f13.net

"This is the deep-dish, delicious irony endured by the Nintendo stalwart: to see their platform of choice ascendant, even as their bright God turns his face away."

Truth.  Fuck Nintendo, and fuck my life.

(http://www.yegolev.com/f13/images/reggie.jpg)

wat?

The point being is that there was an army of mole people (myself among them) who desired nothing more than Nintendo to reclaim its throne of destiny.  These people have finally been vindicated, but it has been a pyrrhic victory.  I'm finished with Nintendo.  I guess I'll buy a PS3.  If nothing else I'll have a nice blue ray player. 

Basically that Nintendo has abandoned their date who brought 'em to the dance.  They're focusing exclusively on the casual market and ignoring their traditional market.

I tend to think that when the Wii fad blows over this is going to bite them in the ass like no one's business because they're tossing away the loyalty of their hardcore in favor of a demographic that is inherently not comprised of gamers, and who are fickle to boot.

I think they're fine for this generation.  What are they going to do for their next system?  This is one trick pony bullshit. 


But are you fucking kidding me?  I could name ten kickass game ideas for them to do off the top of my head without breaking a sweat.  This is fucking garbage.

Yep, that's what I meant.  I give this generation (for Nintendo at least) two more years at most, considering that Nintendo started off at the gate looking long in the tooth.

Nintendo needed to implode as a hardware manufacturer and just go the Sega route.  Could you imagine Mario, Zelda, and Metroid on systems with actual decent hardware rather than a non-HD overclocked Gamecube?  It'd be fucking spectacular.

Dude, all Nintendo had to do was announce "Mother 3" or "Kid Icarus" or one of a dozen other things to placate the internet nerds.  I guess I'm rooting for them to fail now.  Maybe then they'll start making new properties and I'll finally be able to play Mario on a PS4.

Been saying that since the N64 :(

In two years, Nintendo will offer new colors for the Wii and there will be a mad rush for Onyx and Cobalt, plus matching controllers.  Pokemon will remain on the DS.  18 months or so, we might see a non-tethered Nunchuck.

Nintendo doesn't have a reason to change anything.

Fortunately for them they didn't listen to you guys.

The biggest problem has been that the hard-core game types that would most benefit from the Wiimote motion sensing, the sensitivity and precision of the Wiimote wasn't high enough to actually do, so no revolutionary FPS or lightsaber/sword games.  The new Motion-Plus addon should help with that, and Nintendo is saying future versions of the Wiimote (http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=190125) may have that built in as a standard.

--Dave

Doubtful.  They will say it's too "complicated" for their userbase.  Puke.

Nah, I'm sure they will make incremental improvements.  Miyamoto still has a little ambition left.  It will be nice to get a better Wiimote, my sofa is just a few inches too far to make it easy to use the pointer in older games.  Newer ones have better software handling of the pointer, and if the accelerometers are accurate enough, we will probably get a lightsaber game that wasn't developed by Grasshopper Manufacture.

Once Nintendo runs out of big flagship properties they haven't released games for on the Wii yet and the gaming media manages to pry their heads out of Nintendo's ass it'll be Gamecube 2. Well, if the Gamecube was explosively popular for its first year or two. They're sitting pretty regardless however as they've actually made a profit. Sony is in the hole, and Microsoft is double that in the hole.

Xbox 360 is turning a profit.

PS3 lost about a billion dollars.

Wii is doing the best of all, but gets no respect. Not even from Nintendo.

And you pathetic fuckers dare to mock my pc gaming allegiance?

Loltendo.

http://nintendoe32008.ytmnd.com/

I say release motion controllers for a PC, I got a sweet 40inch monitor that would rock with motion controllable games.

I'd wager that damn near everyone here is a PC gamer.  We're just not so pathetic that we will only play on that platform.

I listen to a lot of podcasts at work, and PC Gamer is one of them.  The continuing wailing and gnashing of teeth from the diehards who produce that show about how the PC is circling the drain is perversely entertaining to me.

Ok, so I'm broke.  :awesome_for_real:

Now that I can understand.  I just don't get the whole chip on the shoulder that a lot of PC gamers seem to have nowadays.  PC gaming is due for a major renaissance in the next few years, and shit like Steam is the way forward.  The PC is still the lab where funky gameplay and independent development can work without restraints.

On the other hand, some of the best, most polished gaming out there is on the consoles.  I'm of two mindsets when it comes to gaming.  For the most part, my strategy games and my shooters get played on the PC.  RPG's are a toss up, and action/music games get played on the console.  These platforms can coexist quite well with one another.

Right. Not really the thread for it, but that's where a lot of my recent griping about Bioware is coming from. With stuff like DA being announced for the 360, the core pc stuff from the golden age of pc is really getting hit in the shitter: Oblivion/Morrowind, KotOR/ME/DA, it seems the only people still interested in developing deep rpg for the pc are in Europe.

I'm not a fan of steam or online activation: see Flagship. I can still go grab my old games and play them without worrying whether the developer is still in business or not. I think steam is fine, as long as they do a stardock and allow you to get a copy of physical media, too. Me, I buy through amazon.

Ha ha this thread is full of Geldons.


Keep telling yourself that.

I never said that, I'm just quietly dreaming for their doom.

Cant you do that for someone who deserves it like Sony or EA?

Fuck, they both have deserved it since 2000 or so. And only get worse as the years pass.

EA's changed it's tune since Riccitiello took the helm.  If anything, I'm more sympathetic to EA then I am to Activision these days.  I'm certainly more sympathetic to them than I am Nintendo.

Everything I hear from the inside indicates that EA is serious about its change of heart, that they've finally realized eating your young is not a sustainable business model.  At least as far as third-party/wholy owned developers go, their console sports franchises are still fueled by the bitter tears of recent CS graduates.

--Dave

Microsoft's Gaming division is 7 billion in the hole IIRC.

Nintendo can always fall back on their handhelds when/if the Wii bubble bursts.

Hell, I didn't think Pokemon would last as long as it has, who knows how long N can ride the Wii? (Fucking innuendo writes iteslf.  :ye_gods:)

There's no loyalty in gaming. Remember when Nintendo was awesome? Then Sega was awesome? Then Nintendo again? Then Sony? Then MS? Then Nintendo?

