Developers Need to Focus More on Wii Development

[Kamalot]

Electronic Arts recently announced that it had made a major blunder this generation by not focusing more on Wii development. CNet's Don Reisinger thinks more developers need to wake up (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10001441-17.html) to the fact that Wii is the clear winner this generation, and need to start putting more effort into development for the console.

"One thing that's different [this generation] is we typically figured out who the market leader was going to be before the start of the cycle and bet with our development resources on that platform," Riccitiello told the Mercury News. "We made the wrong call there (by betting on the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360), which made this transition harder than it would otherwise be. But now we're catching up, and I think we're fine."

Regardless of whether or not EA actually is fine, don't you think the company should have admitted this long ago? And let's also not forget that EA isn't alone in this. Countless other developers have denigrated the value of the Wii and even today, most of them don't want anything to do with it even though it's selling like gangbusters.

It needs to stop. Instead of clinging to the faulty belief that only Sony and Microsoft matter in the software space, developers need to start focusing more on the Wii and develop games that are not only innovative, but more in the vein of those titles they're creating for the competing consoles. And in the end, I think we'll all win.

[Gorvi]

Someone needs to, that's for damn sure. I can't think of a single Wii game in the near future that I'm really excited about. I love the system, but it needs more games that are more gamer focused, and those aren't coming from Nintendo any time soon.

[Enig]

That seems like a pretty loaded article.
Game development is a business to make money for sure, and appealing to Mr and Mrs Casual, with their 2.5 casual kids is the way to make that money, but what happened to the artform of game development.

As an independent PC developer, I feel that this article frightens me. I haven't seem Wii games that 'Wow' me with the technical prowess that PS3/360 games utilize.

[Admiral Ackbar]

I am going to have to go ahead and disagree with this guy. Just because there are more units out there doesn't mean that it makes sense for every developer to jump over and start developing for the Wii. How many owners of Wiis are actively buying games and how many are used by families for Wii Sports and that's about it?

It seems to me that it is WAY easier to make a successful game on the 360 or PS3 than it is on the Wii. With that gimmicky control system there is tons that can go wrong, and it is very hard to wow the world of gaming with the shit graphics that the Wii can pump out. I mean, I can barely distinguish between the cartoony graphics in one Wii title from the next.

When it comes down to it, if we are considering game development as an art form (which I think we need to), it is harder to make art with the Wii than it is with the other consoles because the focus almost has to be on quirky controls. I know this isn't a perfect analogy, but it is harder to make a beautiful piece of art with fat magic markers than it is with graphic pens (although with a lot of effort it can be done). For most studios, their goals just don't fit into the Wii's space.

[Kamalot]

As an independent PC developer, I feel that this article frightens me. I haven't seem Wii games that 'Wow' me with the technical prowess that PS3/360 games utilize.

Technical prowess <> fun.

[Kamalot]

When it comes down to it, if we are considering game development as an art form (which I think we need to), it is harder to make art with the Wii than it is with the other consoles because the focus almost has to be on quirky controls.

I'm sure people said the same thing about those 'moving pictures' when they were introduced. How can you make a painting or a sculpture in film?

[Schnoogs]

Thank god the industry hasn't been going strictly by hardware sales. I'm enjoying my 360 far more than any other console to date and to be honest I'm not a fan at all of the Wiimote or the Wii's capabilities.

[Kamalot]

Someone needs to, that's for damn sure.

Well, looks like Electronic Arts is focusing heavily on Wii (http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_10012948?source=rss).

Q But given your investment in developing games for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 - and the relatively slow sales of both of those consoles to date - isn't it in your interest that Sony and Microsoft do something to juice sales of those boxes?

A No, it's not. It's in my best interest that more consumers buy consoles. My job is to make sure that against the consoles and platforms that matter, we've got the right content. I can wish for there to be more PS3s or Xbox 360s in the marketplace. Wishing doesn't make me an effective CEO or EA a successful company.

Right now, you're seeing an increased emphasis on Wii and DS titles, so we can drive a market on Wii and DS that's similar to what we have on the Xbox 360 and PS3. If we are successful there - and we will be - over the course of this and next year, it doesn't matter to me which platform prevails.

This cycle is like every other cycle before it: There's been a dominant player (in this case, the Wii). Unusual in this cycle is there's a second and third place that is meaningful, against which we can build a profitable business. That's a good and positive thing.


Q Given Nintendo's traditional dominance in making games for its own platforms, is it a realistic goal to have similar market share on the Wii or the DS to what you had on the PlayStation and other consoles?

A Yes. Tomorrow? No. Can I make a big step in that direction this year? Yes. Can I continue to make steps in that pattern? Yes. Does Nintendo want us to do it? Yes. Does the platform set itself up for that to be possible? Yes. So, it requires focus.

[Schnoogs]

Technical prowess <> fun.

Sales <> Fun

[Heretic Machine]

That seems like a pretty loaded article.
Game development is a business to make money for sure, and appealing to Mr and Mrs Casual, with their 2.5 casual kids is the way to make that money, but what happened to the artform of game development.

