive depth-wise with full featured games. And that is and always will be my problem with mini-game compilations. I don't want shallow games

 

[Little Green Yoda]

I think that you missed this picture:

And this was 2010 data, when Wii was still close to his software sales peak and the other consoles had less software sales than Wii. Now the same comparision would give numbers even lower.

So the Wii lags behind PS360 in tie ratio by ~10% but the game time difference is ~300%? I'm sure the higher prevalence of online multiplayer on the PS360 is responsible for a good chunk of that but something seems amiss. Wii owners with larger gaming backlogs confirmed?

 

[hatchx]

In typical Nintendo fashion I’m pretty sure the motion plus aiming in Skyward Sword was a testing ground for something on Wii U, since the Game Pad has motion plus, but no IR camera. It could’ve worked if there was any way to adjust sensitivity, but the way it was it felt like it was designed for play on a 400” screen. (Twilight Princess was amazing in this regard, afaik it still is the only game to feature sensor bar vs screen size adjustment AND sensor bar distance adjustment, which pretty much made the game pointer heaven.)

Yeah, you can use motion aiming in Pikmin 3 if you play gamepad only. Apparently it doesn't work very well, and people demoing were strongly pushed to use the wiimote + nunchuck.


I don't know why everyone's worried about the wiimote being ditched. It's very clear they will still be using it, and to be honest, I'm kind of happy the multiple wiimote and nunchuck isn't going to waste. The wiimote is being used for Nintendoland, Pikmin 3, AND NSMBU. Why is everyone so worried it's being ditched?

To me, I'm more curious if we can use classic controller and how that will cross over. Theoretically, the gamepad, classic controller, and classic controller pro should be interchangeable. I should be able to play any Virtual Console game with the gamepad/CCpro, I should be able to play any wii game that used the classic controller with both the gamepad and CCpro, and any WiiU game that uses the CCPro, I should be able to use the classic controller.

 

[TheGreatDivide]

I don't care if the Wiimote is supported, but I don't want to be using a Wiimote in 2012. Design your game for the controller I'm buying the system for.

 

[Satchel]

Motion controls were never the future and Nintendo knew that.

But they needed something to get back on top after the 64 and GameCube underperformed, and when they saw the DS take off, they scrapped plans to release the wii remote for GameCube and created a console around it.

Obviously hoping some of the success of the DS would rub off and it did.

Now they're back on top, they've gone back to their roots. No coincidence.

 

[Thrakier]

Motion controls were never the future and Nintendo knew that.

But they needed something to get back on top after the 64 and GameCube underperformed, and when they saw the DS take off, they scrapped plans to release the wii remote for GameCube and created a console around it.

Obviously hoping some of the success of the DS would rub off and it did.

Now they're back on top, they've gone back to their roots. No coincidence.

But WHY are motion controls not the future? I don't understand. Between the precision of my gmaing mouse and fun in killzone 3 with PS3 move with nunchuck regular controllers really don't appeal to me that much. I just need them for genres they could work with a move like solution also or instead with a mixture of a mouse and a nunchuck accesoire. That's not "motion control" first and foremost, it's super precise control. Playing Killzone 3 with Move isn't motion control.

Motion is waggle and gesture, yeah, that should be a thing of a part. But really as Wii was announced none of us thought of "motion gaming", we thought of precise gaming, of 1:1 movements and precise aiming.

 

[marc^o^]

Sony may go that route, that would be cool. Not very successful though, too soon for great support around that.

MS could also go for it with Kinect 2, but then they would need to tell people to throw away the Kinect they bought. Risky.

In terms of strategy - capitalizing on 200 million wiimotes while adding a unique touchscreen controller at the peak of tablet popularity - Nintendo is making the 2 best and obvious moves to be done.

 

[sonikokaruto]

You know, i wonder why people bitch about it. I remember people going "SNES IS BETTER THAN THE GENESIS BECAUSE OF MORE BUTTONS!". And you now have the wiimote and every ody is happy.

 

[Silent_Ocarina]

I am passionate about hating all mini-game compilations, no matter who they come from. I have never enjoyed one (Wario Ware discussion below). It's very emblematic of what I hate about the worst of gaming. It's low common denominator tripe, almost always, and Nintendoland seems worse to me because it's also franchise whoring. It seems to me you're listing this (the franchise whoring) as a positive aspect of the game, though, which I can't relate to.



