Support NeoGAF

[Amir0x]

Well, as you may be aware, Resistance for PS3 was released at the same time as Red Steel, but got a sequel ~1.5 years before Red Steel 2 came out.

And Resistance 2 was pretty badly slammed by the fanbase for being rushed and dropping features and changing gameplay flow and it's almost universally now considered as the wrong direction for a franchise which had a promising start.

Insomniac themselves admitted it was rushed iirc.

THIS is what happens when something is rushed. Wii's had enough problems with its near endless supply of broken down, mediocre titles seemingly resting on the allure of some half baked wiimote immersion. It certainly doesn't need any more help by shortened time frames and whatnot.

Not to mention on top of that, Insomniac is special - they have one of the friendliest and efficient work staffs in the entire videogame industry. They're frequently listed as one of the best companies to work for in America. The workmanship at Insomniac isn't equal to the work environment at the Red Steel team @ Ubisoft, and so the time frames were going to be different in any event. Different work philosophies.

I can't speak for Leondexter, but that's personally my only real complaint as it's the genre I see the most underserved potential. I don't care if the foundation had only been made for that exact type of games, as it's the only type I really miss.

Any game that would utilize the pointer for aiming of some sort would be better than its counterparts utilizing traditional controls (everything else being equal, that is... it's clearly not equal though with the Wii's horrendous power and online functionality. But that's a separate distinction).

In general, though, working on Wii on a high profile game like a mainline Resident Evil game would of course be a success. It would be a success anywhere. But the point is Nintendo simply didn't want it or cater to it or indicate to developer's that they would help out. Their platform was painted a certain way by their own marketed schemes. Any developer saw the hardcore market was empty on Wii, and any developer saw the fact that they couldn't mitigate risk by porting across as a significant problem. Unlike RE4 port, a game built for the ground up would incur considerable more risk and money and while I personally think they would have still profited from it, I don't think there was any real incentive to do it when they had two (read: three with PC) receptive platforms that they could port the game across with relatively little trouble.

I do believe we can all agree that if they did make a ground up RE4-style mainline Resident Evil game for Wii, it would find considerable success. I also believe however that there is no reason for them to do that, when they are (likely) finding greater success in doing this for the PS360PC.

But the generation isn't over. Who knows what's to come?

 

[charlequin]

While I see what you are saying, collaboration has given nintendo mixed results, or plainly bad results.

Because they suck at it.

I mean, sorry, I'm not going to mince words here. Nintendo has had poor successes overall with this sort of collaborative venture because they've done very few, they've chosen them badly when they do, and then they've mismanaged them in execution. That doesn't mean they're a bad idea, it means they need to actually do a good job in this area.

 

[Version 3.0]

Amir0x, thanks for the conversation, but I don't think there's anything else I can say without being insulting. That obviously doesn't bother you, but it does me, so I'm done.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

Talking out a disagreement with Amir0x is like putting a third party hardcore game on the Wii. It doesn't make sense, history tells us it's a bad idea, and it's almost certainly pointless, but some people try it once in a while anyway.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Because they suck at it.

I mean, sorry, I'm not going to mince words here. Nintendo has had poor successes overall with this sort of collaborative venture because they've done very few, they've chosen them badly when they do, and then they've mismanaged them in execution. That doesn't mean they're a bad idea, it means they need to actually do a good job in this area.

I'd say the bigger issue is the corporate culture of the companies in question.

Nintendo as a whole has a "sink or swim" mentality with their products. They expect the same from other developers. Developers then gave the market leading console a whole buttload of titles destined to sink and then bitched when no one helped them to make these sinkers swim.

Developers have been subsidized in their potential losses so heavily by Microsoft and Sony for the past two generations that developers/publishers have begun to think of that as the norm. It's not guys. That's not the way business generally works.

And it doesn't really make much sense. "I've got a game that might be a huge success, but I need you (the manufacturer of the hardware) to offset any losses I may incur if it doesn't reach projections."

Nintendo doesn't even do that for their own games.

 

[Amir0x]

Amir0x, thanks for the conversation, but I don't think there's anything else I can say without being insulting. That obviously doesn't bother you, but it does me, so I'm done.

You have not been insulted once so don't bother trying to hide behind such a farce. You may attempt to shift the blame from your inability to debate, but that's all it is.

Talking out a disagreement with Amir0x is like putting a third party hardcore game on the Wii. It doesn't make sense, history tells us it's a bad idea, and it's almost certainly pointless, but some people try it once in a while anyway.

People always say this, and yet here I am explaining my positions in the most complete and purposeful way imaginable in incredible detail. People who want to stay in their cage will do what they want. People want to hear what they want to hear, and their expectations of what a person does is increasingly influenced by their own interpretations (which often have nothing to do with reality). Nobody can possibly hash out their opinions any more thoughtfully.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

You have not been insulted once so don't bother trying to hide behind such a farce. You may attempt to shift the blame from your inability to debate, but that's all it is.



People always say this, and yet here I am explaining my positions in the most complete and purposeful way imaginable in incredible detail. People who want to stay in their cage will do what they want. People want to hear what they want to hear, and their expectations of what a person does is increasingly influenced by their own interpretations (which often have nothing to do with reality). Nobody can possibly hash out their opinions any more thoughtfully.

You explain yourself very well, Amir0x, and I give you credit for that, but you are extremely stubborn about understanding the viewpoints of others, so having an argument with you is terribly frustrating. It's like trying to haggle with someone who won't budge a cent.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

You explain yourself very well, Amir0x, and I give you credit for that, but you are extremely stubborn about understanding the viewpoints of others, so having an argument with you is terribly frustrating. It's like trying to haggle with someone who won't budge a cent.

