Support NeoGAF

[vanguardian1]

The could still make money with a more powerful console in the 250$ mark, they did it with GC, so the incresed cost is bullshit to me.

And start from scratch was always part of new generation consoles, and the 3rd parties used this to use old PS2 engines and quickly and dirty games, how is this a benefit?...

More games in less time and without investing money in developing tools and all? Yes.
More quality catalogue? No as we are seeing.

And maybe the small size is nice from an aesthetic point of view, but I don't see any real benefit from it...

The only valid benefit from a gamer point of view is the backwards compatibility.

And if Nintendo followed your advice they would be dead last with no hope. And considering how much MS and SONY have lost on their respective consoles, there is NO WAY Nintendo could have come out with a $250 console with a comparable amount of power to the PS3/60 without many significant problems.

 

[botticus]

I will note that the one thing that seems to be missing in the disccusion here is the case of the PS3 or 360 exclusive. If we're going to argue that Western third party games will never be exclusive to Wii due to Wii < 360 + PS3, shouldn't that mean that outside of monetary compensation, there will never be a third party game exclusive to 360 or PS3 once Wii > 360 and Wii > PS3?

So since no one is responding to this are we assuming that all Western third-party games of any relevance are going to be multi-platform (360/PS3) projects?

 

[pgtl_10]

Quotes:

-Yes, in Japan the Wii is selling faster than the PS2 at its point in the lifecycle

-The Wii should be getting Japanese exclusives (ones important to the hardcore Japanese public anyway)

-I think the PS3 will definitely be making slight gains in the next 12 months but it will never overcome the deficit that earned in its first year

-A large reason why the Wii hasn't gotten as many exclusives yet is that the PS2 is still a strong viable platform over there, we're still seeing a lot of games announced for the platform


All observed crows are black.
Therefore:
All crows are black.

People use inductive reasoning in order to predict outcomes (sports,stock markets…) therefore their expectations will be disappointed by the lack of understanding of the situation.



05 Annual Report

Nintendo Co. Ltd

Message from the President

In today´s world people are busy and the time or energy required to play games are seen as a burden.This is why more people are now saying “video games are not for me ”.Our new proposal lowers the barrier of entry for many first time players,regardless of age,gender or culture.Nintendo will expand the videogame market.A new type of machine,which exemplifies our strategy, will be introduced in 2006 when Nintendo´s new game console,code-named Revolution is released.At the time we hope to illustrate to every member of the household that video games can be applicable to them.


Nintendo is not cannibalizing sales of the PS2 or PS3 .Nintendo is expanding the market.Their proposal lowers the barrier of entry for people scared about wasting their precious time while dealing with complex video games. Therefore Wii users are first time players (and Nintendo loyalists).First time players don´t care about hardcore/big franchises and publishers are aware of this.

Publishers are aware that hardcore titles like RE, No More Heroes, Red Steel, and few others have sold well. Sega recently said that the Wii has hardcore market and Namco is releasing TOS while Nintendo actively pursued a deal with Tecmo to release Fatal Frame 4 for Wii.

Take a look at software sales for Wii. Traditional Nintendo titles still outsell most casual games. Mario Party and Wii Sports are the only two that have traditional like success. Even most third party games that sell well on Wii are still traditional. Some publishers are beginning to realize this and act accordingly.

 

[Haunted]

Do you like the satisfaction of getting good at something and accomplishing something?

Like beating Smash Brothers Brawl on hard? Or getting all the purple coins in Galaxy?

Then you're a competitive player.

If you'd like to just hit a button and get flashing lights... well I guess you're like 90% of people.

I'm a pretty competitive guy, as long as it doesn't get into the way of my fun. There's different grades of competitiveness, you know. I imagine you and Firestorm on one extreme end and Mariah Carey on the other or something.

And I think Soul Calibur is fuck awesome.


--

And on a completely unrelated note: do people think Nintendo as a publishing house would be equally successful on other consoles as they are on their own? Like, directly competing with Microsoft's and Sony's 1st party offerings on the same console.

 

[KTallguy]

I'm a pretty competitive guy, as long as it doesn't get into the way of my fun.

Great statement.

Now is it fun if you lose because of the game's controls? Or poor design?

Or is it more fun if you lose once because you made a mistake, which you learn from and don't make the second time, winning instead?

And on a completely unrelated note: do people think Nintendo as a publishing house would be equally successful on other consoles as they are on their own? Like, directly competing with Microsoft's and Sony's 1st party offerings on the same console.

Abso-fucking-lutely.

 

[SexConker]

Nintendo should just release Wii HD in 2009, and give it away to anyone who has a Wii.
This'll only cost them what, like $20 billion.

Do it.

 

[pgtl_10]

Question for Wii owner/advocate? Did you not play gamecube games because they were just N64 games with better graphics? Serious question.

Was their a Wiimote type controller back then that allowed us alternate forms of play?

 

[Haunted]

Great statement.

Now is it fun if you lose because of the game's controls? Or poor design?

Or is it more fun if you lose once because you made a mistake, which you learn from and don't make the second time, winning instead?

I believe we had that conversation already. And don't misunderstand me, I can definitely see where you're coming from, playing competitive games as a measure of skill and deriving your fun from getting better at the game, memorising button combos, training a character's particular moveset etc. I can see the merit in that. I know that it's great fun to do so (*insert obligatory mention of my tag here*).

It's not the be all and end all of gaming, though. I do refuse the notion that it's the only (or best) way to play a game. Or that games who are not only skill-based, but level the playing field by introducing luck-based elements are inherently worse. There's a reason I love playing Strikers, Smash (with items!), Mario Kart and Mario Party with the gf and friends.


edit: We're getting seriously off-topic here, though. Sorry!

Nintendo should just release Wii HD in 2009, and give it away to anyone who has a Wii.
This'll only cost them what, like $20 billion.

Do it.

1440p or bust.