I agree with you completely on Smash Bros. I don't like those games at all. I really don't. Even when I just play them to try to experience their Mother content, it is a painful experience. I can't stomach the way they pare down the fighting game experience and add in 'random' elements like the item drops so that someone can get lucky. For me, fighting games are about skill only. And if you take out all that fluff, all you're left with is something that is like a galaxy away from the depth of something like Virtua Fighter, and so it's of no value to me.



As I've said earlier, Wario Ware seems to be an exception, but I'm talking about the single player. Nobody in my family cared about the multiplayer in those games, couldn't stomach them for more than a minute, and none of my friends want to go near Wario. But I think Wario is quite distinct from any other mini-game compilation, just discussing the single player. With Wario Ware, the point is you never have time to focus on how shallow the individual tasks are. The depth of the gameplay comes in how the game forces you to continually adjust your play style to most efficiently complete the bits of gameplay that are being quickfired at you. The quickness and shortness of the gameplay chunks is the point and the challenge, and so it's making the weakness of every other mini-game compilation its strength.

Although Smooth Moves I especially couldn't get into, because there is no way I was going to participate in those shitty motion gestural crap that is so unreliable in Wii games. Half the time it didn't read my gestures correctly, the other half it was making me do something so retarded I didn't want it to anyway.




I mean I can understand that some people find value in that sort of thing. It's similar to the way I'd probably buy anything with Mother content in it. But the difference is I'm not then going to call that something appealing or good just because it has Mother content in it. That nostalgia stuff does not make me like games. I have no interest in playing F-Zero or Link or Mario in abhorrent mini-games. I only have an interest in playing them in their complete, fully functioning titles. What is the appeal for me in playing this sort of thing? In the end, they can say what they want about the twelve games, but there is not going to be enough resources in the world to make any of them competitive depth-wise with full featured games. And that is and always will be my problem with mini-game compilations. I don't want shallow games

Minigames don't necessarily equate to shallow games. There can be some depth to them. I think it's a bit unfair to call all minigames rejected ideas. They're light on content, sure, but the ideas behind them aren't inherently inferior.

Smash isn't made to be competitive, but again, that doesn't make it shallow. It's built so that people can have fun, regardless of skill. Even then, it does take a substantial amount of skill to compete at top-level Melee tournaments, though.

I also don't mind seeing Mario or Link in minigames. You seem to prefer only seeing them in full games rather than seeing them at all. I don't think it somehow degrades their character or lessens the chances of a full game.

I understand that this is just a difference of opinions, though, so we'll probably have to agree to disagree. However, I definitely do not like the look of that F-Zero minigame. It's not a fun idea; it's, as you said, a shallow version of F-Zero.

 

[AzaK]

Lol thats because the people u asked are mon and pops who only play Wii games... no real gamer would ever get caught playing some motion control bullshit!

When did you start gaming?

 

[Amir0x]

Minigames don't necessarily equate to shallow games. There can be some depth to them. I think it's a bit unfair to call all minigames rejected ideas. They're light on content, sure, but the ideas behind them aren't inherently inferior.

I don't see it. They're usually always skin deep at best, as far as the ones I have played. In four player or two player mini-games, each of the four (or two) characters might have a special ability, they have some simple task that must be completed before the end of the round, or you're competing for a top score against one another with some ridiculously simple gameplay, or some other really kiddie pool stunt of some kind. There's hardly any strategy at all outside of perhaps aiming well or hitting a button repeatedly faster than your friend or simply being lucky.

What mini-games have you played where the gameplay has ever been deep? I guess it depends on what you mean by 'some depth to them', but for me they're empty shells. Conceptually empty hearted, gameplay stripped down to bare essentials, competitively stunted so that 'everyone can play.'

Just look at Mario Party. There is not a single mini-game in the entire series that I would actually spend money to play in a full game. Not one. So they package them all together and hope that this passes for 'value.' Well for me they still remain shallow things I can't stomach.

This is why Nintendoland can never appeal to me. It's just made worse because they're so clearly abusing their franchise so they can net just that many more sales, a truly transparent ploy to mask the same problems all mini-game compilations have.