Part of his allure.

Some want to change his opinion. Some of us realized that would be impossible so we just sit back and masturbate as his assertions cause more and more minds to melt.

It's a beautiful thing.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

Part of his allure.

Some want to change his opinion. Some of us realized that would be impossible so we just sit back and masturbate as his assertions cause more and more minds to melt.

It's a beautiful thing.

Oh, don't get wrong, I don't feel like he or anyone else should have to change their opinions in the course of an argument. It's just that you can disagree with someone *and* respect their opinion, and that respect is sorely missing in any conversation with Amir0x.

But yeah, it is fun watching people tangle themselves trying.

 

[Amir0x]

You explain yourself very well, Amir0x, and I give you credit for that, but you are extremely stubborn about understanding the viewpoints of others, so having an argument with you is terribly frustrating. It's like trying to haggle with someone who won't budge a cent.

I don't debate about things I don't believe it. Nor do I hold an opinion if I do not passionately believe it to be true. Nobody has changed their mind about anything in this thread, not me, not Leondexter, not ElFly...no one. But yet here I am, being accused of being stubborn.

The point I am making is I am giving everybody the time of day and trying to express my feelings in as complete a way as possible. We may not find a middle ground, but sometimes there is no middle ground to find.

There is very little way, for example, to reconcile the differences of opinion Leondexter and ElFly and I have. Because to me, they're wrong in their assessment. Likewise, they feel I am wrong.

For me, what I enjoy is learning from others. Even when I don't agree or find common ground, I learn new perspectives. This is what I find most enjoyable about discussions and why I am usually discussing negatives, not positives. To me it is more interesting to discuss things with people who don't agree with my viewpoints than people who do, because I learn something this way.

I appreciate Leondexter and ElFly's position because it allows me to get in the head of someone who is different from me. That's my basic purpose in all my discussions. If you understand this about me, it's a little easier perhaps to stomach my straight forward and hard headed nature.

Still, I'm curious about one thing. What specifically do you believe I missed understanding in this thread? I think I covered everything pretty well (with the people I was debating with).

This whole idea about respect seems a matter of misinterpretation. I do not have prolonged discussions with people I don't respect. The very act of me taking the time to express my opinions to you means I respect you, and I respect that you're taking the time to elaborate on your positions. My harsh and straight forward tone is merely because I don't like beating around the bush. I believe in absolutes.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

Ehn, I'm late for a meet-up right now and this is just derailing the thread, so just go back and treat my comment like a silly little lolpost for now and we can talk about it later on IRC or something.

 

[Amir0x]

Ehn, I'm late for a meet-up right now and this is just derailing the thread, so just go back and treat my comment like a silly little lolpost for now and we can talk about it later on IRC or something.

...


...

 

[Thunder Monkey]

...


...

Fucking stoners.*

*He says as he takes a bong rip

 

[Eteric Rice]

Talking out a disagreement with Amir0x is like putting a third party hardcore game on the Wii. It doesn't make sense, history tells us it's a bad idea, and it's almost certainly pointless, but some people try it once in a while anyway.

Then the question becomes... What made him that way?

If we can figure out why, perhaps the Amir0x 2 will be able to debate without seeming so... So....

Yeah...

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Then the question becomes... What made him that way?

If we can figure out why, perhaps the Amir0x 2 will be able to debate without seeming so... So....

Yeah...

We won't reboot model 1 while I'm still around!

*prepares a defensive position*

 

[FoneBone]

You have not been insulted once so don't bother trying to hide behind such a farce. You may attempt to shift the blame from your inability to debate, but that's all it is. .

Insisting that he factually "likes abuse" is not an insult?

 

[Eteric Rice]

We won't reboot model 1 while I'm still around!

*prepares a defensive position*

But dood, he doesn't even do HD!

 

[Amir0x]

Insisting that he factually "likes abuse" is not an insult?

Uh, no. What exactly am I insulting him about with that? I am inferring directly that he likes abuse because he does. He's purchasing poor quality products and then reinforcing in developers that's what he wants by purchasing further poor quality products.

It is advisable, therefore, to tell him exactly what that is. That's someone who likes abuse. I'm saying it in the same exact way as if I was telling a women who stays with someone who keeps beating her that "you must like abuse if you stay with that man." That isn't insulting the women in that context either. In this context, it's more like advising him to stop accepting less.

Anyone who continually takes abuse will keep getting abused.

 

[miksar]

Still there is difference in approach. It is ridiculous to compare publisher's intent with developer's.

Kojima on 3DS: It is impressive! I want to make an MGS for it.
EA: Oh there is a successor for DS coming out. First we'll announce our biggest franchises we would have put there anyway and see how it does sales-wise.

When developers think about a gaming platform, they concentrate on what games they'll be able to create on it. When publishers consider making a game for a console, they think how it will perform and whether development costs will be repaid.

In Wii's case the common reaction from developer community is that its under-powered hardware will keep them from creating good games. And even when they think that limitations are not a problem, publishers are unsure how the game will sell so they'll only make safe bets.

But with 3DS and its new anti-piracy tech, it may be completely different. Same with Super Wii.

 

[Amir0x]

Still there is difference in approach. It is ridiculous to compare publisher's intent with developer's.