 

[wsippel]

The bottom line is that Nintendo essentially did two things:

1. Made one of the most innovative console moves since the creation of home video game consoles

2. Made a console almost exclusively for where THEY wanted to go and not where the industry wanted to go.

I love the Wii. For me personally it is my favorite out of all three consoles. But in this day and age in the industry, and it is safe to say this after almost 1.5 years, the industry doesn't want to be forced to change. They want GTAIV to largely be like GTAIII. They want Halo3 to largely be like Halo2. And they want Rockin' High Profile Shooter Title to be like Halo3 as well. This is what sells, this is what makes money. The DS succeeded in its quirkiness because at the end of it it was still the only viable handheld (before PSP started to take hold finally). With Wii, the PS3 and 360 are still viable.

I never understood the logic. It's cheaper to develop for the Wii. In the next few months it will have the largest userbase in every territory. You would think it prints money. But the bottom line is that developers DO NOT WANT to try and figure it out. They don't want to take risks on what game mechanics will and won't work on it. They don't want to take risks on what genres will sell on it. They don't want to figure out ways to move assets down to it.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that the Wii was too much at one time. It was essentially like going from the Atari joystick to the modern day controller for most developers. They were used to one stick and a button, and Nintendo gave them two analog sticks, a dpad, 6 face buttons, 4 should buttons and rumble. Everyone thought the developers would be like "Thank you nintendo! Finally someone gave us the tools we need!" Instead developers said "Umm.... fuck that. It's cool, but we're really not going to try and figure out what to do with that."

And why? Because companies like EA, Activision, Take-Two, and Square have built their vast fortunes on releasing new versions of game engines with very little changing in the way of user interaction and play mechanics.

The Wii will end the generation a success, probably the winner, and a great machine. I'm definitely not worried. But it won't be on the backs of Final Fantasy, Madden, GTA, or Tony Hawk. The Wii will succeed because of titles like Zack and Wiki, Trauma Center, No More Heroes, PES 2008, Nintendo published titles, WiiWare, VC, etc.

And that will really be the odd thing about this generation, and far away the most alienating to many hardcore gamers. That for the first time EVER in the industry, the lead console WON'T have the monstrous 3rd party titles on it. That Square and others WON'T be shifting primary support to the hardware leader. This really has to be a scary time for them.... because in this situation it is ripe for a NEW Square, Enix, Take-Two, Activision, etc to rise up on Wii and become a major player the same way those companies did in the past. (I left out EA because they ALWAYS have their hands in everything. Who knows, it could be them?)

People have been right from the start. The Wii is 75% expansion of the industry, 25% serving the existing masses with the classics. If that expansions becomes larger than the hardcore base that currently drives the industry, we could be in for some seriously strange times.

Exactly. This generation might be a new deal when all is said and done - something the industry really needs in my opinion.

 

[KTallguy]

There's a reason I love playing Strikers, Smash (with items!), Mario Kart and Mario Party with the gf and friends.
edit: We're getting seriously off-topic here, though. Sorry!

I love Smash with items too actually

 

[lopaz]

I believe we had that conversation already. And don't misunderstand me, I can definitely see where you're coming from, playing competitive games as a measure of skill and deriving your fun from getting better at the game, memorising button combos, training a character's particular moveset etc. I can see the merit in that. I know that it's great fun to do so (*insert obligatory mention of my tag here*).

It's not the be all and end all of gaming, though. I do refuse the notion that it's the only (or best) way to play a game. Or that games who are not only skill-based, but level the playing field by introducing luck-based elements are inherently worse. There's a reason I love playing Strikers, Smash (with items!), Mario Kart and Mario Party with the gf and friends.

.

Blasphemy! Strikers is not luck. You of all people should know better.

 

[Bending_Unit_22]

I don't agree with the logic behind the conclusions in the OP's analysis. The Wii has a 2:1 lead over the PS3+360 in Japan so it will get some 3rd party exclusives yet it'll soon be the largest single console and holding its own with the HD consoles in the West will earn the Wii no 3rd party exclusives? At this rate what would the Wii have to do to get most 3rd party exclusives, be the sole console in existence?

As for the analysis I have two main problems. First, I don't think it would change things too significantly, but it would be nice to have figures for the rest of the West when you're making the point that the Wii isn't doing well enough in the West. The US, if I'm not mistaken, is just under half the NA+EU market so that's not an insignificant part of the market missing. Again it may not matter much but isn’t the Wii already the lead console in places like the UK, France, and Germany? Also, 3rd party games seem to do better there, though of course software sales weren't part of the analysis but I'm sure they matter more to 3rd parties.

Second, the last graph become less relevant each month. It's one thing if say there are 5 million Wiis and the PS360 totals 10 million, but if say last gen the PS2 was at 100 million and the GCN-Xbox split 105 million between them then that would be an entirely different situation for 3rd parties. Obviously that is not the case today, but it will be closer to it in 2 years when major games planned today come out. This is especially the case if Europe were included. Just because there are 50-60 million PS360's and 40-50 million Wiis doesn't mean 3rd parties will decide to throw everything on the PS360.

I'm not arguing 3rd parties will throw most exclusives, or even a plurality of them, to the Wii but neither do I see why a 3rd party would completely ignore the Wii's 17+million and growing Western install base just because 2 other far more expensive to develop for consoles have 5 or 10 million more systems sold.

 

[Mithos]

If some company really want to make a big name game for Wii such as VF6, Tekken 6, MGS5, DMC5 on wii. People would expect them match the greatness those games on PS3 or 360, it is just not possible given people already played those kind of games on PS360.

NO, but people would DEMAND they did not look like early Playstation 2 or early Gamecube games (like many 3rd party productions do today)

Why do Wii owner keep saying graphic doesn't matter? When it sure does.

How would you react if Konami had made Metal Gear Solid 4 for PS3 with Metal Gear Solid 3 graphics?

This is what Wii owners face on a "daily" basis, developers that make games looking like 1 generation Playstation 2 games,
instead of like last generation Gamecube/Xbox graphics games and beyond.

Edit
fixed some error in the post like wrong developer for wrong console :lol

 

[borghe]

One thing I want to point out in this thread..

there's been a lot of talk about the PS3/360 essentially being a single development entity... The Wii will get JPN exclusives because it is growing larger than PS3+360, but the Wii won't get NA exclusives because it is falling behind PS3+360

but see what's going on here? You are essentially saying PS3 and 360 are the same console. I guarantee you MS and Sony are starting to take notice of this EXACT SAME THING. I promise you they HATE that consumers are starting to think their consoles are interchangeable. It kills branding, creates confusion, and in general leads to lower sales. If this trend continues, you're going to see paid exclusives start coming back into play, at which point a LOT of what's being talked about in this thread will be moot.