As an independent PC developer, I feel that this article frightens me. I haven't seem Wii games that 'Wow' me with the technical prowess that PS3/360 games utilize.

I am going to have to go ahead and disagree with this guy. Just because there are more units out there doesn't mean that it makes sense for every developer to jump over and start developing for the Wii. How many owners of Wiis are actively buying games and how many are used by families for Wii Sports and that's about it?

It seems to me that it is WAY easier to make a successful game on the 360 or PS3 than it is on the Wii. With that gimmicky control system there is tons that can go wrong, and it is very hard to wow the world of gaming with the shit graphics that the Wii can pump out. I mean, I can barely distinguish between the cartoony graphics in one Wii title from the next.

When it comes down to it, if we are considering game development as an art form (which I think we need to), it is harder to make art with the Wii than it is with the other consoles because the focus almost has to be on quirky controls. I know this isn't a perfect analogy, but it is harder to make a beautiful piece of art with fat magic markers than it is with graphic pens (although with a lot of effort it can be done). For most studios, their goals just don't fit into the Wii's space.

Here comes the bawww, from the same people who used to say, "Graphics don't matter!" The art of game design is apparently dependent on the art of creating realistic 3D graphics, at least for the self-proclaimed "hardcore gamers." Or maybe it's the writing, I forget. It's definitely not got much to do with gameplay, that was decided pretty early on this gen.

[Kamalot]

Sales <> Fun

You are absolutely right.

[Admiral Ackbar]

I'm sure people said the same thing about those 'moving pictures' when they were introduced. How can you make a painting or a sculpture in film?
Movies didn't take a step backwards by limiting the human language (when compared to literature, which is a much better comparison than painting or sculpture because the main basis of a movie/book is its story, not its visual nature). The Wii took some stuff forwards but took a TON backwards (limiting action buttons, horrible graphics/ai/etc).

If you wanted to follow your analogy, it would be like movies were an extension of stories, but they could only be buddy cop comedies. There could be some really sweet buddy cop comedies, but if you didn't want to make one, you're screwed.

[Gorvi]

Well, looks like Electronic Arts is focusing heavily on Wii (http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_10012948?source=rss).
6 months ago I would have said that means absolutely nothing to me, but with EA actually releasing games that look good this Fall with Mirror's Edge and Dead Space, that is a little encouraging. It'd still be nice to see more real games announced for the Wii, though, and from other publishers. It does have to start somewhere, though.

[Admiral Ackbar]

It's not that graphics don't or do matter. It's that the Wii limits the creative capabilities of what dev studios can be. It limits it BADLY. It also allows studios to do some cool new stuff, but it took away the sweet spot. It is hard to make gripping emotional stories when the graphics are crappy. If you follow your line of thinking, it would be perfectly fine to have a new console be able to pump 8 bit graphics as long as it had a unique take on the controls. That doesn't sounds fun does it?

[Heretic Machine]

Movies didn't take a step backwards by limiting the human language (when compared to literature, which is a much better comparison than painting or sculpture because the main basis of a movie/book is its story, not its visual nature).

...Wait, what (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_films)?

The Wii took some stuff forwards but took a TON backwards (limiting action buttons, horrible graphics/ai/etc).

Limiting action buttons? It's missing like two buttons compared to the 360 controller, not counting depressing the analog sticks. Graphics and AI? What AI has been impressive, for you, on the 360 or PS3? As for graphics... well, whatever, I guess there is a reason that the "hardcore game reviewers" give graphics, sound, and story exactly the same weight in a game's score as it's actual gameplay.

[Kamalot]

It's not that graphics don't or do matter. It's that the Wii limits the creative capabilities of what dev studios can be. It limits it BADLY. It also allows studios to do some cool new stuff, but it took away the sweet spot. It is hard to make gripping emotional stories when the graphics are crappy. If you follow your line of thinking, it would be perfectly fine to have a new console be able to pump 8 bit graphics as long as it had a unique take on the controls. That doesn't sounds fun does it?
So, there were no emotionally gripping stories last gen on the PS2 because the graphics were so bad, right?

[Schnoogs]

It's not that graphics don't or do matter. It's that the Wii limits the creative capabilities of what dev studios can be. It limits it BADLY. It also allows studios to do some cool new stuff, but it took away the sweet spot. It is hard to make gripping emotional stories when the graphics are crappy. If you follow your line of thinking, it would be perfectly fine to have a new console be able to pump 8 bit graphics as long as it had a unique take on the controls. That doesn't sounds fun does it?

I agree with what you're saying but there are a lot of people out there who will resort to the classic "Graphics <> fun" argument.

Graphics might not equal fun but they contribute to it bigtime.

[fitbabits]

I'm really excited about EA's focus on the Wii. While the Wii is not really my cup of tea, I can see EA's new focus going over very will with current and future Wii owners.