Kojima on 3DS: It is impressive! I want to make an MGS for it.
EA: Oh there is a successor for DS coming out. First we'll announce our biggest franchises we would have put there anyway and see how it does sales-wise.

No, this is actually how EA reacted:

"The 3DS is just incredibly cool. The 3DS is magical. You put that in your hand, you look down, and all of a sudden it’s in 3D without glasses. That’s an amazing experience. I’m a huge fan," he beams.

"I think that device is going to sell like hot cakes. I think it’s going to do incredibly well, and in typical Nintendo fashion they have re-energized the industry, yet again. I give them nothing but credit and we are excited to be supporting that platform with Madden, FIFA, and The Sims that we announced."

And specifically on Sims 3, which is just as much of an enhanced port as MGS3 is while still being an infinitely bigger franchise:

“We’re bringing players the first true 3D life simulation game on a handheld utilizing the ground breaking technology of the Nintendo 3DS,” explained Sam Player, Executive Producer at EA. “With new features like face mapping, a living open neighborhood, connectivity like never before and an all-new feature called 'Karma Powers,' we’re making it easier than ever for gamers to play with life from the gaming platform of their choice.”

People are making their own assumptions about what these companies announced because they're allowing their personal preferences to cloud just how important these games are to each company.

Konami has announced an enhanced port of an old Metal Gear Solid PS2 game. And this, somehow, constitutes major support to certain ppl in this thread. More major, apparently, than EA's own enhanced port of slightly old PC game.

Because people just have this kneejerk reaction to EA's stable of successful franchises. It's yearly, it's being milked, it's not for me, I don't like sports, whatever. The point is, whatever your feeling on these games it should not be a cover for the truth. And the truth is what EA has announced is bigger than what Konami has announced, and it's more central.

In Wii's case the common reaction from developer community is that its under-powered hardware will keep them from creating good games. And even when they think that limitations are not a problem, publishers are unsure how the game will sell so they'll only make safe bets.

I think the more common consideration is that publishers fear the inability to properly port games to Wii.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

But dood, he doesn't even do HD!

FUCK YO PIXELS!

 

[miksar]

People are making their own assumptions about what these companies announced because they're allowing their personal preferences to cloud just how important these games are to each company.

Okay, I see your point, maybe I'm underrating EA's support. But what I wanted to point out is that the comparison in this thread is just plain wrong. MGS for 3DS is mostly Kojima's, i.e. developer's decision. Key EA franchises for 3DS is exec's decision, made by Ricitello or whoever is responsible for it. It is just two types of support, both are needed for a gaming console to be a success.

On The Sims 3 press release, it is expected that any publisher will try to make a game that utilizes all capabilities of the platform. DS had the same story, so why should it be different with 3DS? And why are you bringing up MGS in this case? While 3DS technical capabilities are comparable with PS2 (potentially better), even a budget-class PC will be far ahead in processing power. That's why MGS3D is an enhanced remake and The Sims 3, with all these features, is still a downgrade. It doesn't mean that Konami is more supportive, in fact, in sheer numbers they'll always lose to EA.

 

[Amir0x]

Okay, I see your point, maybe I'm underrating EA's support. But what I wanted to point out is that the comparison in this thread is just plain wrong. MGS for 3DS is mostly Kojima's, i.e. developer's decision. Key EA franchises for 3DS is exec's decision, made by Ricitello or whoever is responsible for it. It is just two types of support, both are needed for a gaming console to be a success.

This also ignores context. It is highly unlikely Nintendo shuttled EA into a room and showed them the 3DS trying to get them hardcore on board. Nintendo likely saw an opportunity in Kojima, because according to him they brought him into a room and then surprised him with what they showed. This is probably because Nintendo has a better relationship with Japanese developers in general.

That is something Nintendo should work on. But given the circumstances, EA could not have announced anything bigger. And personally, I do not believe Kojima is doing anything special by making an enhanced port of a PS2 game for 3DS. I think it's neat because I like MGS3, but I don't think it's particularly major support.

On The Sims 3 press release, it is expected that any publisher will try to make a game that utilizes all capabilities of the platform. DS had the same story, so why should it be different with 3DS? And why are you bringing up MGS in this case? While 3DS technical capabilities are comparable with PS2 (potentially better), even a budget-class PC will be far ahead in processing power. That's why MGS3D is an enhanced remake and The Sims 3, with all these features, is still a downgrade. It doesn't mean that Konami is more supportive, in fact, in sheer numbers they'll always lose to EA.

Oh it's a downgrade, is it? I thought it was about gameplay?

The reason MGS is brought up is because ElFly was suggesting that an enhanced port of a PS2 game is somehow better support than an enhanced port of one of the biggest gaming titles on Earth.

It isn't, at all.

 

[cosmicblizzard]

Uh, no. What exactly am I insulting him about with that? I am inferring directly that he likes abuse because he does. He's purchasing poor quality products and then reinforcing in developers that's what he wants by purchasing further poor quality products.

It is advisable, therefore, to tell him exactly what that is. That's someone who likes abuse. I'm saying it in the same exact way as if I was telling a women who stays with someone who keeps beating her that "you must like abuse if you stay with that man." That isn't insulting the women in that context either. In this context, it's more like advising him to stop accepting less.

Anyone who continually takes abuse will keep getting abused.

You seriously don't see anything wrong with this line of thinking at all?

 

[Thunder Monkey]

You seriously don't see anything wrong with this line of thinking at all?

If it irritates you that much just ignore his post.

His post has no power but that which you give it. I certainly don't agree with the assertion but you don't see me whining about it. I just go "Oh Ami." and move on.