"What have you done for me lately" is how it works.

And people said I was mad, mad I tell you, when I predicted Nintendo would become number 1 and Sony might fall all the way to the bottom this generation.  Admittedly, I didn't expect the PS3 to lose out to the PS2 (which it does, even if you only count those sold since the PS3 launch).  They all laughed at me down at the institute, laughed!  Who's laughing now, bitches?

Sony and Microsoft fell in love with the idea of becoming the miracle set-top-box, people would websurf, email, watch premium TV shows, and occasionally play a game from their little trojan boxes, and eventually they would control all media, not just video games.  Sony was especially megalomaniacal about it, jumping 2 generations of technology with the Cell processor, instead of just one.

I think it says something when many of the most popular games on the consoles require custom hardware, and you're expected to patch your games.  Something along the lines of "I am now a crippled PC."

--Dave

I really don't think Nintendo abandoned its audience.  I think it's former audience grew up.  Now it found a new one. 

EA can go die in a 3-install-limit DRM-and-region-lockout fire.

Didn't I link to this here already?

http://malstrom.50webs.com/birdman.html

And only 1-2 decent games have been released too.  There hasn't been a "deep RPG for the pc" in 6-7 years.

Witcher?

Nintendo has it's fingers on the pulse of the gaming public (http://www.nintendo.com/games/detail/B8idfLzsswVSr6GqSTcJcJN1QLfMJoZ2).

I don't know if you did or not.  I tried to read that, but there were a lot of words.  Sooooo I stopped.

If I can summarily generalize where I think that rambling blog was going, I think It would have eventually led me to a place where I could agree with it (and you).

Summary:

One day, Nintendo kids will grow up too and want to play games that my old ass likes.  This will bolster the market for 'upmarket' games.

Ergo, even though I'd sooner stick a Wavebird up my ass than play most games for the Wii, it is still a good thing for me in the long run because I play 'upmarket' games.

Very cool, thank you.

--Dave

The people who hated the Wii two years ago are STILL saying it will crash and burn?  You people are so full of cosmic wrongness that if you wished death on me I would instantly gain immortality. 

Not so much that it'll crash and burn, but it won't last.  The problem with the Wii is trying to sell games to non-gamers.  Look at Boomblox, which by anyone's definition is a fantastic game that would have done great on either the 360 or PS3.  Wii?  60,000 sales only for the first week.  That's for a game that Steven Spielberg had a hand in creating and was decently hyped.

Basically, unless it's complete shovelware where the developer's expectations are nil to begin with or it's a first party Nintendo game, sales for the Wii are pathetic.

And when you're talking about non-gamers you're also talking about people who are easily distractible by the next fad to come along.  These people aren't attached to gaming because they never were gamers in the first place.  Shit, by Nintendo's definition my father is a gamer because he plays some piddly little flash fishing game every once in a while.

That is one of his conclusions. the tl;dr version is that no one was making quality "introductory" level games anymore, and Nintendo cashed in on that.

And one of his predictions is that Nintendo will swim "upstream" with their consumers to compete with Sony and Microsoft gradually. As you say, they are grooming the next wave of hardcore gamers.

The problem with that is that Nintendo has always had difficulties with the upmarket. From mature content (Mortal Kombat) through adopting new hardware (CD versus cartridge) and public perception. So unless they have a good strategy, this may indeed be a bubble that will burst and leave Nintendo back at square one- again.

TL;DR.

To be fair, Raph would say the same about your father too, but that's neither here nor there.

I remember when the birdman read was originally linked here and I loved reading it, but I think it does potentially have the fatal flaw of thinking that Nintendo will have a sufficient fans for the "upmarket" whenever it is they go there in force.  Just because people love the Wii does not mean that they are, in fact, going to become interested in the "more filling, satisfying" type of games that we lifelong gamers have loved.  If Nintendo does nothing to retain their core-gamers now and does not end up creating enough new ones to replace those lost, they will find themselves in the same place as Sega, where they have a legion of fans who dearly love what they had but just do not have any interest in what the company does because of how jilted they feel.

Personally, and speaking from the perspective of somebody who is a zelda and metroid fanatic, I really don't see myself caring much about Nintendo within the next year or two if they do not do some serious rethinking about things I need to remain loyal to their company, stuff like online multiplayer, improved graphical fidelity, and deeper gameplay.

Sony is trying their hardest to build up their first-party to match Nintendo's in terms of game design and polish; Nintendo should worry about this, because Sony can definitely pull it off.

Overall, I think Nintendo is becoming too proud of what they have accomplished, and while it is certainly not damaging to their pocketbooks, they will have lost a lot of the loyalty that was built up since the NES days, and the tragedy is that they still will not care.

And it's working..

How people can say that the wii "won't last" when the system is well over a year old and (at least in NA) is still selling more than the 360 and ps3 combined and is now the #1 console on the market?  It was cute when the wii started and you could call it hype but after 1.5 years and 10.7 million units sold it's not just hype anymore.

I'm sorry you feel violated by Nintendo but get over it.  Nintendo found a huge, and untapped market that both Microsoft and Sony have spent 4 years marketing themselves out of and it is not going to be easy for either of them to get their name associated with that market again.  Nintendo knows what their market wants and how to deliver it to them, are succeeding, and will continue to succeed for a long time as they print more and more money hats that MS and Sony can only dream of having.

Why does Sony deserve it?

It's the #1 console for people who want to "play the bowling game".  Their attachment rate otherwise is less than stellar.

I own a Wii.  I have nothing at all against Nintendo, but they really aren't in the same market as MS and Sony are in.  I think by tying themselves into the fickle non-gamer market and alienating what core base they had left that they're seriously setting themselves up for failure down the road.

Right now they're doing great because they make money off of the hardware.  In the future???  Well, they'll still have the handheld market.

As some that actually works for one of these stupid game stores, I can tell you that N's first-party stuff sells great...everything else sells like garbage.

And really, when you look at the Wii game library, there's not much there beyond when Nintendo makes themselves.

I think your missing the real point.