Smash isn't made to be competitive, but again, that doesn't make it shallow. It's built so that people can have fun, regardless of skill. Even then, it does take a substantial amount of skill to compete at top-level Melee tournaments, though.

No, it makes it shallow because it is mechanically very very shallow. Yes, you can play it competitively. You can play a lot of things competitively and there are a lot of games where a good gamer would do better than a bad gamer, but that's just because talent always beats out non-talent. It doesn't actually mean the game is deep. I understand this is sacrilegious to the Smash Bros. sect, but it's why I cannot stand those games. Gimme Virtua Fighter, gimme Street Fighter, I don't want Smash. That's for a different type of gamer.

I feel like we're getting sidetracked though. NAMCO is making this Smash game, so even if I liked the series I feel like I can confidently ignore it

I also don't mind seeing Mario or Link in minigames. You seem to prefer only seeing them in full games rather than seeing them at all. I don't think it somehow degrades their character or lessens the chances of a full game.

I actually want new hardcore IPs in fresh franchises. But if I had to choose, yeah, I don't want to play Mario or Link in minigames. I am already tired of seeing those worlds without needing to see them appear in mini-games too. Let their names not be sullied by association. How many times do I need to visit Hyrule or the Mushroom Kingdom in a generation for christ's sake?

But I guess it's too late for that, when Mario is already sullied by association with Mario Party and Link is already sullied by association to Crossbow Training. Ah well.

I don't think it lessens their chances of a full game at all. No, this is Nintendo. No matter how many games they put Link and Mario in, there is always room for more franchise abuse. I've learned that much over the years.

I understand that this is just a difference of opinions, though, so we'll probably have to agree to disagree. However, I definitely do not like the look of that F-Zero minigame. It's not a fun idea; it's, as you said, a shallow version of F-Zero.

It is difference of opinion, of course. After a generation of no F-Zero, after the taste of my lips of the greatest racing game of all time in F-Zero GX, it just seems like an insult to the series legacy that THIS is where it ended up. I don't believe that somehow 'lessens the chances for a full game' or anything, I just believe it makes Nintendoland worse somehow.

 

[ii Stryker]

In my experience the Wiimote and motion controls in general are lacking in the precision and fidelity that core games require. I tried playing MP3 Corruption for three hours with the Wiimote and loathed it with the intensity of a thousand suns.

The fact that the Wii U is (at launch) going to continue using the older tech of the the current Wiimote only tells me that Nintendo is attempting to appease the core gamers as well as the casuals.

The revolution isn't over it just needs to be refined and the tech needs to get better.
Until that happens I will never play a game that has motion only controls.

 

[DangerousDave]

So the Wii lags behind PS360 in tie ratio by ~10% but the game time difference is ~300%? I'm sure the higher prevalence of online multiplayer on the PS360 is responsible for a good chunk of that but something seems amiss. Wii owners with larger gaming backlogs confirmed?

Well, people don't use to play 4 consecutive hours on a party games, or having parties each weekend at home. I suppose that a lot of people bought Dance Party 8 on Wii, but they played it twice. And then they bought Dance Party 9 because it has a new set of songs.

Also, this is an average. I suppose that there are people that spent 80 hours in each Mario Galaxy and each Zelda, or spent more hours playing Mario Kart than PS3 gamers spent on Gran Turismo... but aiming the enhanced market has the consequence that you have a lot of people that barely touch your device, and this make lower the average.

And, yes, online gaming also counts, and also the XBL or PSN games, that are not counted as retail games, but there are much more on PS3 and 360. Or the fact that the tie ratio count also bundled package, so everyone with a Wii has 2 or 3 titles bundled (Wii Party + Mario Kart the last years) + Wii Party (that is at same price as a second controller). Also, the second hand ecosystem is much bigger on PS3 and 360, and those games are not counted on tie ratio. There are a lot of possible explanations. I'm sure that the average HD console player maybe only bought 9 retail games, but they played much more.