Shocking I know. In the end it's all opinion man. Either refute his points or just move on.

 

[cosmicblizzard]

If it irritates you that much just ignore his post.

His post has no power but that which you give it. I certainly don't agree with the assertion but you don't see me whining about it. I just go "Oh Ami." and move on.

Shocking I know. In the end it's all opinion man. Either refute his points or just move on.

I don't really care that much. I know the only thing I can agree on with Ami is that SMG2 is awesome. Still, sometimes I find his logic a bit.... odd.

Of course this is coming from a guy that glued a hammer to his head in wood shop, so maybe I shouldn't say anything.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

I don't really care that much. I know the only thing I can agree on with Ami is that SMG2 is awesome. Still, sometimes I find his logic a bit.... odd.

Of course this is coming from a guy that glued a hammer to his head in wood shop, so maybe I shouldn't say anything.

Is cool my friend.

Okay... now I really need to go eat.

 

[miksar]

Oh it's a downgrade, is it? I thought it was about gameplay?

What was mentioned in the press release is impressive, but it is all just features. If you consider core The Sims gameplay, it requires advanced AI system to work. Will 3DS version have the same AI level as PC version? I highly doubt it.

 

[Amir0x]

You seriously don't see anything wrong with this line of thinking at all?

I don't because I believe it's true. I believe people shouldn't allow themselves to be abused. It think it's not only bad for them, but it's bad for the industry. People need to vote with their dollars and when they don't developers continue to do bad things. Look at Call of Duty. The first one was awful, most people thought it was awful and apparently the only thing Leondexter had to hold onto was some poorly implemented wiimote functionality. But then what happened? It sold well, right, so did Activision go out of their way to improve the next one? Why should they? The fanbase has already firmly established they'll accept less.

And then we got less. We keep getting these Call of Duty games for Wii, and they keep being deficient compared to their HD brethren (even putting aside for a moment the visuals).

That's why I say to him "he must enjoy being abused." Someone who continually returns for punishment gets nothing but punishment.

What was mentioned in the press release is impressive, but it is all just features. If you consider core The Sims gameplay, it requires advanced AI system to work. Will 3DS version have the same AI level as PC version? I highly doubt it.

Well, who knows how it'll work precisely. But i mean, all this suggests is that they'll have to make the 3DS version even more distinct from its mother platform version. (Likely, even more distinct than MGS3 Portable will be from its mother platform version).

 

[ASIS]

Third party is as strong as ever on Wii... But that also means it was never strong in the first place. I'm not worried though, the line up for Wii in 2010- early 2011 is absolutely kickass.

 

[boiled goose]

Amirox.

I agree that putting your mainline core franchises on PS360/PC is probably a better (or at least less risky) proposition than putting them on Wii.

I still don't understand why capcom chose to make Darkside Chronicles, Chot till you drop, Dark Void, BC R, LP2, etc over a mainline RE wii game or at least a Wii RE5 port. Many of these games were huge bombs are at least pretty disappointing. An RE wii game (or port) seem like less risky business. ( a street fighter port or SC4 port would also be fairly good ideas)

I think it is stuff like this that makes me wonder the real decision making process for putting games on wii. I have a feeling that there is a bit more to it than simply sales potential. I think that maybe a lot of these companies feel that a wii port might somehow devalue their efforts in other platforms. There has to be a "softer" reason for not putting some of these games on wii. It can't be just hard money or sales.

 

[cosmicblizzard]

I don't because I believe it's true. I believe people shouldn't allow themselves to be abused. It think it's not only bad for them, but it's bad for the industry. People need to vote with their dollars and when they don't developers continue to do bad things. Look at Call of Duty. The first one was awful, most people thought it was awful and apparently the only thing Leondexter had to hold onto was some poorly implemented wiimote functionality. But then what happened? It sold well, right, so did Activision go out of their way to improve the next one? Why should they? The fanbase has already firmly established they'll accept less.

And then we got less. We keep getting these Call of Duty games for Wii, and they keep being deficient compared to their HD brethren (even putting aside for a moment the visuals).

That's why I say to him "he must enjoy being abused." Someone who continually returns for punishment gets nothing but punishment.

Comparing the enjoyment someone gets from a (subjectively) inferior game to spousal abuse seems like some pretty ridiculous hyperbole to me. I just find it odd that you admit to respecting people's opinions yet you resort to a personal attack; and not just one in passing either. Yeah, I know you probably don't see it as a personal attack but I see it as condescending.

Just my 2 cents. I won't bring it up again.

 

[Amir0x]

Amirox.

I agree that putting your mainline core franchises on PS360/PC is probably a better (or at least less risky) proposition than putting them on Wii.

I still don't understand why capcom chose to make Darkside Chronicles, Chot till you drop, Dark Void, BC R, LP2, etc over a mainline RE wii game or at least a Wii RE5 port. Many of these games were huge bombs are at least pretty disappointing. An RE wii game (or port) seem like less risky business. ( a street fighter port or SC4 port would also be fairly good ideas)

Well I'm pretty sure they didn't think those games would be bombs. After all, Dead Rising was successful. Why not Dead Rising on Wii? Umbrella Chronicles was successful, why not Darkside Chronicles on Wii? Lost Planet was successful, why not Lost Planet 2? Etc etc.

They obviously didn't plan those to be failures and probably thought they were (cheap) sure bets.

That said, again, I agree RE mainline game for Wii would be very successful. I just don't think there's any incentive for them to do it since they're having plenty of success with their current strategy.