Take the example of kids physical education. If you do it and you think "I'm grooming the next generation of sports stars" would you feel like a failure if only a few of them go on to compete in sport on a serious level? Maybe you would but the truth is only a minority of people will become interested in that. Other people will content themselves with jogging to keep fit or having the odd kick around with a ball. You might call that bing a failure but in truth having all those people keeping fit is a success.

Now look at it this way. If someone is pushing out quality simple games, you might think "ha haa, Ze vill all come to love Oblivion" when in fact some or even most wont. They will be perfectly happy bouncing a viritual ball pack and forth. However some will become interested in more deeper gaming. Not all of them, but some. And those some will mean that the market for deeper games will grow, because suddenly more people will be looking for them.

Hell, another forum I go to has simple games like snake on it and people have tournaments on them. The whole area of flash games are ignored by gaming snobs but they are still enormously successful, and frankly great fun.

Well, both Microsoft AND Sony deserve some pain for attempting to push this settop box shit. Both consoles are basically a move towards controlling everything that goes in/out of your TV.

I don't expect the upmarket guys to stop looking down their noses at "simple" games, but it's true that there are people who like to play games, but arent' interested in Super-Complex-Fighting-Simulator-XXVI, or Brown Vietnam: The Graphics Hog. And there's no shame in making games for them.

Is it supposed to, though? Seriously, the Wii is not a 10-year lifecycle, like Sony tries to portray the PS3 as. It will be replaced with another newest greatest HD motion-control thing (and hopefully one that embraces a hard drive and some goddamn online capabilities) in what, 2 years tops? Year 5 of the Wii will be year 1 of the Wii 2.0 HD. The Wii is not working on the same business model as the PS3 or the 360, and it chaps hardcore gamers' hides. Meanwhile, I eat my popcorn and laugh.

I'd love it if the Wii would actually make more games that take real advantage of the motion controls in genres that I enjoy more, like sword-fighting FPS's, MMOG's and more solid sports sims. It doesn't, because it makes more money with other things. Is the casual market fickle? You bet your ass it is. That doesn't mean it can't be a solid foundation for a business plan.

You are incorrect. The attachment rate is as high or higher than the PS3.

With such a short lifecycle they seem to run the real risk of saturation. Most of the people who would buy a Wii are not the type to fork out for a replacement within such a short window; or at least that's what I assume. Is this a valid impression?

Possibly. Nobody said it was a surefire thing... nothing in business is. See the PS3, which most experts would have had you believe couldn't possibly fail because the PS2 was such an awesome hit. And Sony believed that, got arrogant and WHAMMO! A game machine for a market Sony can't even touch (and tries to ignore) is kicking their ballsacks.

An HD Wii may be a colossal flop. But it mostly depends on the games.

An HD Wii with a better storage solution (like using standard Flash formats or an internal hard drive), improved motion control, and full backwards compatibility (just up-clock the existing architecture) would solidify their position.  The lack of third-party product for the Wii had more to do with miscalculations by the publishers 3 years ago than anything else.  Gamecube was last place in the previous generation, and with the weak specs and "gimmicky" controllers the big money didn't want to get behind the Wii.  So all you've seen is underfunded or rushed product (or both).

--Dave

I don't think a HD Wii would go anywhere, not for another decade or so. HD is simply not the norm yet. Most people don't have a HD set or a fancy Sound system to back it up.

There's an advantage to going after the very casual and non-gamer market.  There are always more out there.  10 million units sold out of 300 million people?  Millions of households with young kids hitting the prime age range for introductory games every year?

And you people are forecasting DOOM?  Ha ha ha.  Y'all are funny.

Yeah, I'm not seeing the inherent need for Wii 2.0 actually. They've coasted along quite nicely on their 1st-party library without HD. I could see them going another 4 years as is.

It's not exactly like the graphics NOW are cutting-edge, especially compared to the PS360. We're kindof at the point where the baseline for graphics is set, and while you can comfortably go up (not really down) as long as you ride that baseline you're ok. I'm referring to simple-3D like Wii Sports/Fit/etc as well as Low-poly-but-handcrafted-pretty-3d like WoW has.

You don't want to go back to EQ1's (original) blocky models, or Half-Life 1, but cranking it up from WoW to EQ2 or Vanguard, or from Smash Bros to Ninja Gaiden isn't a necessity if your product is otherwise quality.

And I say this as a Wii owner who's not exactly enamoured of the system. It gets a solid "it's ok" from me, but my 360 gets oodles more time /played.

A huge, huge part of the Wii's success is that it broke the console maxim of starting out expensive and slowly dropping price down. Wiis started out affordable. That's a huge benefit. It's well known that the $200 - $300 range is a console price sweet spot for consumers, so it made sense to start there.

Will people go out to buy Wii 2.0? It would have to offer a lot. I mean, how many people are out replacing their DVD players with Blu Ray players?

Will Wii crash and burn? Nope. Will third part game developers crash and burn developing games for the Wii? Yes. :grin:

What Nintendo really needs right now is a breakout 3rd party hit don't they?  I'm not sure they've had one, and if they don't get any it will dissuade quality development.

Not only would it have sold just as poorly on the 360 and PS3, but it wouldn't have even been the same game without the motion controls.

What things?  You mean like games, movies and tv shows?  If they are going to sell me what I want, which is instant download service for a huge library of movies, whatever TV show I forgot to record on my own or missed in the last few years and access to games without having to go to Best Buy or Gamestop well, then, fuck yeah!  Bring on the era of MS domination of the home theater!

Funny, isn't that what my Mac Mini would do for me via Itunes if I was in the USA?

Why exactly do I need it a second time on a game console?

Someone said you did?

Options are good, competition works wonders.

Which is why I don't understand the Wii hatred in this thread. Its almost like hardcore gamers feel threatened by a console not pandering to them. Like they would become obsolete and killed by the great casual uprising.

My over 60 year old father who always told me I will never achieve anything because I waste my spare time playing silly games plays a round of bowling or two on family sundays, as does my mother that only played two games her entire life before that - River Raid and Moorhuhn (yeah I know, still scratching my head about that). That is not tapping new markets? That is what you people call a failure?

Give me some of that failure and I can retire a rich man.