 

[Boss Doggie]

Hardcore, as I am using it, are games that don't pander to the lowest common denominator and which have a relatively sizable budget to explore concepts/themes as deeply as possible (visuals, soundtrack, gameplay with real strategy/depth). And the budget is always relative - indy games have a small budget, but can make big waves because they often tend to focus more on bringing out the depth of the concept contained within. A game like Fez, for example, may not have cost $60,000,000, but it certainly does explore its themes with a level of sufficient depth to make it decidedly not casual.

But then you'd have stuff like Tetris and hell even many puzzle games.

About Fez, I'd actually snicker at the thought.

P-100 is clearly a hardcore game, that shit looks awesome.

Nintendoland is mini-game compilation trash, which for my money is definitely not hardcore. But of course, the problem is that it's not really new either. It's still franchise whoring, it's still utilizing gimmicks, it's still refusing to flesh out one concept over the course of a game - the asymmetrical gameplay crowd may have their bullet point, but I only care about games confident enough about a particular form of gameplay to flesh it out into a fully featured titles. Shallow, bite-sized chunks of gameplay rejected for use from fully featured products is not my cup of tea. I understand that they may be someone else's, but party games/mini-game compilations are something that will never appeal to me and is certainly not what many people were asking for around here. And yeah, I don't think it's particularly big budget either. Nothing about it screams a ton of effort, from its ugly, overly busy art style, to its bite chunk mini-games, it's just the opposite of what people around here want when they say 'hardcore game.'

But then stuff like this had existed since NES. Remember Konami's Wai Wai World? That SEGA eyetoy game? Hell, this feels like a Warioware game. Are you implying that a collection of "minigames" are bad?

 

[Tagg9]

I don't see it. They're usually always skin deep at best, as far as the ones I have played. In four player or two player mini-games, each of the four (or two) characters might have a special ability, they have some simple task that must be completed before the end of the round, or you're competing for a top score against one another with some ridiculously simple gameplay, or some other really kiddie pool stunt of some kind. There's hardly any strategy at all outside of perhaps aiming well or hitting a button repeatedly faster than your friend or simply being lucky.

What mini-games have you played where the gameplay has ever been deep? I guess it depends on what you mean by 'some depth to them', but for me they're empty shells. Conceptually empty hearted, gameplay stripped down to bare essentials, competitively stunted so that 'everyone can play.'

Just look at Mario Party. There is not a single mini-game in the entire series that I would actually spend money to play in a full game. Not one. So they package them all together and hope that this passes for 'value.' Well for me they still remain shallow things I can't stomach.

This is why Nintendoland can never appeal to me. It's just made worse because they're so clearly abusing their franchise so they can net just that many more sales, a truly transparent ploy to mask the same problems all mini-game compilations have.

I think that you are simply not the intended audience for mini-game collections. They are meant to be played in a group situation with friends and family who just want a quick and easy game. Because of this, they have to be fairly shallow so that everyone playing can easily learn it.

Also, there is a big difference between the Mario Party minigames (which are extremely shallow and can all be mastered within 5 minutes) and more in-depth minigames like Tanks from Wii Play (where play evolves over time and the difficulty gradually ramps up). From what I've seen of NintendoLand, I'm not entirely convinced that it will fall into the latter category - the hide and seek games especially seem very one dimensional. I hope I'm wrong, though!

 

[a Master Ninja]

I've played every WiiU game demo that you saw on the E3 show floor, and I felt there was one game that actually justified the WiiU GamePad's existence: Rayman Legends. The asynchronous co-op felt fresh and sublime.

The asynchronous multiplayer games in Nintendoland were like rule variations of Pacman Versus, New Super Mario Bros. U's use of the screen was a worse version of what Rayman was doing, Pikmin 3 was better with the Wii remote, Game & Wario was kinda boring and fuck WiiU fit.

Bottomline: Ubisoft did a better job selling me on the GamePad than Nintendo.

 

[Uncompromisable]

No, it makes it shallow because it is mechanically very very shallow. Yes, you can play it competitively. You can play a lot of things competitively and there are a lot of games where a good gamer would do better than a bad gamer, but that's just because talent always beats out non-talent. It doesn't actually mean the game is deep. I understand this is sacrilegious to the Smash Bros. sect, but it's why I cannot stand those games. Gimme Virtua Fighter, gimme Street Fighter, I don't want Smash. That's for a different type of gamer.

What are you talking about?

Have you ever seen SSBM tournament fights?