I realize it's outside the context of this thread, but that line of thinking is REALLY going to cause some changes to take place differently than what we've generally had for the past 3-4 years or so. MS and Sony can't afford to lose their branding.

Anyway, I'm leaving this thread for good with this. This generation will be the single most interesting generation in video gaming since it first hit homes back in 1979-1983. Everything we've really known and defined gaming with over the last ~25 years is coming to a change. If anything, it's going back to where gaming FIRST started, the mass market (when coinops were in bars and pizzarias played by kids and adults the same). The industry will realign and take focus, and in the process I think you are going to see some big players stumble and see some new big players come up who figure out how to capitalize on this change.

I also chuckle a tiny bit thinking about the typical forum-posting hardcore gamer who is feeling threatened by the fact that their dollar may eventually end up being a very minority voice in the picture of the entire industry.

But whatever. later and enjoy.

 

[bdouble]

I agree with this prediction. Been saying it for a while. It may not affect the AAAA titles like FF13 or MGS4 but for the games after that who knows. In the mean time though it is going to affect the very solid games from much smaller development studios.

Things from Vanillaware for example. Anyone see a game like OMY coming out for the 360 or PS3 soon? I highly doubt it will ever happen unless it was a downloadable but then you won't be getting a full retail experience and production values.

I also see a lot of potential for the side projects. Things like King Story where a thrown together team is flowing in creative juice and wants to take some risks. Why not risk it on a system with lower development costs and a much larger install base of customers that might be interested in such a quirky title.

I see a lot of this type of game coming out. Very unique but at the same time still very game oriented titles. Not just mini game collections. On top of all this you will get the periodic megaton like Monster Hunters. Still I'm skeptical if there will be a major shift.

Although after pretty big titles like Fatal Frame and DQ9 on the DS who can really wants to predict with any kind of certainty where the next Final Fantasy, Resident Evil, Megaman, Dragon Quest, Kingdom Hearts ect ect is going to be.

you're going to see paid exclusives start coming back into play,

Good post only thing is exclusives are already paid for. Bioshock and now even just content for a game GTAIV. You think Capcom gave Nintendo MH3 for free? How about Fatal Frame. Nintendo has made some huge moves in this department and frankly its quite uncharacteristic of them considering the last 2 generations.

They know there is big change coming. I think MS and Sony were caught off guard though. You are right its going to be a very interesting generation of consoles. There won't be a clear winner and we have just seen the begining of shifts in exclusives and money deals in my opinion.

It will be a good time for gaming.

Nintendo should just release Wii HD in 2009, and give it away to anyone who has a Wii.
This'll only cost them what, like $20 billion.

Do it.

Thatd be sweet. Just throw a Cell processor in there for the upscaling. :lol

 

[Jumpman23]

The bottom line is that Nintendo essentially did two things:

1. Made one of the most innovative console moves since the creation of home video game consoles

2. Made a console almost exclusively for where THEY wanted to go and not where the industry wanted to go.

I love the Wii. For me personally it is my favorite out of all three consoles. But in this day and age in the industry, and it is safe to say this after almost 1.5 years, the industry doesn't want to be forced to change. They want GTAIV to largely be like GTAIII. They want Halo3 to largely be like Halo2. And they want Rockin' High Profile Shooter Title to be like Halo3 as well. This is what sells, this is what makes money. The DS succeeded in its quirkiness because at the end of it it was still the only viable handheld (before PSP started to take hold finally). With Wii, the PS3 and 360 are still viable.

I never understood the logic. It's cheaper to develop for the Wii. In the next few months it will have the largest userbase in every territory. You would think it prints money. But the bottom line is that developers DO NOT WANT to try and figure it out. They don't want to take risks on what game mechanics will and won't work on it. They don't want to take risks on what genres will sell on it. They don't want to figure out ways to move assets down to it.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that the Wii was too much at one time. It was essentially like going from the Atari joystick to the modern day controller for most developers. They were used to one stick and a button, and Nintendo gave them two analog sticks, a dpad, 6 face buttons, 4 should buttons and rumble. Everyone thought the developers would be like "Thank you nintendo! Finally someone gave us the tools we need!" Instead developers said "Umm.... fuck that. It's cool, but we're really not going to try and figure out what to do with that."

And why? Because companies like EA, Activision, Take-Two, and Square have built their vast fortunes on releasing new versions of game engines with very little changing in the way of user interaction and play mechanics.

The Wii will end the generation a success, probably the winner, and a great machine. I'm definitely not worried. But it won't be on the backs of Final Fantasy, Madden, GTA, or Tony Hawk. The Wii will succeed because of titles like Zack and Wiki, Trauma Center, No More Heroes, PES 2008, Nintendo published titles, WiiWare, VC, etc.

And that will really be the odd thing about this generation, and far away the most alienating to many hardcore gamers. That for the first time EVER in the industry, the lead console WON'T have the monstrous 3rd party titles on it. That Square and others WON'T be shifting primary support to the hardware leader. This really has to be a scary time for them.... because in this situation it is ripe for a NEW Square, Enix, Take-Two, Activision, etc to rise up on Wii and become a major player the same way those companies did in the past. (I left out EA because they ALWAYS have their hands in everything. Who knows, it could be them?)

People have been right from the start. The Wii is 75% expansion of the industry, 25% serving the existing masses with the classics. If that expansions becomes larger than the hardcore base that currently drives the industry, we could be in for some seriously strange times.

Absolutely brilliant post. Heck, this is thread worthy by itself.

 

[JudgeN]

Exactly. This generation might be a new deal when all is said and done - something the industry really needs in my opinion.

I don't understand this what is that the industry actually needed? Was the 120+ Million PS2 not enough for the industry? I hear about how the Wii is expanding the gaming markets and everyone celebrate but I don't understand, did the industry need expanding in the first place?