I think it is stuff like this that makes me wonder the real decision making process for putting games on wii. I have a feeling that there is a bit more to it than simply sales potential. I think that maybe a lot of these companies feel that a wii port might somehow devalue their efforts in other platforms. There has to be a "softer" reason for not putting some of these games on wii. It can't be just hard money or sales.

Amtentori. It IS money. The problem is the position Nintendo put Wii in by under powering it. When developers want to port something to Wii, they essentially have to make that version all new or change it at some fundamental level. The amount of money it costs to do this is hugely more than the amount of money it costs to port across from PS3, 360 and PC.

I am pretty confident this remains the primary consideration with publishers.

Comparing the enjoyment someone gets from a (subjectively) inferior game to spousal abuse seems like some pretty ridiculous hyperbole to me. I just find it odd that you admit to respecting people's opinions yet you resort to a personal attack; and not just one in passing either. Yeah, I know you probably don't see it as a personal attack but it's pretty condescending.

Just my 2 cents. I won't bring it up again.

It's not an insult or a personal attack. It's an observation about the way he is buying games. And also, it's not comparing it to spousal abuse. Any type of abuse could go there. I was just using spousal abuse as an example above to show how it was not intended as an insult (because it is not an insult).

There's nothing subjective about the inferiority of the Wii Call of Duty games. I mean, you ARE entitled to believe the sun is cold if you want, but that's on you.

 

[Boney]

When it comes to Sims3 vs MGS, I'm pretty sure we all can assume these 2 games brings 2 different types of consumers to the table. The first one brings the so called casualtards, while the other brings regular/hardcore gamers.

Sims is a bigger franchise, no question about it. This is huge support. But there are two different things about the 2 games. First of all, Sims 3 can be found in other plaforms, that doesn't undermine the support it gives, but makes it a lesser event I think. I know MGS has started to appear on many other platforms aside from Sony's machines, but the new verison of MGS3 is only available on 3DS.

But the main difference setting them apart is that Sims 3, goes along with Nintendo's focus for the las 5 years. It's a title that complements other Nintendo titles in the area, like EA Sports Active. But on the other hand, MGS3D represents a shift in focus from developers. That this machine can be home of traditional gaming experiences and lodge the biggest traditional franchises in gamings.

Sims 3 may sell more than MGS3, but MGS3 is support for the new market Nintendo is seeking out with the 3DS.

 

[wazoo]

Third party is as strong as ever on Wii... But that also means it was never strong in the first place. I'm not worried though, the line up for Wii in 2010- early 2011 is absolutely kickass.

by gluing 2010 and 2011 you are missing the point. 2010 has been very good (at least by my standards) to the Wii and this Fall will keep this year on track to be the one of th best year for the Wii. What is debated is the post christmas effect, where there is basically none to see. 3rd parties are usually announcing games much more in advance than Nintendo, and at this time we should have a overall clear vision of 2011 first half pre-E3, and at the current time, this is almost empty. It looks like 3rd parties are finishing what they are doing now (sometimes with lots of ambition, see Epic Mickey) and then they will move on.

 

[owlbeak]

Disclaimer to my reply: I do not own a Wii. My sister and brother do and I have played many different titles many times but never felt inclined to purchase one myself. I own an NES, SNES, owned an N64, and a regular original giant ass Gameboy.

I think Nintendo's main problem is that the console they put out is COMPLETELY inferior to Microsoft and Sony's offerings. For $50 more than Wii costs, you get an HD capable console/media server. Why did Nintendo not make the Wii HD? Baffles the mind. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall during that discussion. I believe Nintendo solely believed their console would sell on the fact that it had wireless motion control, which at the time, no other console had. However with the Fall launch of Kinect and Move, I think the Wii is going to be shoved out of the market.

Half the problem was the lack of supply during the Wii's launch. A lot of people got pissed and bought a 360. Or at least that's what I did. I now refuse to buy a Wii solely because I would say more than 50% of the titles available for it are complete crap that's marketed to a family audience, and may appeal to people 10 years of age and younger, or it's a COMPLETELY neutered version of the same title available on 360 or PS3. That's it. I would love to have a Wii for golf games ONLY; that's it, and the virtual console stuff but I can get an emulator on my PC for playing NES/SNES/N64 games and it works better and is free(*).

I think after the fall, if Nintendo doesn't come up with an up to date new console with HD output and other common features, they're going to be done with the home console market. However, they completely dominate the handheld market and have since the Gameboy. I plan on buying a 3DS on day one. I believe we'll see Nintendo begin to slowly become a solely portable game hardware company and that's it. I just can't see them competing with Microsoft and Sony in the next-gen console wars. Maybe the NEXT next gen console wars, but if the Wii is any indication, I'd doubt they stand a chance.

I think a lot of the problem is that Nintendo caters mostly to Eastern ideas of games and culture which doesn't mesh well with the UK and US. I, for one, cannot stand most Japanese style RPGs and other games, solely because the artwork is generally very similar, interfaces are cluttered and needlessly complex, etc. I just don't like the Eastern game design. I'd venture to say the majority of Western gamers do not like the Eastern style of game design either. Yes, there are huge exceptions and huge portions that LOVE Eastern developed games. Hell, all of my friends love these games, I just can't stand them.

But Nintendo doesn't know how to let 3rd parties breathe, and this has been an issue since the NES/SNES days with licensing and everything. This is becoming a rambling long text post, so I will stop.