The fear, from my perspective at least, is that publishers throwing their budgets at "casual" games will reduce funding for games that I like.  Games I like are expensive to make... no, not always, but generally they cost more to develop than the stuff you see for the Wii.  This fear is already manifest in the descent of The Elder Scrolls from one of the most amazing PC RPGs into a console eye-candy kiddie toy; this fear of the Wii by PS3/360 fans is a rebranded fear of consoles by PC fans.

I think that sums up exactly what we are afraid of. Much like PC gamers X years ago feared that the success of the PS2 and XBox would drive the top developers to consoles, we console users are now afraid that Nintendo's success will drive the top devs to the "casual game" market. The market tends to gravitate to where the money is.

I predict that soon the term "consolized" will soon get replaced by "wiiified".

I would share that fear. But I'm more optimistic from the trend I experience. For that to happen casuals would have to buy more than 3 games.

Nintendo is swimming in money. Other developers for the Wii I suspect to be a bit underwhelmed by their success.

Yes. This. Hardcore gamers are scared shitless that the gaming industry isn't going to cater to them and their vocal minority anymore, and pissed off that the things Ma and Pa Kent desire aren't the same things they desire. Ma and Pa Kent don't play Halo, they play Solitaire and Bridge. Hardcore gamers are afraid their games won't be made anymore because they don't provide as much money as Ma and Pa Kent.

They should be afraid... well, they shouldn't, just like PC gamers shouldn't be afraid of console dominance of the video game market. Both hardcore gamer games and PC games should embrace the niche, because the niche is where the quality is.

EDIT: Also, 3rd party publishers need to stop whining about not being able to make AAA-titles on the Wii, and actually concentrate on making GOOD quality titles for the Wii instead of shovelware shit like Far Cry. Bitching about not making money on the console when the only games you put are so obviously half-assed shovelware is asking for me to tell you to fuck right off.

What makes me laugh, is the idea that Hardcore gamers are somehow less fickle then the casual masses.  :oh_i_see:

This is true.  :grin:

Plus we can call the Wiitards, which is the funneyz.

I don't hate the Wii. I had a lot of fun playing on a friend's. But I think that the Wii has a great chance of stealing defeat from the jaws of victory because, just like the Gamecube and the N64, Nintendo haven't brought along third party developers for the ride.

Why aren't there third party devs lining up to do Wii titles? A big part of it is designing for a whole new control scheme. Also, few dev studios want to try to make a unique Wii game for a market that, thus far, looks only interested in Nintendo properties and sports titles.

And if the third party devs aren't doing well on Wii... they'll end up developing for other platforms.  So they get the love, too.

With casuals getting more exposure, some are going to get hooked and turn into more active gamers.  They'll look for experiences elsewhere, while Nintendo brings in yet more players.  Maybe it'll turn into a gateway system, or just continue being a casual family console.  It isn't going to kill the industry and can only bring more people into the fold, so I still don't see any threat.

It's just a fear, not a real threat.  I've played some great PC games lately, particularly GalCivII, and I've played many "casual" PC games such as Puzzle Quest, Peggle and Sam + Max.  I have to blame the lack of any ZOMG MUST BUYS IT ME PRECIOUSSSS games for the PC on the PC devs... or what's left of them.  Dollar-chasing Bioware has abandoned the PC and given us Jade "Brian Doyle-Murray Is Not Chinese" Empire and Mass "Fucked-up Inventory" Effect, next we will get Dragon "Maybe Not Jade Empire 2" Age.  I should not have to rehash Bethesda's path to televisions.  In the end, though, it doesn't really hurt PC gaming too much since there's less quantity but more quality.  Meanwhile, the Wii's library is 95% garbage.

This is highly arguable (the part where the Elder Scrolls games were ever anything like 'amazing'.)

Daggerfall was buggy as all get out.
Morrowind had brain dead 'leave a book on your space bar' skill advancement and one dimensional click click click combat, without any of the other virtues that make that ok in, say, Diablo.
Oblivion was just a shinier Morrowind with famous voice actors.

All the sandbox-y non-linearity in the world won't make up for rampant bugginess or bad gameplay mechanics.

Granted, I never played Arena, so maybe that one was the amazing RPG of which you speak.

Daggerfall may have been buggy, but it was still an amazing game. Yes, gameplay and sandboxy non-linearness does make up for bugginess. See also: Vampire Bloodlines.

Morrowind and Oblivion just sucked. Because they were made for consoles.

I think of Troika as more of a company of 'almosts' than successes. Arcanum is as close as they got to a really good game - replaying it right now, actually. (I would sure love to see a remake or a sequel of that game, with all the edges smoothed out.)

Daggerfall was indeed buggy, but great despite that.  YMMV and whatnot.  Maybe I can use Thief as an example, but the problem is that LGS is gone while Bethesda is still making shit... also Deadly Shadows wasn't done by LGS.

And boy did it show. That game hurt me, though not as much as Deus Ex: Invisible War.

It felt like Thief...just with shitty performance and constant loading due to the tiny levels. There's quality there if you look for it (i.e. The Cradle)...Deus Ex 2...absolutely none. Not even the dance party ending.

I can't come up with a good example, which lends to the idea that my fears are unsubstantiated.  Thief DS did feel like Thief, just the damn city hub ruined it.  The interface didn't even bother me.  I daresay they should make another and use Assassin's Creed as a model for the city hub... of just leave out the fucking thing.  Thief 1 and 2 had cool-ass movies instead of a crappy, useless hub in between missions.  However, other than missing rope arrows, the T3 missions were fairly accurate.

Agreed.  Everyone points to those two games as great examples of RPG\whatnot and all I can say is... not.  They just weren't my cup of tea.  The last honest game I bought for the PC that I felt was greatness was Might and Magic VIII back in 2000 (Diablo II was out a month or so later, but I didn't get into it that much when it came out due to some boneheaded Blizzard patch decisions).  I have bought one game since then that didn't suck and entertained me (Divine Divinity despite being buggy and goofily translated was some good fun).  Ever since then I've been disappointed with what I buy to the point where I just don't buy anymore.