 

[KTallguy]

I don't understand this what is that the industry actually needed? Was the 120+ Million PS2 not enough for the industry? I hear about how the Wii is expanding the gaming markets and everyone celebrate but I don't understand, did the industry need expanding in the first place?

I think that the industry needs more acceptance as a legitimate hobby that people of all ages can see value in. Right now games are still seen as playthings for children.

 

[JudgeN]

I think that the industry needs more acceptance as a legitimate hobby that people of all ages can see value in. Right now games are still seen as playthings for children.

Thats something I also never understood why do gamers give a shit what everyone thinks? As a gamer i never cared whether people found gaming stupid or not, its what I like to do just like there are people who play sports or skateboard or etc. Gaming community needed to some balls and not worry about what unimportant people think.

 

[LCGeek]

I don't understand this what is that the industry actually needed? Was the 120+ Million PS2 not enough for the industry? I hear about how the Wii is expanding the gaming markets and everyone celebrate but I don't understand, did the industry need expanding in the first place?

Expansion is always good, but the only reason we are in this generation this late is because of ms not wanting to take a massive hit on the first xbox and they wanted to try hitting sony where it hurts at the beginning of a console cycle.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

I don't agree with the logic behind the conclusions in the OP's analysis. The Wii has a 2:1 lead over the PS3+360 in Japan so it will get some 3rd party exclusives yet it'll soon be the largest single console and holding its own with the HD consoles in the West will earn the Wii no 3rd party exclusives?

He's saying that the Wii should be getting more Japanese exclusives and NOT be getting a lot of Western (i.e. devs from NA or Europe who don't usually get a lot of sales in Japan) exclusives because of the numbers for each region.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

I don't understand this what is that the industry actually needed? Was the 120+ Million PS2 not enough for the industry? I hear about how the Wii is expanding the gaming markets and everyone celebrate but I don't understand, did the industry need expanding in the first place?

Games are getting more and more expensive to produce. If the audience size doesn't increase, then the prices have to, or the budgets have to be scaled back.

 

[Mushashi]

Very true... but this can come back and bite them. Because if the majority of consumers PREFER the new style to the old style.. you are going to end up with a NEW EA creating Wii games that people want to play, and the original EA, Activision, Square, etc left trying to catch up.

The problem with your point about these large publishers needing to catch up is that they are already amongst the most successful publishers on the Wii, EA is largest 3rd party Wii publisher in Europe (15% market share) and 12% share in NA, so why will they need to significantly change their output?

 

[Draft]

The problem with your point about these large publishers needing to catch up is that they are already amongst the most successful publishers on the Wii, EA is largest 3rd party Wii publisher in Europe (15% market share) and 12% share in NA, so why will they need to significantly change their output?

Because like the Wii changes everything maaaan.

 

[Bending_Unit_22]

He's saying that the Wii should be getting more Japanese exclusives and NOT be getting a lot of Western (i.e. devs from NA or Europe who don't usually get a lot of sales in Japan) exclusives because of the numbers for each region.

Really, it sounded to me like he said
"Why the Wii WILL get some 3rd party Japanese exclusives:
Why the Wii WILL NOT get 3rd party Western exclusives:"

Perhaps it should have read
"Why the Wii WILL get more 3rd party Japanese exclusives:
Why the Wii WILL not be getting a lot of 3rd party Western exclusives:"
if that is what he meant to say.

EDIT: Just went back to the original post to get quotes from it:
"The Wii *should* be getting Japanese exclusives (ones important to the hardcore Japanese public anyway) while they should not be getting Western exclusives (ones important to to the hardcore Western public anyway).
We can show that the Wii should be getting Japanese exclusives but WILL NOT be getting Western ones.
Why you can expect Japanese exclusives in the near future:
Why the Wii will not be getting Western exclusives for the entire generation:"

Admittedly, there the main point is a bit confused. At one point Panther seems to be saying the Wii "should not get Western exclusives" which of course is fuzzy and means it could. Later though it is followed with "Wii will not be getting Western exclusives for the entire generation", which is fairly definite with no allowance for the possibility that it might not happen.

 

[Dragmire]

The analysis in the OP is entirely too mathematic, imo. As Wii gains mindshare, it will inevitably garner more and more exclusives from Western devs.

 

[Mushashi]

As Wii gains mindshare, it will inevitably garner more and more exclusives from Western devs.

Of what type? exclusive games targetted at core gamers? or more exclusive casual titles from EA,THQ,Take-Two, etc?

 

[Fredescu]

I never understood the logic. It's cheaper to develop for the Wii. In the next few months it will have the largest userbase in every territory. You would think it prints money. But the bottom line is that developers DO NOT WANT to try and figure it out. They don't want to take risks on what game mechanics will and won't work on it. They don't want to take risks on what genres will sell on it. They don't want to figure out ways to move assets down to it.

I agree with most of your post, but this particular paragraph is contradictory and a common misconception. While the Wii may be cheaper to create graphics and sounds for, taking risks on controls and game mechanics requires a lot more development and testing time, which adds to overall cost. Furthermore, I'd say there are more graphics and music specialists in the field than waggle specialists, so finding talent to extract new and exciting gameplay out of the Wii may even prove more expensive than throwing HD at existing games.

Red Steel was a great example of a development team getting caught up in the romance of motion control in the pre release days of the Wii, and then crashing back down to Earth once we realised that the remote is not actually capable of 1:1 sword combat, zooming the sniper in by moving the remote in and out is frustrating, and that shaking to open doors is just not fun. Sure it was probably rushed for launch or whatever, but lets say it was a 360 game with gamepad controls and perhaps rushed-for-launch graphics instead of controls, it probably would have turned out a mediocre 7/10 game rather than the turd of a 2/10 game that it did.

So beyond shooters, where the pointer is fucking fantastic, and racing games, where the tilt control is mediocre unless the game is built around it, what is there that provides a unique motion-controlled only-possible-on-wii experience? Wii Sports and Zack and Wiki. Even Nintendo has given up making unique remote focused games aimed at casuals and created a new peripheral instead. Given the dearth of the aforementioned games, we'd have to assume that it might not be that developers "DO NOT WANT to try and figure it out." It might also be that they tried and failed. Too much money was poured into "unique gameplay experience!!1" research and they discovered that it just wasn't worth the return on investment. The remote is a lot more limited than the pre launch romance suggested, and Zack and Wiki bombed anyway.