In summary, I think the Wii is dead or at least on it's deathbed. Third party devs and publishers have abandoned it, this is for certain. However, Nintendo's handheld market is very promising.

 

[boiled goose]

Well I'm pretty sure they didn't think those games would be bombs. After all, Dead Rising was successful. Why not Dead Rising on Wii? Umbrella Chronicles was successful, why not Darkside Chronicles on Wii? Lost Planet was successful, why not Lost Planet 2? Etc etc.

They obviously didn't plan those to be failures and probably thought they were (cheap) sure bets.

That said, again, I agree RE mainline game for Wii would be very successful. I just don't think there's any incentive for them to do it since they're having plenty of success with their current strategy.

Amtentori. It IS money. The problem is the position Nintendo put Wii in by under powering it. When developers want to port something to Wii, they essentially have to make that version all new or change it at some fundamental level. The amount of money it costs to do this is hugely more than the amount of money it costs to port across from PS3, 360 and PC.

I am pretty confident this remains the primary consideration with publishers.

I agree it is money, (always is) but I think it is not just a matter of publishers thinking Dark Void will make us more money than RE5 Wii. ( maybe it is, like you said, creating a wii game might require a surprising amount of new asset development)

But i think ultimately it has to do with a grand strategy. a lot of these companies bet on the HD consoles dominating. a lot of these publishers know that the HD consoles get the most media coverage and attention by core gamers. making games on those consoles is a way to stay relevant in the mind of the press and the core audience. making games for the wii is pointless in some ways for this grand strategy. sales now matter, but i think development is also guided by prospects of future sales (future generations) and things like recognition and brand image. In many cases I think the lack of ports and new games on wii has more to do with these issues rather than simply immediate sales.

 

[jrricky]

Talking out a disagreement with Amir0x is like putting a third party hardcore game on the Wii. It doesn't make sense, history tells us it's a bad idea, and it's almost certainly pointless, but some people try it once in a while anyway.

.

 

[boiled goose]

I believe Nintendo solely believed their console would sell on the fact that it had wireless motion control, which at the time, no other console had. However with the Fall launch of Kinect and Move, I think the Wii is going to be shoved out of the market.

It did sell. a lot. wii was not built futureproof and lack of support means its legs will be cut early. dont think move or kinect will be a factor.

I now refuse to buy a Wii solely because I would say more than 50% of the titles available for it are complete crap that's marketed to a family audience, and may appeal to people 10 years of age and younger, or it's a COMPLETELY neutered version of the same title available on 360 or PS3.

focus on the 50% of games you might consider buying instead????

an emulator on my PC for playing NES/SNES/N64 games and it works better and is free(*).

ummm... hope you are not referring to piracy.

I'd venture to say the majority of Western gamers do not like the Eastern style of game design either.

Some of the best selling games of the generation (in US and Europe) include Wii sports resort, mario kart wii, wii fit, NSMBwii, etc. all made by nintendo

 

[Little Green Yoda]

I think after the fall, if Nintendo doesn't come up with an up to date new console with HD output and other common features, they're going to be done with the home console market. However, they completely dominate the handheld market and have since the Gameboy. I plan on buying a 3DS on day one. I believe we'll see Nintendo begin to slowly become a solely portable game hardware company and that's it. I just can't see them competing with Microsoft and Sony in the next-gen console wars. Maybe the NEXT next gen console wars, but if the Wii is any indication, I'd doubt they stand a chance.

I think it's way premature to start predicting who's going to win/lose next gen when none of the companies have announced their plans yet. If this gen taught us anything, it's that things can change drastically from one generation to the next. The bolded statement was probably made many times in the waning days of last gen too. Ditto for the notion of Nintendo abandoning the home console market altogether.

 

[wazoo]

I think Nintendo's main problem is that the console they put out is COMPLETELY inferior to Microsoft and Sony's offerings.

strictly speaking, except motion controls and even wifi (X360 did not have for a long time).

For $50 more than Wii costs, you get an HD capable console/media server. Why did Nintendo not make the Wii HD? Baffles the mind.

You are jumping in time from 2006 to now and back. It does not help your argument.

At launch, price difference was much hgher. The fact the price difference is now what it is is just a result of market offer and demand. Nintendo can afford its price, its competitor had to lower their prices to compete, no matter what it is in the box.

Now, why Nintendo did not go with a HD console is a combination of many factors, some are Nintendo faults, others are not. Wii was the successor of the GC, which was a sale failure. Going by the downtrend of home Nintendo consoles, Wii was doomed and msot people (devs and gamers) had already dismissed it before launch. Nintendo could not afford to invest such a risky venture. It is easy afterwards to say, considering its success how they could afford more power, the fact Wii succes surprised everyone including Nintendo. More than that, MS and Sony lost Billions of $ with their next gen consoles. Nintendo would not have/accept this. Unlike MS/Sony they do not have the dream of all multimedia itunes-like hub to recoup their costs somewhere in the future. Another point, being different force devs to do exclusive games and not just ports like what happened to the GC where everybody was happy to get ports of Sony games but in the end did not buy them on the Cube.

I would have loved to be a fly on the wall during that discussion. I believe Nintendo solely believed their console would sell on the fact that it had wireless motion control, which at the time, no other console had. However with the Fall launch of Kinect and Move, I think the Wii is going to be shoved out of the market.

Your own prediction is based don nothing. Good to known that this prediction is happening every year since Wii launch. Somewhere in the future it will be true, even if it is Wii successor who kicks the Wii out of the market.