Arcanum was an unbalanced load of crap. I really wanted to like the game, but holy hell...I got to the point where I somehow gimped my character, and wasn't able to continue with the game. I tried to make a hybrid, so I'd get trounced by pure mages or pure techers.

That may have been the only game I have ever gimped myself in....that's quite a feat.

Also, Haemish, did you mean DX2?


And...throw in my vote for the "I have never liked anything by Bethesda" camp. My friend loves Oblivion. I've watched him play, and you can do some neat stuff, but...I could never get into it.

Morrowind and Oblivion amused me.  I played each for a significant amount of time pouring in long play sessions that never got near the main plot.  I like playing thief characters in each. Oblivion did a better job at keeping interested in the main plot, and I actually finished it, which I never got close to (or had any interest) in Morrowind. Plus, it had Patrick Stewart and Boromir.

I don't hold them up on pedestals like Fallout or vilify them like the previous mentioned Arcanum (which was a shitty game that looked shitty).   If I could seriously fault either for one specific thing is how they punished my typical middle of the road system for no apparent reason.

I got a Wii.  Mainly to play games with people that don't play games and my 360 library is devoid of things to play with other human beings.  Plus non gamers are afraid of that controller. Any games I get for it are a bonus.  The occasional No More Heroes will be welcomed with open arms.  I'm kind of sick of Nintendo franchises, however. 

DX2 was never called Deus Ex 2. It was always called Deus Ex: Invisible War. And it sucked most mightily.

I only had one little quip with the story line, but having finally played it recently, I found I rather enjoyed Deus Ex 2.

I'm gone for like 4 days. This thread gets like 50 posts, and no one mentioned Dead Rising for the Wii.

Nintendo can die in a mall fire.

Yeah, it sure sucks when a company ports a game and in so doing fixes significant problems with the original. Grab yer pitchforks!

What? The original had too many zombies and a photo mode with a full scoring system? Can't wait for them to fix it.

Those were the kind of edges I was talking about smoothing.  :oh_i_see:

Please take my comment in the context of the games it is being compared to - their other ones. Has there ever been a western RPG with worse dialogue writing than TOEE?

Don't make me answer that.

The saving/restarting system and timed escort missions were a major issue for people, and that is getting changed. Fewer zombies does suck but photo mode is a big who cares.

It looks like the Wii version is going to be a somewhat different game overall, which is cool.

Photo mode is a big who cares!?

For me it was.  And I also never finished the game because of the retarded save system/annoying escort missions.  Oh, and the RESPAWNING PARK PRISONERS IN THE HUMVEE.  Isn't it enough that I killed these assholes once, already?

Dead Rising is the definition of great concept, shitty execution.  It's also a great example of Japanese people not understanding western play styles.

If you read something like Gamefaqs reviews a lot of people have problems with the save system. I understand why some people like it but among the gaming population as a whole it seems like a loser.

I'm in the boat of people who think the idea of using wacky weapons to off zombies sounds great but I have little interest in Dead Rising thanks to the way the game is structured.

I speak as one person that loved just about every inch of Dead Rising; the photos were no big deal for me and my most common reaction to the photographer guy was just just ignore him. 

Timed getting to people (once you got to them, the timer didn't matter) just added to the sense of being in a zombie apocalypse. Not everyone is going to be saved, not everyone can be saved.  You have to make some tough decisions.  I just counted survivor deaths as part of the game.  However, more time should have likely been afforded as saving everyone should at least seem remotely possible given that you're not just dealing with the individual rescue timers.

Now, the time sensitive nature of the main plot butting up against survivor rescue was a bit more annoying.  The game failing to adjust because you were late to your 6am main plotline play date leaving you 1 hour to finish a major plot arc was stupid.  So was having to ditch 5 survivors in a crowded theatre for the same reasons. 

Game could have been executed a lot better (the main plot was a hindrance), but it's still probably one of the top reasons I'm glad I got a 360.

(http://komplexify.com/images/2007/VerizonCheck.jpg)

The game is fun to fuck around in for a bit of time here and there, but theres a reason it was one of the first titles I bought and I still never got anywhere near finishing. My best effort before losing interest was somewhere in the middle of Act 1.

Now you tell me those douchebags in the Jeep infinitely respawn? Fuck that noise.

That's a great idea, and it's time for these "more active gamer" games, like, now. There's not enough development being put into them, and that's part of the frustration. Some people will be happy with Wii Sports forever. Some will just straight into Team Fortress 2. And some are looking for something in-between...and these people aren't being served.

Some of us have, like, jobs and shit and are doing just fine with Mario Galaxy, Zelda, Smash Bros and Lego right now because we haven't finished those damn things.

fucking kids with your expendable free time!

The people inbetween aren't getting served because the gaming press and PR machine doesn't know how to target those players. I could ramble off 50 games that could easily entertain the tweens in terms of gaming maturity. This may or may not include portable games like Summon Night, Console games from Gust, or XBLA and PSN games that don't treat you like a gibbering fool.

Use the fucking shortcut they show you fairly early on in the game.  There's no reason to even go back to that part of the park after that.

So my brother really really really wants Mario Kart for the Wii, but despite its amazing mediocrity it is completely sold out everywhere forever I guess. My dumbshit friend who works at Best Buy decided to call my brother and let him know that they got some in today. 4 copies, and no in-store pickup so I can just buy the shit on the phone or online and get it later. My brother calls me (Note: I live in Indiana, my brother is currently in California) and matter of factly tells me to go buy it. Sorry Charlie, I just pulled in the fucking driveway after getting off work, you get to live without your shitty game.

I hung up.

Touching.  That should be a Saturday Evening Post cover  :awesome_for_real:

I don't care about Mario, Zelda, Smash Bros or Samus. I have Lego on a system that uses a real controller.

Poor lonely, Wii....

Someone doesn't care about Mario, Zelda or Metroid but cares about Lego. My brain just exploded.

And some of us didn't purchase those games because we have no interest in them, and wanted potential news on anything related to Mother 3, Kid Icarus, Metroid/2D metroid, a new camelot Wii/DS game/rpg, or Matsunos Wii project with monolithsoft.