So tl;dr version, creating a unique Wii game is probably not that cheap after all.

 

[bdouble]

I agree with most of your post, but this particular paragraph is contradictory and a common misconception. While the Wii may be cheaper to create graphics and sounds for, taking risks on controls and game mechanics requires a lot more development and testing time, which adds to overall cost. Furthermore, I'd say there are more graphics and music specialists in the field than waggle specialists, so finding talent to extract new and exciting gameplay out of the Wii may even prove more expensive than throwing HD at existing games.

Red Steel was a great example of a development team getting caught up in the romance of motion control in the pre release days of the Wii, and then crashing back down to Earth once we realised that the remote is not actually capable of 1:1 sword combat, zooming the sniper in by moving the remote in and out is frustrating, and that shaking to open doors is just not fun. Sure it was probably rushed for launch or whatever, but lets say it was a 360 game with gamepad controls and perhaps rushed-for-launch graphics instead of controls, it probably would have turned out a mediocre 7/10 game rather than the turd of a 2/10 game that it did.

So beyond shooters, where the pointer is fucking fantastic, and racing games, where the tilt control is mediocre unless the game is built around it, what is there that provides a unique motion-controlled only-possible-on-wii experience? Wii Sports and Zack and Wiki. Even Nintendo has given up making unique remote focused games aimed at casuals and created a new peripheral instead. Given the dearth of the aforementioned games, we'd have to assume that it might not be that developers "DO NOT WANT to try and figure it out." It might also be that they tried and failed. Too much money was poured into "unique gameplay experience!!1" research and they discovered that it just wasn't worth the return on investment. The remote is a lot more limited than the pre launch romance suggested, and Zack and Wiki bombed anyway.

So tl;dr version, creating a unique Wii game is probably not that cheap after all.

Pro Evolution Soccer. I doubt that will be the last game to really utilize the controls in a way not possible in any other console. They will also continue to improve. You mention Red Steel. Well over just a year later someone released Medal of Honor which was a huge step and will be a benchmark for the future.

 

["God's Beard!"]

It probably has something to do with the Wii hardware limitation as well. Do you think Capcom or other companies really want to big hit title like RE5, DMC4, MGS4 on a console that is just slightly better than PS2?

Dragon Quest 9

 

[Haunted]

Blasphemy! Strikers is not luck. You of all people should know better.

You're right. Strikers is all skill, I just wanted to appear modest.

 

[Fredescu]

Pro Evolution Soccer. I doubt that will be the last game to really utilize the controls in a way not possible in any other console. They will also continue to improve.

True. It is largely pointer based though, so a similar experience technically possible on the DS if they wanted to go there. The pointer has some great potential overall though. It's the motion controls that people aren't pushing. Supposedly the throwing mechanism in Boom Blox is interesting too.

You mention Red Steel. Well over just a year later someone released Medal of Honor which was a huge step and will be a benchmark for the future.

I'm not sure what point you're making. I think the Wii has great potential for shooters, and it's a pity that it won't get all that many simply because if you like console shooters you have a 360 and the publishers know it. It was the extraneous shit in Red Steel that made it annoying. Did you play it? Did you ever zoom in with the sniper? Get annoyed each time a sword fight came up that was just an excercise in call and response? Get sick of shaking the nunchuck to open a door?

 

[Haunted]

One thing I want to point out in this thread..

there's been a lot of talk about the PS3/360 essentially being a single development entity... The Wii will get JPN exclusives because it is growing larger than PS3+360, but the Wii won't get NA exclusives because it is falling behind PS3+360

but see what's going on here? You are essentially saying PS3 and 360 are the same console. I guarantee you MS and Sony are starting to take notice of this EXACT SAME THING. I promise you they HATE that consumers are starting to think their consoles are interchangeable. It kills branding, creates confusion, and in general leads to lower sales. If this trend continues, you're going to see paid exclusives start coming back into play, at which point a LOT of what's being talked about in this thread will be moot.

I realize it's outside the context of this thread, but that line of thinking is REALLY going to cause some changes to take place differently than what we've generally had for the past 3-4 years or so. MS and Sony can't afford to lose their branding.

Anyway, I'm leaving this thread for good with this. This generation will be the single most interesting generation in video gaming since it first hit homes back in 1979-1983. Everything we've really known and defined gaming with over the last ~25 years is coming to a change. If anything, it's going back to where gaming FIRST started, the mass market (when coinops were in bars and pizzarias played by kids and adults the same). The industry will realign and take focus, and in the process I think you are going to see some big players stumble and see some new big players come up who figure out how to capitalize on this change.

Damn. I want to subscribe to your newsletter.

I also chuckle a tiny bit thinking about the typical forum-posting hardcore gamer who is feeling threatened by the fact that their dollar may eventually end up being a very minority voice in the picture of the entire industry.

But whatever. later and enjoy.

may? eventually? heh. The hardcore gamer is most vocal in the gaming community, but without a doubt really really small in the big picture.

 

[LCGeek]

I'm not sure what point you're making. I think the Wii has great potential for shooters, and it's a pity that it won't get all that many simply because if you like console shooters you have a 360 and the publishers know it. It was the extraneous shit in Red Steel that made it annoying. Did you play it? Did you ever zoom in with the sniper? Get annoyed each time a sword fight came up that was just an excercise in call and response? Get sick of shaking the nunchuck to open a door?

I actually liked the aspect of opening doors though the amount of shaking needs to be made more sensitive as a decent wave is just fine.

 

[bdouble]

True. It is largely pointer based though, so a similar experience technically possible on the DS if they wanted to go there. The pointer has some great potential overall though. It's the motion controls that people aren't pushing. Supposedly the throwing mechanism in Boom Blox is interesting too.


I'm not sure what point you're making. I think the Wii has great potential for shooters, and it's a pity that it won't get all that many simply because if you like console shooters you have a 360 and the publishers know it. It was the extraneous shit in Red Steel that made it annoying. Did you play it? Did you ever zoom in with the sniper? Get annoyed each time a sword fight came up that was just an excercise in call and response? Get sick of shaking the nunchuck to open a door?