I have played 3rd Strike and Soul Calibur competitively and I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that SSBM has fighting mechanics as deep as you'd ever hope to see in a fighting game. And on some fronts, especially in terms of movement, it's deeper.

Feel free to say what you wish but know that you are wrong and talking out of lack of experience when it comes to SSBM. If you haven't played it competitively, than you should not permit yourself to talk about how deep it is.

Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0geizHJPSxA

 

[marc^o^]

Minigames don't necessarily equate to shallow games. There can be some depth to them. I think it's a bit unfair to call all minigames rejected ideas. They're light on content, sure, but the ideas behind them aren't inherently inferior

The 5 variations of hide and seek we know so far (the 3 from this year + chase mii and battle mii from last year, which will probably be included) just need good balance to be awesome. When I say "just", it's not already won. Mario Kart's SNES battle mode mini game was the only one in the series that pleased me for instance. Balance makes or break such games. Based on impressions I'm very optimistic.

 

[dwu8991]

party games vs mini games FIGHT !!!

Nintendoland just happens to do both so it's going to get a lot love and hate !!!

 

[Blood Diamonds]

Lol thats because the people u asked are mon and pops who only play Wii games... no real gamer would ever get caught playing some motion control bullshit!

Holy. Shit.
I mean... this sounds like the things one of the little CoD kids would say...
"OMG BRAH WTF AREZ U DOIN WITH A WEE?!?!"
"OH NATHING BRAH I WAZ JUZT LOKIN AT HOW KIDY IT IZZZ LOOLLLLZZZZ"
"AH NO RAIGHT ECSBACKS THREEFIDDY FOR DA WINZOOORRRZZ YEAAHHH"
"NAH WAI BRAH PEE-ESS-DREE 4EVEERRRR"
"LOLZ LAT'S GO PLAEI MADARN WARMFAER TREE"
"YAAAAHHH LETZ PWN NOOOOOBBZZ"

 

[ArynCrinn]

I'm only really interested in the Wiimote-style for the IR, gestures were never really realized in any technical or balanced sense, and never will be on the current tech Nintendo uses. So I'd be down for a Wiimote upgrade, but even then I highly doubt we'd see a huge investment and high return on the gesture accuracy and ground-up designs...we lost that battle on Wii.

But generally, I'm excited about the potential for a wealth of control options on the Wii U. So we'll see if developers make use of that. Something Nintendo has been very uncomfortable with in their own games.

 

[Celine]

I don't agree with this, SS controls were just bad; the playground was WSR; and the sword fighting, and everything else worked a thousand times better in WSR than SS.

I was very hyped about SS, but the controls just weren't well implemented.

It's sad, but TP's Wii controls worked better.

I vastly prefer SS controls to Wii TP ones.
Not even a contest IMO.

 

[bafflewaffle]

Nintendo Lands looks like Miamatos version of Thrillville or Carnival Games. Should be awesome, great game

 

[Boss Doggie]

Also, I read that Animer0x post about Smash, holy shit. Again, different from the norm doesn't make it shallow. It's just a typical interpretation - I mean, Smash pretty much has "parry" since 64 but you have people thinking that it doesn't have it. It's just a bunch of collective people who have little to no understanding of the game making a judgment.

FYI Namco isn't making the game. They're among the people who will help.

 

[EDarkness]

It's an interesting debate and I was hoping that Nintendo would stick with the remote for their next console, but that just didn't happen. That said, as long as they put a remote in the box and developers use it, then I'm all good. I simply refuse to play FPS games without remote support, this includes ZombiU, which is a cool game. I made this pretty clear to every developer I spoke to at E3 as well. As cool as the Wii Pad is, it's really just an extension of the controllers we've been using for years. That's fine for some people, but I just don't care enough about it.

I want to be able to play games like Mass Effect 3 with the remote and nunchuck, and if it doesn't support it, then I won't be picking it up.

 

[The_Lump]

I always figured their idea was to hook the "casual" market and as many non-conventional gamers as possible, get them to fall in love with and trust the Wii brand and then start moving them onto more serious games. The Wii was about creating a gateway into video games for people who wouldn't normally consider themselves gamers - thus providing a whole new generation of people to sell games to in the future.

It worked too.