I just can't see them competing with Microsoft and Sony in the next-gen console wars. Maybe the NEXT next gen console wars, but if the Wii is any indication, I'd doubt they stand a chance.

Depending of your notion of "competing" you could be right. As a matter of fact, we see MS and Sony trying to compet with nintendo in this gen and with difficulty, except for 3rd party support, which is the subject of the thread. If the 3DS is any evidence, Nintendo is more than able to react, and had deep pocket enough to do its own things you may like or not.

I think a lot of the problem is that Nintendo caters mostly to Eastern ideas of games and culture which doesn't mesh well with the UK and US. I, for one, cannot stand most Japanese style RPGs and other games, solely because the artwork is generally very similar, interfaces are cluttered and needlessly complex, etc. I just don't like the Eastern game design. I'd venture to say the majority of Western gamers do not like the Eastern style of game design either. Yes, there are huge exceptions and huge portions that LOVE Eastern developed games. Hell, all of my friends love these games, I just can't stand them.

personal opinion - anecdotal evidence. A lot of people like western games, a lot of people like eastern gamers, a lot of people like both.

 

[Krev]

Horsebite's whole post is totally fucking crazy. I have no idea where to start...oh, what the hell. From the beginning.

Why did Nintendo not make the Wii HD? Baffles the mind. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall during that discussion.

I cannot believe that revisionist history is painting this as a bad idea. Nintendo decided on a new direction (partly focusing their marketing on casual gamers who don't care about the latest and greatest tech) and designed their console around it. They realised that this audience largely did not own an HDTV at the time Wii would be launching. Remember how many people were buying new TVs when the PS3 and 360 were released? The casual gaming audience wouldn't do this, and a console supporting HD resolutions has a big price bump over an SD system. Nintendo realized -correctly- that there was no point in moving up to HD. They were able to reuse and overclock their old SD hardware. Think about it: Sony and Microsoft were selling their consoles at a huge loss, while Nintendo were able to release a new system without spending a cent on developing a new architecture.
Nintendo's plan was to release the cheapest system on the market. They held back on announcing a price at E3 2006, but I'm sure they were very surprised and relieved at how much PS3 was selling for, because it meant that they could sell Wii for $50-100 more than they were originally planning to, while the product would still be perceived as a good deal by the masses.

I believe Nintendo solely believed their console would sell on the fact that it had wireless motion control, which at the time, no other console had. However with the Fall launch of Kinect and Move, I think the Wii is going to be shoved out of the market.

The Wii has almost as much market share as the PS3 and 360 combined.
Think about that for a second, then think about how crazy you sound.

I now refuse to buy a Wii solely because I would say more than 50% of the titles available for it are complete crap that's marketed to a family audience, and may appeal to people 10 years of age and younger, or it's a COMPLETELY neutered version of the same title available on 360 or PS3. That's it. I would love to have a Wii for golf games ONLY; that's it,

Just...wow.
I mean, I can understand different tastes and all that, but golf games...only? Not Zelda, not Sin and Punishment, not Metroid, not SMG...just golf games.
It's true that a good deal of games on the system are complete crap, but all of the above and more are excellent. You make it sound like it's quantity of quality software rivals that of Virtual Boy.

and the virtual console stuff but I can get an emulator on my PC for playing NES/SNES/N64 games and it works better and is free(*).

It's also piracy. This isn't even abandonware, where there are some shades of grey. These games are still being sold by the companies that created them.

I think after the fall, if Nintendo doesn't come up with an up to date new console with HD output and other common features, they're going to be done with the home console market.

This is so alarmist. :lol The idea that they'll go from winning the generation to being completely shut out of the market is just too much.

I just can't see them competing with Microsoft and Sony in the next-gen console wars.

Yeah, they did such a poor job of it this time around.

Maybe the NEXT next gen console wars, but if the Wii is any indication, I'd doubt they stand a chance.

How can they possibly rebound from a failure the size of Wii?

This is becoming a rambling long text post, so I will stop.

Good idea.

 

[Version 3.0]

Anyone who continually takes abuse will keep getting abused.

In that case, bite me. You're factually wrong about what constitutes a fact, self-contradicting, rude, and too immature to admit when you're wrong. How's that for not taking abuse?

 

[Yagharek]

In all honesty, third party stuff has never been strong on Wii. There have been some great games of course.

Most of it is just down to the Wii catching the industry with its pants round its ankles. Unprepared for anything other than high def content production and the epic style action games that lead the charts in the mid 2000s.

I think now the industry knows Nintendo hardware will attract a large userbase for the forseeable future, many will just cut their losses on Wii, get prepared for 3DS/Wii's successor and we should expect better 3rd party support next gen. I would not be surprised to see Wii 2 wind up being the default platform in general next time around, so long as it has capacity to play modern action games as well as whatever 'feature' is used to distinguish it from the other systems.

 

[wazoo]

Just...wow.
I mean, I can understand different tastes and all that, not Sin and Punishment,

Not to defend him, but you know, you can not blame him not to be interested in a game nobody bought.

 

[Razgreez]

With the Wii selling out constantly i always thought it to be a short term win for nintendo. A fad so to speak. The reason being i've played with it a few times, never with motion plus though, and it's controls just didn't deliver. Yes it is motion control but it was and still is, if what i read is correct, gimped motion control. It's like i've always thought - developers want to develop games not controls. With the wii its inability to deliver on the accuracy, consistency and, the under-emphasized, visual intensity required by basic core games was always going to be its downfall as can be seen now. Why take the added risk, as a third party, of developing games, which people may or may not like, catered to a specific control scheme which cannot then be ported to other consoles so as to mitigate some of that added risk. Doesn't make business sense now and didn't before

 

[_Alkaline_]

Disclaimer to my reply: I do not own a Wii. My sister and brother do and I have played many different titles many times but never felt inclined to purchase one myself. I own an NES, SNES, owned an N64, and a regular original giant ass Gameboy.