No never played it I probably would have gotten way too frustrated anyways. The point I'm saying that I think the controls are just begining to be figured out. They don't just have potential for shooter they have potential everywhere. Just like visuals for the 360 and PS3 the Wii has a lot of untapped potential with its unique controller. The devs just have to find the limits and effective ways to use it.

Shooters are just one place they have gotten it right already. Ubisoft might have had the vision but didn't have the time to tweak them enough to do what they wanted. We still haven't seen an actual 3rd person shooter on the Wii. I don't know why but where is the game like Jet Force Gemini. I mean a game like Scarface had decent 3rd person shooter controls and isn't a real dedicated shooter. Now how about expand on them make a cover system and actual environments around those controls. Its mind boggling to me why they haven't done so yet.

I do agree with you though that it might push up the dev costs but really do you think that will close the huge gap in cost of a Wii game to that of a 360 title?

 

[vanguardian1]

I'm not sure what point you're making. I think the Wii has great potential for shooters, and it's a pity that it won't get all that many simply because if you like console shooters you have a 360 and the publishers know it. It was the extraneous shit in Red Steel that made it annoying. Did you play it? Did you ever zoom in with the sniper? Get annoyed each time a sword fight came up that was just an excercise in call and response? Get sick of shaking the nunchuck to open a door?

Unfortunately for me, I'm one of those who was never able to downgrade from keyboard/mouse to gamepads for FPS games. So despite it's problems, Red Steel was the first time I've ever actually enjoyed playing an FPS on a console. (4 player split-screen multiplayer helped too)

 

[LCGeek]

I agree with most of your post, but this particular paragraph is contradictory and a common misconception. While the Wii may be cheaper to create graphics and sounds for, taking risks on controls and game mechanics requires a lot more development and testing time, which adds to overall cost. Furthermore, I'd say there are more graphics and music specialists in the field than waggle specialists, so finding talent to extract new and exciting gameplay out of the Wii may even prove more expensive than throwing HD at existing games.

Red Steel was a great example of a development team getting caught up in the romance of motion control in the pre release days of the Wii, and then crashing back down to Earth once we realised that the remote is not actually capable of 1:1 sword combat, zooming the sniper in by moving the remote in and out is frustrating, and that shaking to open doors is just not fun. Sure it was probably rushed for launch or whatever, but lets say it was a 360 game with gamepad controls and perhaps rushed-for-launch graphics instead of controls, it probably would have turned out a mediocre 7/10 game rather than the turd of a 2/10 game that it did.

So beyond shooters, where the pointer is fucking fantastic, and racing games, where the tilt control is mediocre unless the game is built around it, what is there that provides a unique motion-controlled only-possible-on-wii experience? Wii Sports and Zack and Wiki. Even Nintendo has given up making unique remote focused games aimed at casuals and created a new peripheral instead. Given the dearth of the aforementioned games, we'd have to assume that it might not be that developers "DO NOT WANT to try and figure it out." It might also be that they tried and failed. Too much money was poured into "unique gameplay experience!!1" research and they discovered that it just wasn't worth the return on investment. The remote is a lot more limited than the pre launch romance suggested, and Zack and Wiki bombed anyway.

So tl;dr version, creating a unique Wii game is probably not that cheap after all.

Are you trying to argue that spending time with refining controls is costing more time and effort than what comes out what HD games need period? For the record making control schemes for any game is hard just far easier and direct to use traditional controls which have had nearly 20 years of evolution vs a new method to consoles developers that they aren't enthusastic about doing let alone really have an interest in. Jobs suck when you don't have a real motivation to excell. Unless you got numbers don't make an argument claming it's harder and almost more expensive to make a unique Wii game than a HD full budget title.

BTW you mentioning Red steel points out exactly why devs need to regroup and rethink shit out. It's fucking sad that konami, sega, and ea out fucking did ubisoft in a genre when it comes to fp setups that work for the genre. Nintendo never promised 1:1 to controls in the way people sensationalized it, reminds of how people put words in to sony's mouth over ps2 graphics and what it could do. 1:1 to sucks in actuality and it has no place in games same for other idealistic aspect devs or gamers desire. Yes I want my motions replicated but done in a way unique to the game universe. I'm not pro driver, a football player, fighter on any level, let alone the multititudes of roles a game makes me assume. 1:1 means a certain level of realism would always be part of the equation you want a realitive system if you had 1:1 you'd be better off dealing with reality.

 

[dkeane]

Unfortunately for me, I'm one of those who was never able to downgrade from keyboard/mouse to gamepads for FPS games. So despite it's problems, Red Steel was the first time I've ever actually enjoyed playing an FPS on a console. (4 player split-screen multiplayer helped too)

That's similar to my experience. Metroid Prime 3 was the first console FPS that I really felt comfortable with the controls.

 

[LCGeek]

Unfortunately for me, I'm one of those who was never able to downgrade from keyboard/mouse to gamepads for FPS games. So despite it's problems, Red Steel was the first time I've ever actually enjoyed playing an FPS on a console. (4 player split-screen multiplayer helped too)

IF you have 360 and don't mind diy mods or things that require effort get XIM makes fps gaming just about as close to pc as you can get well it is a pc experience.. Not having a pc of a power level I like is really hurting then again ain't no machine running my game crysis at 60fps as an average or minimum in benchmarks.

 

[Ydahs]

Woah. Great job Panther. A really interesting post.

 

[wsippel]

That's similar to my experience. Metroid Prime 3 was the first console FPS that I really felt comfortable with the controls.

Same here. And I say that as a console FPS fan since the early days - as in Wolfenstein3D. Console FPS just suck on any other platform. And graphics, phyiscs and AI won't help if the control scheme just sucks.

 

[bdouble]

I'm not pro driver, a football player, fighter on any level, let alone the multititudes of roles a game makes me assume. 1:1 means a certain level of realism would always be part of the equation you want a realitive system if you had 1:1 you'd be better off dealing with reality.