Yes, but Nintendo fans have been grasping at any hope for most of those titles. I don't know if Matsuno has it left in them. They'll never be able to pull off another Metroid like Super Metroid. Mother 3? Rom that shit up when the translation patch comes out. Kid Icarus? It'll be Metroid Primed probably. Either that or bad.


This. Not because it's lego, but the real controller thing is pretty much key. There are some Wii games that I'd really really like to play. But so far the only recent one I have played is My Life as a King. But don't think for a moment I liked having the fucking Classic Pad plugged into the Wiimote. Weak, stupid, bad technology.

Yeah, I can see how it would be too much trouble to call your friend at Best Buy and buy it and pick it up tomorrow.  Man, that's a heck of a burden, the gall of some people.

Seriously though, why can't he just order the stupid thing off Amazon or the BB website and wait a couple of days while it's delivered?

Two recent articles caught my eye, at IGN no less, so you know it's true.  lulz

Iwata Apologizes for Bad E3
http://wii.ign.com/articles/892/892854p1.html

Wii Storage Solution Urgent, Says Nintendo
http://wii.ign.com/articles/893/893306p1.html

Nintendo can win my heart back if at the Tokyo show they reveal some crap I'm interested in.  I can understand confusion about "who E3 is for."  Is it for casual gamer mass media or hardcore types? 

Well, the hardcores are certainly the ones looking, does the causal gamer even know what E3 is?

E3 is one of the few things the mainstream media reporters go to.

Bzzzzzzzzt - Toy Fair, CES, Comic Con - mainstream reporters only go to E3 for the parties, just like everyone else.

I can understand wanting to give the press access to the games, so do that on Thursday and Friday.  Turn the weekend over to the general public and you've got a successful, worthwhile show.

What's so hard about this?

Allowing the public in is the reason E3 turned into a terrible, not-worthwhile show. Hell, just letting Gamestop employees in was enough to do that.

That's why you have seperate days for the press and general public.  Hell, Leipzig and TGS pull it off, why can't E3?

E3 was never, ever, ever about the public. That's sorta the point. It was the Big One that wasn't for them. The public has more than enough shows they can go to. E3 was glitz, glamour, and awesomeness for the press and no one else. That's what it was raised as. And it grew up to be a monster. It's not surprising it blew up on itself. The new one is just a joke. In general, conventions are fundamentally flawed. Game development times get increased to cater to them. It's a mess.

Well, that's a debate on whether or not it's necessary, and I'd agree that a convention isn't.  However, the industry seems schizophrenic about it, and appear to want to have something to show.  So either suck it up and pull out the stops or just put a stake in the damned thing.  This half measure crap isn't the way to go.

It's good for the industry as a whole to have a convention big enough (and crazy enough) to get people talking. The old E3 seemed great for industry wide publicity, and bad for journalists trying to score info about games.  The new E3 is the opposite, no? 

The New E3 doesn't need press since everything is streamed in it's entirety by G4 TV. Me Thinks some big Press Outlets are behind the ruining of E3. Tin-Foil Hat, etc. At the same time, the old E3 was great a few years back, it wasn't until recently that it went to hell and fast.

Yeah, sorry. My interest in Mario games is limited to the various spin-offs (Mario Party/Kart/Golf) and I played exactly one (and a half) Zelda games I gave a shit about. Zelda 3 on SNES and then years later I half-played the port on GBA when I went on holiday. Was never terribly interested in 2-d platformers, and not terribly interested in 3-d platformers. Sorry.

Played the first N64 Zelda till I put it down for awhile then couldn't remember what to do when I picked it up again (so put it down forever) and had no interest in Ocarina of Time or whichever the followups were. Rented the Zelda for Wii and couldn't stand the long, forced, shitty JRPG exposition, so I got as far as riding the horde in circles and being told I cant leave fucktard village tillI talk to various fucktards before turning it off to return to the video library.

Never played Metroid to any extent or cared about the franchise, and using the Wiimote for FPS-ish action can go fuck a dog moreso that using a Gamepad. I bought Mario Strikers, I played it with a friend for 10 minutes before we turned it off and played something else instead. That was my only gaming session so far with that particularly expensive frisbee/drink coaster.


I own a Wii. I don't hate Nintendo, but the controls are FAIL for traditional games, lightgun shooters and pretty much anything that's not Mario Party or waving the Wiimote around to play Golf or Bowling. Haven't tried Maro Kart yet. Mario Soccer's shittiness made me very dubious about anything new on that system.


So yeah, I'm the traditional gamer, and I'm not buying much for the Wii. I'll play my traditional games with traditional controllers.
Casual-gamer-grandma isn't interested in those games anyway, so where are the fucking interesting games that use the Wiimote as something unique instead of tacked-on waggle bullshit? She'll buy them, and I might, too. If they ever happen.

Not trying to appear authoritative here, but I would hardly call you a traditional gamer when you say you aren't interested in the 2d platformers.  That's kind of a starting point for most traditional gamers.

I would say you are more of a picky gamer.

My suggestion is sell the system then. If you thought Mario Soccer was shitty, nothing is going to be good enough for you on the system.


I will agree with you about the lack of interesting games using the Wiimote as more than tacked-on waggle. There've been entirely too many of those type of games. Though I would disagree with you on some of the games. I think the FPS games work pretty damn well on the system when they aren't shovelware shit like Fary Cry. For a system with such opportunities for unique control interfaces, a lot of assholes aren't building those interfaces for the Wiimote. Lazy developers produce lazy games. Film at 11.

"Traditional gamers" in the modern sense don't really play platformers anymore.  Those of us who grew up on Mario and Megaman as our mothers milk may feel differently, but the market has changed, and first/third person action is now "traditional".

For some reason that really depresses me.

Megaman Network Transmission, Shadow of the Colossus, Uncharted? These are platformers. They are some of the best games from the previous and current generation. Network Transmission is highly underrated (because fucking no one played it! and the first stage is gruesomely hard). First/Third isn't traditional so much as it's just what's selling now. Look at XBLA and PSN, platformers are still there and more are coming. Basically, you just have to look for them. But traditional implies they have some age, first and third ps being the norm on consoles - well, they've been around since late N64 days. Even then, they didn't come into their own until the xbox.

They also don't sell at anywhere near the level of Halo, Gears of War, or SOCOM.  That was kind of my point.