I think Nintendo's main problem is that the console they put out is COMPLETELY inferior to Microsoft and Sony's offerings. For $50 more than Wii costs, you get an HD capable console/media server. Why did Nintendo not make the Wii HD? Baffles the mind. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall during that discussion. I believe Nintendo solely believed their console would sell on the fact that it had wireless motion control, which at the time, no other console had. However with the Fall launch of Kinect and Move, I think the Wii is going to be shoved out of the market.

Half the problem was the lack of supply during the Wii's launch. A lot of people got pissed and bought a 360. Or at least that's what I did. I now refuse to buy a Wii solely because I would say more than 50% of the titles available for it are complete crap that's marketed to a family audience, and may appeal to people 10 years of age and younger, or it's a COMPLETELY neutered version of the same title available on 360 or PS3. That's it. I would love to have a Wii for golf games ONLY; that's it, and the virtual console stuff but I can get an emulator on my PC for playing NES/SNES/N64 games and it works better and is free(*).

I think after the fall, if Nintendo doesn't come up with an up to date new console with HD output and other common features, they're going to be done with the home console market. However, they completely dominate the handheld market and have since the Gameboy. I plan on buying a 3DS on day one. I believe we'll see Nintendo begin to slowly become a solely portable game hardware company and that's it. I just can't see them competing with Microsoft and Sony in the next-gen console wars. Maybe the NEXT next gen console wars, but if the Wii is any indication, I'd doubt they stand a chance.

I think a lot of the problem is that Nintendo caters mostly to Eastern ideas of games and culture which doesn't mesh well with the UK and US. I, for one, cannot stand most Japanese style RPGs and other games, solely because the artwork is generally very similar, interfaces are cluttered and needlessly complex, etc. I just don't like the Eastern game design. I'd venture to say the majority of Western gamers do not like the Eastern style of game design either. Yes, there are huge exceptions and huge portions that LOVE Eastern developed games. Hell, all of my friends love these games, I just can't stand them.

But Nintendo doesn't know how to let 3rd parties breathe, and this has been an issue since the NES/SNES days with licensing and everything. This is becoming a rambling long text post, so I will stop.

In summary, I think the Wii is dead or at least on it's deathbed. Third party devs and publishers have abandoned it, this is for certain. However, Nintendo's handheld market is very promising.

The amount of ignorance in this post would make the average GameFAQs poster blush.

 

[legend166]

With the Wii selling out constantly i always thought it to be a short term win for nintendo. A fad so to speak. The reason being i've played with it a few times, never with motion plus though, and it's controls just didn't deliver. Yes it is motion control but it was and still is, if what i read is correct, gimped motion control. It's like i've always thought - developers want to develop games not controls. With the wii its inability to deliver on the accuracy, consistency and, the under-emphasized, visual intensity required by basic core games was always going to be its downfall as can be seen now. Why take the added risk, as a third party, of developing games, which people may or may not like, catered to a specific control scheme which cannot then be ported to other consoles so as to mitigate some of that added risk. Doesn't make business sense now and didn't before

Well, shut the thread down guys. Razgreez has declared the Wii a fad after playing the system a few times. Why bother discussing anymore?




Serious reply: no one will deny that Nintendo made some mistakes with the Wii, but overall it was and is a raging success that has made Nintendo billions of dollars. To say that it 'didn't make business sense' is complete and utter nonsense backed up with pure fanboy drivel and revisionist history.

It's all well and good to discuss and point out the flaws in the strategy of the Wii, but everyone needs to be careful not to focus on the negatives so much and forget that by basically every metric possible, it's a massive success.

 

[Razgreez]

Well, shut the thread down guys. Razgreez has declared the Wii a fad after playing the system a few times. Why bother discussing anymore?




Serious reply: no one will deny that Nintendo made some mistakes with the Wii, but overall it was and is a raging success that has made Nintendo billions of dollars. To say that it 'didn't make business sense' is complete and utter nonsense backed up with pure fanboy drivel and revisionist history.

It's all well and good to discuss and point out the flaws in the strategy of the Wii, but everyone needs to be careful not to focus on the negatives so much and forget that by basically every metric possible, it's a massive success.

Oi, it's my opinion. Am i not allowed to post it? Success is measured over the lifetime of a product, not just its initial years

 

[_Alkaline_]

Oi, it's my opinion. Am i not allowed to post it? Success is measured over the lifetime of a product, not just its initial years

Nintendo took a risk and succeeded. Third parties refused to do so and were left standing still, then complained when little of their stuff sold. Third parties had the opportunity right from the start to create a market for their games to sell, but were too slow and hesitant, and 99% of the initial efforts they did make were poor.

Not to say Nintendo don't deserve criticism - they wanted their system to be perceived as one for a new brand of gamer and succeeded at doing so, which hurt the ability to more traditional games to be part of the console's public image - but third parties were absolutely hopeless with the system and deserve much of the blame.

You can't just blame Nintendo and let that be the end of it.

And if you're measuring a console's success by its lifetime sales, then how is the Wii not a success? It's still selling gangbusters, just not in Japan.