Exactly. I don't think anyone that wants 1:1 sword movement is actually proficient in handling a 2 foot long blade of any kind. Not to mention this 1:1 thing would be require a lot of processing power and procedurally generated real time content by the console.

Things like momentum of not only the hand your swinging around but the body and how it reacts to things. The sheer amount of content that would have to be processed and created on the fly to create an on screen avatar doing what you want it to do in a single swinging motion would be insane. Not to mention linking that to another swing which would be an incredible feat to pull off.

To me it just doesn't seem realistically possible unless you wanted the sword arm to be detached from the actual body. Imagine Wii sports and if the characters had arms. They would look like jelly with no bone structure or muscles. They would just follow the bat around. To me that doesn't seem that great.

 

[Fredescu]

Are you trying to argue that spending time with refining controls is costing more time and effort than what comes out what HD games need period?

No, I'm trying to argue that "taking risks on gameplay mechanics" is automatically an extra cost of Wii development for that kind of game. The poster I was responding to was asking for more than a simple "refining" and I was pointing out that the extra cost involved with this needs to be taken into consideration when saying "developing for the Wii is cheaper!" Sure it's cheaper to create graphics and sound assets, but if you're asking for a games core design philosophy to throw out 20 years of evolution as you say, that will take longer and will cost more money.

More than creating HD assets though? The question is far too complex to answer that. Every project is different. It's what, a month per car in GT5 or something? That's an extreme example, but at least that's a known quantity. "Create me new and fun game mechanics out of motion controls, go!" is an unknown quantity with no guaranteed return, not to mention opportunity costs of taking up paid resources who could be working on known quantities with more or less guaranteed returns.

We may get great motion controlled games, but they will cost money, which is why I think the "Wii games are cheaper" argument is silly. There is always risk involved, even for something as simple as research, and you can bet that the big pubs are able to quantify that risk into a dollar amount. Besides, don't we actually want big budget Wii games? I know I do. You can bet SMGs budget was huge. Some of that from third parties please, and less "taking advantage" of the casual market by making games on a low budget.

 

[My6cats]

Big Japanese titles released and to be released on the PS3, Xbox 360, and Wii:



Devil may cry 4 - PS3/Xbox 360

Resident Evil 5 - PS3/ Xbox 360

Dynasty warrior 6 - PS3/ Xbox 360

Yakuza 3 - PS3

Final Fantasy 13 - PS3

Final Fantasy 13 versus - PS3

Persona 4 - PS2

MGS4 - PS3

Silent hill 5 - PS3

Ace combat 6 - Xbox 360

Tales of Vesperia - Xbox 360

The last remnant - PS3/Xbox 360


The only big game I see for the Wii is Monster hunter 3. Anyone care to add?

just editing your list
Devil may cry 4 - PS3/Xbox 360

Resident Evil 5 - PS3/ Xbox 360

Dynasty warrior 6 - PS3/ Xbox 360

Yakuza 3 - PS3

Valkyria Chronicles - PS3

Final Fantasy 13 - PS3

Final Fantasy 13 versus - PS3

Persona 4 - PS2

MGS4 - PS3

Silent hill 5 - PS3/ Xbox 360

Ace combat 6 - Xbox 360

Tales of Vesperia - Xbox 360

The last remnant - PS3/Xbox 360

 

[icecream]

Thats the whole friggin point i added it because most of what was listed werent or isnt that big.

I sympathize with your points, but you doubt the sale potential of the next main Tales series and then suggest ToS: RoK will do well?

y2kev and durante - as a 360 owner since 1/06 and a jrpg gamer since Phantasy Star on the master system christmas of 1989, I have to disagree. Eternal Sonata is not generic, but it isn't a great effort either. Lost Odyssey on the other hand is incredibly generic for a jrpg. Any more generic and I would have to break out the paint-by-numbers euphemism. Is it fun to play? Sure... but I promise you there won't be much of an impression left months down the line from now.

To not mention your bias against WRPGs, you simply wrote off a B-class JRPG (Eternal Sonata) and a JRPG that by its very definition is supposed to be classic and generic. Lost Odyssey isn't trying to innovate anything, it just does what it knows well.

While the perception of the quality of the 360's J-RPGs are debatable, having some at a moment when other consoles do not is hardly a negative. Nor is the situation static... when the other consoles begin to release their high-profile J-RPGs, the 360 will have newer, comparable J-RPGs of its own. It's a positive situation for everyone.

 

[poppabk]

Unfortunately for me, I'm one of those who was never able to downgrade from keyboard/mouse to gamepads for FPS games. So despite it's problems, Red Steel was the first time I've ever actually enjoyed playing an FPS on a console. (4 player split-screen multiplayer helped too)

Me to, I rented MOH:Vanguard, not a great game, extremely short and has horrendous motion controls (although they are very customizable), but I enjoyed it more than when I played 8 player Halo LAN. Playing Halo was a lesson in frustration, I could not get the hang of using a controller, and my lack of control for some reason prevented me from learning the levels so I would just wander round aimlessly. Goldeneye on N64 same story. So two classic FPS games and one piece of shit FPS game and I enjoyed playing the latter more.

 

[LCGeek]

No, I'm trying to argue that "taking risks on gameplay mechanics" is automatically an extra cost of Wii development for that kind of game. The poster I was responding to was asking for more than a simple "refining" and I was pointing out that the extra cost involved with this needs to be taken into consideration when saying "developing for the Wii is cheaper!" Sure it's cheaper to create graphics and sound assets, but if you're asking for a games core design philosophy to throw out 20 years of evolution as you say, that will take longer and will cost more money.

More than creating HD assets though? The question is far too complex to answer that. Every project is different. It's what, a month per car in GT5 or something? That's an extreme example, but at least that's a known quantity. "Create me new and fun game mechanics out of motion controls, go!" is an unknown quantity with no guaranteed return, not to mention opportunity costs of taking up paid resources who could be working on known quantities with more or less guaranteed returns.

We may get great motion controlled games, but they will cost money, which is why I think the "Wii games are cheaper" argument is silly. There is always risk involved, even for something as simple as research, and you can bet that the big pubs are able to quantify that risk into a dollar amount. Besides, don't we actually want big budget Wii games? I know I do. You can bet SMGs budget was huge. Some of that from third parties please, and less "taking advantage" of the casual market by making games on a low budget.