 

[Thrakier]

I always figured their idea was to hook the "casual" market and as many non-conventional gamers as possible, get them to fall in love with and trust the Wii brand and then start moving them onto more serious games. The Wii was about creating a gateway into video games for people who wouldn't normally consider themselves gamers - thus providing a whole new generation of people to sell games to in the future.

It worked too.

Well, that's yet to be seen I guess.

 

[TheGreatDivide]

Nintendo Lands looks like Miamatos version of Thrillville or Carnival Games. Should be awesome, great game

Just like Carnival Games, right?

 

[VAPitts]

WOAH!!!!

*phew* i almost fell into this bottomless pit...oh wait, this is a thread

 

[Le Singe]

I simply refuse to play FPS games without remote support, this includes ZombiU, which is a cool game. I made this pretty clear to every developer I spoke to at E3 as well. As cool as the Wii Pad is, it's really just an extension of the controllers we've been using for years. That's fine for some people, but I just don't care enough about it.

The wii mote's pointer to me was a great addition to standard controls that I saw great possibilities for. The Wii Pad hasn't excited my imagination yet, I don't get it like I did the Wii.

I always figured their idea was to hook the "casual" market and as many non-conventional gamers as possible, get them to fall in love with and trust the Wii brand and then start moving them onto more serious games.

I've always heard this said or the opposite "casuals just buy their one game or just play wii sports and never buy anything else". I don't really agree with either and haven't seen the proof anecdotally. If someone is into plants and zombies they may never move to ZombiU.

I don't know why you would even try to move people into "serious" games. It's like trying to come up with some type of bridge books to move people from sci fi or self help to literature. Just give the people what they want.

 

[Berg]

I think people don't like motion controls because they think you look like this when playing...

For me, i've never left the couch, never moved anything more than my elbows, and never have broken a sweat. I've loved the motion controls this generation, and to be honest, am not sure if im looking forward to dual analog only games (but i'm up for learning, and the new challenge).

 

[TheGreatDivide]

I don't like motion controls because I'm 1000x more likely to feel the controls misinterpreted an action or movement than I ever am with buttons.

 

[AzaK]

I don't like motion controls because I'm 1000x more likely to feel the controls misinterpreted an action or movement than I ever am with buttons.

Well try the Wii then and not Kinect. Ba-dum CHA!

 

[Thunder Monkey]

it's why Wii U is more appealing to me. traditional controls back in front and center *mwa*

I do believe Skyward Sword is where I gave any last pretense of trying with motion controls a rest. They simply don't work as well as they should with current technology.

Technically Skyward Sword worked better than expected given the hardware in the Wii itself. I was shocked they were able to keep the level of visual fidelity they did, while the system is processing both the dynamic animation of Link and the responses of the enemies. All the while the controls worked.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

Wii went downhill when Nintendo choose the casual crowd as primary target audience and left the core market behind, being Wii Music the pinnacle of this change. Wii had strong potential but the way Nintendo advertised it was what killed it. What Nintendo needs is a change in it's direction, Satoru Iwata's lead is totally outdated and he's not worried on the quality of Nintendo's products but how the company can profit as he's a Nintendo's shareholder.

 

[goomba]

Wii went downhill when Nintendo choose the casual crowd as primary target audience and left the core market behind, being Wii Music the pinnacle of this change. Wii had strong potential but the way Nintendo advertised it was what killed it. What Nintendo needs is a change in it's direction, Satoru Iwata's lead is totally outdated and he's not worried on the quality of Nintendo's products but how the company can profit as he's a Nintendo's shareholder.

Oh come on , Nintendo have always been about profis and I hope you don't think Sony and Microsoft are charities for gaming quality?

 

[Criminal Upper]

Wii went downhill when Nintendo choose the casual crowd as primary target audience and left the core market behind, being Wii Music the pinnacle of this change. Wii had strong potential but the way Nintendo advertised it was what killed it. What Nintendo needs is a change in it's direction, Satoru Iwata's lead is totally outdated and he's not worried on the quality of Nintendo's products but how the company can profit as he's a Nintendo's shareholder.

You're thinking of 3rd Parties, and not Nintendo. 3rd parties lack of trying (outside a few examples) is really what drove the Wii out of people's minds.