Sales don't make something traditional.

I should really elaborate. What I mean is, if you asked a mouthbreathing 14 year old Halo player what traditional was, I don't even think he'd understand the word. But traditional is different in every community. That said, even the youngest communities probably look fondly upon gameplay style like SMB3/4. If they were introduced to them at all. Market-wise, traditional doesn't exist, whatever can be sold is what will be put out there. Or whatever they _think_ can be sold will be.

Look at Portal, that's a platformer, no 2 ways about it. Hardly traditional but at the same time completely built upon traditional concepts. That said, this is a community of 18+ folks, I imagine saying an FPS is a traditional gameplay type isn't exactly the right direction you want to go in to make a point. We were weened, as you said, on that other stuff. It's the stuff that Made games Work for us. Yes, the market has shifted. But that doesn't change what the Ataris, Nintendos, and Segas of the world raised us on and how even the newest platformer gives us pangs of nostalgia.

Someone calling themselves a "traditional" gamer then saying they have no interest in any of the traditional franchises or gameplay styles is a contradiction in terms.

One thing that plagues these kinds of discussions is the lack of good nomenclature.

Mario, Zelda, and Metroid aren't traditional franchises anymore though. They've been synthesized and modulated to the point of being bastards of their former selves. None of the offerings since Link to the Past (OoT depending on who you talk to), Super Metroid and Mario 3 (or World depending on who you talk to) have been remotely traditional. And, imo, they've been trash, but you know me.

He said he wasn't interested in any Mario, Zelda or Metroid, or 2d or 3d platforming. That also rules out Pitfall, Jungle Hunt, Strider, Mega Man, etc etc.

I'm not going to split hairs on what it means to be a "traditional" gamer since I'm not the one who brought it into the discussion but if you don't like traditional franchises or play styles it doesn't make much sense to me.

Sometimes I think the Wii was a mistake.  I don't have a ton of cash to drop on systems and I chose one I thought the family would enjoy.  The wife plays some GH and my daughter (almost 4yrs) plays some mariokart, but other than that it's been sadly abandoned.  I don't have the heart to sell it because they still play it occasionally, but I can't help but want to play some of the PS3 games out there. 

Hopefully I can get my daughter into Animal Crossing when it comes out so I actually feel like it was a worthwhile purchase. 

I love my Wii but there just are not enough decent games for it.

Plenty of games, but most of them are half ass ports that really don't take advantage of the unique controller.

I reckon that's to be expected for a novel approach to game controllers. But it's been almost 2 years now, you'd think there would be more groovy implementations that took advantage of such a richer control paradigm — so much more is possible and the surface has only been scratched — almost anything is more intuitive with a pointer than with a 20+ year old button/joystick setup.

Still, it's the most social of the console systems and the only time my Wii gets used anymore is when kids come over. It also started collecting dust after Mrs. Naum threw out her back Wii bowling…

Arguably RPGs and wargames are more 'traditional' than 2D platforming since those genres held sway before graphics caught up.

In general, gamers have a lousy sense of history. For most people, gaming started when they picked up their first controller, be it an Activision or a wireless Xbox 360 one. This isn't helped by all games becoming outdated within about 3 years of their release.

I've been gaming for a long time. Potentially since before you (or Margalis for that matter) were born. Played my older brothers' pong machines, and things like Atari and Vic 20 at friends, since we didn't have enough money to buy them till I got my C64 for Christmas when I was around 13, and then bought everything else myself. Commodore 64>Amiga>SNES>MD>3DO>N64>PS1>Saturn>PC>GBA>DC>PS2>GC>360. 2D platforming isn't something I ever particularly enjoyed once I got past the Amiga days. Not liking one genre very much doesn't negate everything else. Someone else might not like shooting games but love platformers. "Traditional" doesn't imply a neccesary love of all games in all genres.

I don't mind a little bit of your Jak and Daxter/Ratchet and Clank type games, but they're not console selling points for me. Lots of games have platform elements in them, like the Lego Star Wars/Indy games, or The Simpsons Game, or Tomb Raider, etc, or even 2-d fighters but they're different enough to keep me interested. My path to today was via the Amiga as the key platform. I didn't play 8-bit Mario, or Megaman, or Kid Icarus, or the pre Link to the Past Zeldas  because I was playing Populus, Sim City, Kick Off/Sensible Soccer, Cannon Fodder, Chaos Engine, Perfect General, Sid Meier's Pirates!, Syndicate, etc, instead. Even then I didn't get into the games like Prince of Persia or Another World (aka Out of This World).



The Wiimote can't handle my big kickass TV. Sorry, that's Nintendo's fault for poor design. Unfortunately this makes FPS games suck as bad as light gun games. Taking a choice between the TV and the Wii, the Wii loses. IF I weren't already trained in the M&KB form of FPS controls, I might be able to get into Wii FPS. I tried Red Steel and MoH and both failed the "can I be arsed with this?" test. This was before the 46" HD LCD. Back with the 68cm CRT when the Wiimote showed some accuracy to the screen. So c'est la vie.

Yeah, I felt Mario Strikers was shitty. It felt too random and pinbally. Sorry if this offends you. The Wii's not worth selling as a second-hand machine. None of them are. I'll keep it for the odd bit of Sports Bowling, Mario Partying, and GameCubing.



You mean the ones that you personally define as Traditional? Don't like Nintendo's key franchises = can't be a "traditional" gamer? I beg to differ. And where did I discuss "no interest in any" of the other gameplay styles? Did I mention anything about about fighting games or side-scrolling-beatemups or driving games or 2d shooting games or FPS games or 3PS games? When you try putting words in other people's mouths you often turn out to be talking out of your own arse. Like you are here in two seperate posts. Try reading what I wrote, using basic reading comprehension and not extrapolating and going off into your own fantasy-land about what you think I might have meant.
Fuck Mario. He can die in a car fire along with Halo and Madden. Being a traditional gamer doesn't mean you have to like everything that's pumped out.



See this is the thing. I never played those beloved 8-bit versions of the Ninty franchises, so I have no childhood love for them. I enjoyed/played/completed Link to the Past, and since then I've bought a few (Mario and Zelda on N64) but they didn't hook me well enough to finish either, or buy another, or care about the next incanations.