True that is a risk but heaven forbid devs try to change game mechanics which largely are the same since the beginning despite their evolution. Actually I don't want them to change mechanics automatically I want them to see how the controls fit and then take it from there. As if fps games need a real change, despite what hatas or casuals think. I'm glad I've seen what devs have proven can and cant work with this genre but one thing's for sure dual analog isn't touching the percision or kind of movement advantages it offers. Mp3 and MOH are proof enough this genre can excell if realleffort were applied to all aspects of the game. Again to state my point you're changing control not mechanics granted the two play heavily in to each other devs who cannot understand this grey are really don't deserve my money on Wii or 360.

HD games are certainly going to cost more more money than a system that is old in tech and is only making you learn one new thing. The amount of art and programming increases aren't going to be out done by how many more people are needed for making Wii controls work. To be honest the industry needs more polishing people to lessen the lack of quality I've seen in games since 3d gaming start.

There are no gurantee's either devs can't just make the same exact game over and over you need to refine or your audience dies, that's good change not bad epic.

I want big budget titles or just titles where the budget is limiting how a developer can make a Wii title. I don't need what an ff or mgs games gets but the level of effort applied I would say is less than well made hand held or indie pc titles I play and which I play far less for.

 

[bdouble]

No, I'm trying to argue that "taking risks on gameplay mechanics" is automatically an extra cost of Wii development for that kind of game. The poster I was responding to was asking for more than a simple "refining" and I was pointing out that the extra cost involved with this needs to be taken into consideration when saying "developing for the Wii is cheaper!" Sure it's cheaper to create graphics and sound assets, but if you're asking for a games core design philosophy to throw out 20 years of evolution as you say, that will take longer and will cost more money.

More than creating HD assets though? The question is far too complex to answer that. Every project is different. It's what, a month per car in GT5 or something? That's an extreme example, but at least that's a known quantity. "Create me new and fun game mechanics out of motion controls, go!" is an unknown quantity with no guaranteed return, not to mention opportunity costs of taking up paid resources who could be working on known quantities with more or less guaranteed returns.

We may get great motion controlled games, but they will cost money, which is why I think the "Wii games are cheaper" argument is silly. There is always risk involved, even for something as simple as research, and you can bet that the big pubs are able to quantify that risk into a dollar amount. Besides, don't we actually want big budget Wii games? I know I do. You can bet SMGs budget was huge. Some of that from third parties please, and less "taking advantage" of the casual market by making games on a low budget.

Still though you can't really think just because new controls are needed that a game on the Wii will even come close to a major title on the 360 or PS3. Even if the Wii title was a huge title. I highly doubt Retros budget is as big as say Insomniacs for Resistance 2 or a Killzone. You take the top game from the Wii with amazing controls (yet to be really seen) and take a top tier game from the PS3, I just find it hard to say they would even be in the same ball park for development cost.

Your saying you can't leave out the additions well you can't leave out the fact the Wii has the same exact architecture as the GC either. So if the developer had previous experience the programing might be a lot cheaper than if it was different. Then you go the other way and say PS3 and 360 are totally new so increases in cost there. In the end though again I just don't see any way Wii's dev cost will come close.

There are so many factors though that we won't ever know about. Until I hear other wise from what I've heard so far its significantly more expensive to make a game on the 360/PS3 than a last gen system (like multiples of last gen) so I assume that's true for to Wii games as well. At least to some degree. We keep hearing budgets thrown around for sequels that double or triple their last gen counterpart. Not saying someone couldn't spend 50 million on a Wii game but would it really be worth it? Diminishing returns has to kick in at some point.

 

[Proven]

I don't understand this what is that the industry actually needed? Was the 120+ Million PS2 not enough for the industry? I hear about how the Wii is expanding the gaming markets and everyone celebrate but I don't understand, did the industry need expanding in the first place?

This goes into off-topic territory, but one single reason to care about the perception of video games would be to avoid more Hot Coffee fiascos. Not only about how a game is rated Mature and still given to kids, but also about how games are made and set up to avoid confusion between putting something in there intentionally and unintentionally.

 

[LCGeek]

Still though you can't really think just because new controls are needed that a game on the Wii will even come close to a major title on the 360 or PS3. Even if the Wii title was a huge title. I highly doubt Retros budget is as big as say Insomniacs for Resistance 2 or a Killzone. You take the top game from the Wii with amazing controls (yet to be really seen) and take a top tier game from the PS3, I just find it hard to say they would even be in the same ball park for development cost.

Your saying you can't leave out the additions well you can't leave out the fact the Wii has the same exact architecture as the GC either. So if the developer had previous experience the programing might be a lot cheaper than if it was different. Then you go the other way and say PS3 and 360 are totally new so increases in cost there. In the end though again I just don't see any way Wii's dev cost will come close.

There are so many factors though that we won't ever know about. Until I hear other wise from what I've heard so far its significantly more expensive to make a game on the 360/PS3 than a last gen system (like multiples of last gen) so I assume that's true for to Wii games as well. At least to some degree. We keep hearing budgets thrown around for sequels that double or triple their last gen counterpart. Not saying someone couldn't spend 50 million on a Wii game but would it really be worth it? Diminishing returns has to kick in at some point.

Actually Wii and GC do not have the same architecture more leaks and leaks have been coming out and I'm honestly wondering what nintendo has to lose on this issue. They do devs can't claim it's really a souped a gc on xbox's level, yet as usual showing how much they really know as usualy. A little leaked happened over the past few weeks over a confusion of the tev and what it can do. The leaked showed things have changed within the gpu, not dramatically though more like superset things needed to make performance claims. The cpu isn't the same, the gpu clearly isn't as more people talk about it, gddr3 isn't the same and about the only thing that is the same is the original 24MB ram module but even that was swapped up for a better version of what the company offers. Nintendo does this and they could give a massive stfu to both devs and disillusioned gamers both in the press or in general.

They share the same rendering api and component layouts to a degree after if you actually knew what was in both fully you'd be quite suprised.