And by traditional gamer, I'm not playing history games. I'm taking about what's been selling on these boxes for the last 5-10 or so years. The kinds of games that make up most of the PS3/360 library, pretty much don't exist for the most part on the Wii, and those few which do, have shitty waggle controls tacked on badly. Even if I loved Mario and Megaman, I'd rather play them with a 360 controller than the Wiimote, which was my point before the thread went off on a fucking tangent about splitting hairs on a definition. Nintendo chose their control path, now they need to do something interesting with it if they want to sell games.

I now have about 58 360 games and 12 Wii games (including all the gimmicks/packins like Wii Fit, Sport, Play, Brain Training, Link's Crossbow). I've owned the Wii a year longer than I have owned the 360. I post these numbers not for e-peen (cos I know no-one gives a fuck), but to illustrate that if they put out more interesting non-shovelware stuff I would be buying it. Fuck, I'm buying most of their experiments to give them a try, even if I'm not really playing them. Even those are few and far between. Bring on a proper Super Punch-Out, Mario Golf, Lightsaber Game.   

Nobody is disparaging you Azazel, no need to bring a wall of text here.  I have a hard time understanding how a person could not smile wide and have fun with a classic like Super Mario Bros or The Legend of Zelda, regardless of genre preferences, and that is my viewpoint.

I do take umbrage with the idea that we, "like everything that's pumped out," as you put it, and I find it odd how personal you are taking what was really just a spin-off discussion about what traditional games/gamers include or don't include.  You even did a bit of peen-waving with your list-drop at the top of the post, like touting a sad, real-life version of a gamerscore.  Did a dingo steal your baby this morning, or something, to get you riled up so?

If the first games a person plays is what clearly defines their perspective of traditional and matters a great deal, I guess I'll throw my chips in: Chessmaster, King's Quest 3, Secret of Monkey Island(CGA version), Leisure Suit Larry, Marble Madness, Prince of Persia.

So far I think UnSub wins this slapfight.

Ha ha Azazel's gaming is serious business.

It's hillarious that you guys still think the WII is a "fad" when it's been out, kicking everyone elses ass for 3 years... EONS for gaming systems. Not only are they capturing the regular gaming market, they are creating new markets... the fact that my 60 year old mother played a WII before I did is amazing.

I don't. The original Mario is boring, Zelda 1 isn't fun anymore. It was great then, it isn't now. You can get kind of a "huh, cool." impression seeing the design philosophy behind them, but no way are they more fun or engaging than the best of their subsequent games.

So you are saying you don't find SMB3 or LttP fun?

I did when I beat them a decade+ ago. I have no desire to play them now.

Must suck to be you.

Nah, I got plenty of better games to play now. That's sorta how it works.

Not really, no.  Classics don't stop being fun just because something newer and improved comes along.

But some day you have to stop living in the past and see that most of that is just nostalgia...








And now on to some Nethack time.

WoW has done these things, too.  The trick will be if the next iteration does as well.

Some people don't mind repetition.  Some people need something different.  Classics are that because they are remembered fondly and laid some of the design fundamentals of the gaming world.  That doesn't mean they're fun for everyone now.

I think you need to check your calendar again...

To be fair, you should also add a disclaimer that one of those 58 360 games is Beowulf.

Actually, some do.

Monty on the Run was a fun game at the time. It has dated horribly, especially as 2D platformers moved to 3D. It still has awesome music though. Having played recent FPSs, I can't go back to Doom with its auto-aim on the vertical and no mouselook (and yeah, there are patches for it, but it isn't the same).

It's like "Citizen Kane" is a great movie of its time... but it's a bit klunky and it has been improved from since it was released.

*UnSub has gained a level in Forum Warrior*

Didn't post for a few days, and saw multiple posts I wanted to reply to. Not really that different to 6 smaller posts. I thought a couple of people were being fuckwits, and decided to reply. As I said, noone cares what I've bought. My point was I buy a lot of games, and the Wii hasn't had much worth buying as my library is still very small, despite the thing being out for a year longer than the 360 and my having bought most of the "gimmicky" software.

My list of "games from the day" were to outline that I don't have a residual love of SMB or Zelda or Megaman from the 8-bit days, (that's where the lack of wide smile about some old games I never played at the time comes in) but I can still be pretty much a traditional gamer in many ways. The point about "everything that's pumped out" is just as valid or invalid as me thinking I can be a traditional gamer despite not wanting Mario's lovechild.

No Dingos, just a few Americans being ignorant loudmouthed self-important dickheads. Business as usual, then.  :awesome_for_real:
Occasionally I just enjoy writing a post like that. No bulging veins or wrong side of the bed.



Look! Here's one now!
Seriously though, if you put words (and opinions) into another person's mouth, or misrepresent what they said, you can kinda expect them to be annoyed.


Full agreement with Fabricated and Lantyssa's points.



Touche'

But it was returned within a couple of days. Since then I have exchanged those funds for tasty chicken and a bus ticket, amongst other things.

I think I'm the only one I know who isn't excited about the new Mega Man.  Platformers have come such a long way since then that mega man games, while fun as hell back in the days and many consider classic, feel extremely restrictive and unfun in today's market. 

Just because a game is a classic doesn't mean it can't age.  Some do and some don't. 

I've never been into platformers. I hate jumping puzzles, and always have since the original Pitfall (even though I loved Pitfall - fuck the jumping shit really got on my tits). I still hate jumping puzzles in FPS games, so the less of those they do, the better. That doesn't make me any less a traditional gamer, it's just not a genre I give two shits about.

Super Mario Galaxy though is worth going through the jumping puzzles for.

(http://www.vgcats.com/comics/images/080722.jpg)

Hey, a funny VG cats.


I'm not excited about the new MM9 because I've had 16bit era megamans on the GBA and DS for a while now. Maybe not quite the same structure as Mega Man 1-3, but then, that was great in the early 90s. I wanted a hi-def network transmission. I didn't get it. I will not buy MM9. That would require updating my Wii anyway. Which means plugging it in.

That comic was so apropos.  And funny.