[AlwaysOn222]

EA with more games on Wii? I hope exclusive games then, cause all the ports like Madden etc is better on 360 or PS3. When I bought my Wii it was for the Nintendo exclusives like all the previous Nintendo systems I have. All multiplattform I buy for my 360 or my PS3. That said the last game I bought for Wii was Wii Fit because of the hype since then Wii has been collecting dust and more dust. My point is that Wii is more of a hardware seller than software seller with tons of accesories rather then interesting games. To me it looks more and more like the GameCube gaming wise, I really do hope there is some more intresting games coming out soon. Because the system needs it.

[Itchyeyes]

The question is, does focusing on the Wii mean more quantity or more quality? Ubisoft made a similar statement right after the Wii's launch and all it really amounted to was a whole lot of crappy, rushed games.

[Kamalot]

I agree with what you're saying but there are a lot of people out there who will resort to the classic "Graphics <> fun" argument.

Graphics might not equal fun but they contribute to it bigtime.

Actually, you'll find that most people have fun regardless of what the game looks like. PS2 did quite well last generation and was the weakest system. People had a shitload of fun regardless. DS continues to provide people with tons of fun, despite the graphics on the PSP being much more impressive.

You are in the minority.

[Schnoogs]

So, there were no emotionally gripping stories last gen on the PS2 because the graphics were so bad, right?

It's all relative. Once you've seen and experienced what the PC/PS3/360 is capable of it raises your expectations it terms of graphics and immersion.

[Heretic Machine]

It's not that graphics don't or do matter. It's that the Wii limits the creative capabilities of what dev studios can be. It limits it BADLY. It also allows studios to do some cool new stuff, but it took away the sweet spot. It is hard to make gripping emotional stories when the graphics are crappy. If you follow your line of thinking, it would be perfectly fine to have a new console be able to pump 8 bit graphics as long as it had a unique take on the controls. That doesn't sounds fun does it?

Funny, I haven't really seen anything done on the 360 that is particularly innovative compared to the last generation's offerings, outside of the shiny new graphics. What has been the biggest revolution in gameplay for the "HD consoles" this time around; proper cover systems for shooters? Not exactly something that was dependent on the upgrade from the XBOX to the 360.

It's all relative. Once you've seen and experienced what the PC/PS3/360 is capable of it raises your expectations it terms of graphics and immersion.

Once you've seen a regular old XBOX or Gamecube, the PS2 looked pretty shitty by comparison. I still own more games for it than either of the other two last-gen consoles, and I still buy games for it today.

[Evil Avatar]

I guess he is forgetting what happened last generation to the deveopers who backed the Gamecube. They found their games languishing on the shelf while only Nintendo's titles were selling.

The tie-in ratio for the Wii is worse than the Gamecube and the software to hardware ratio for the Xbox 360 is the highest of any system ever. He talks in the article about people who are buying software -- that will be the 360 owners, dumbass, not the Wii owners.

The Wii is a great toy, but the bulk of the people who buy it will only buy 1 or 2 titles total for the entire time they own it. The average number of titles an Xbox 360 owner will buy is like 7 to 9.

The Wii has only won this generation if you count total number of units sold, not if you count how much software it has moved and to a company like Electronic Arts, the only thing that counts is how much software you sell.

[Schnoogs]

You are in the minority.

Really? I guess then it's a coincidence that the entire industry has been improving the graphical capabilities of consoles, arcade machines, hand helds and graphics cards since the 1960's.

Good to know the world is catering to me alone. :p

[Admiral Ackbar]

You seem to purposefully ignoring my point. I am not saying it is impossible, there are tons of examples that prove me wrong if that was my point. What I am saying is that it is more difficult to make a great piece of art with a tool that is inferior in a lot of ways when compared to other tools when it comes to art making. You have to have a vision that does not rely on the tools that the 360 and PS3 give you to make a great game on the Wii. If you're game is AT ALL about cool environments and effects, why would you make a game for the Wii?

[fitbabits]

For those wondering, here's the official attach rates per console (direct from NPD):

* Xbox 360: 7.5
* Wii: 5.3
* PS3: 4.6

[Heretic Machine]

I guess he is forgetting what happened last generation to the deveopers who backed the Gamecube. They found their games languishing on the shelf while only Nintendo's titles were selling.

The tie-in ratio for the Wii is worse than the Gamecube and the software to hardware ratio for the Xbox 360 is the highest of any system ever. He talks in the article about people who are buying software -- that will be the 360 owners, dumbass, not the Wii owners.

The Wii is a great toy, but the bulk of the people who buy it will only buy 1 or 2 titles total for the entire time they own it. The average number of titles an Xbox 360 owner will buy is like 7 to 9.

The Wii has only won this generation if you count total number of units sold, not if you count how much software it has moved and to a company like Electronic Arts, the only thing that counts is how much software you sell.

How many people are going to be buying 360 games after the extended RRoD warranty for launch consoles ends this November, and the install base begins to dwindle down to only those willing to buy brand new 360s to replace their old busted 360s?

[Schnoogs]

For those wondering, here's the official attach rates per console (direct from NPD):

* Xbox 360: 7.5
* Wii: 5.3
* PS3: 4.6

I think this is what EA needs to focus on more than anything else.

[Kamalot]

You seem to purposefully ignoring my point. I am not saying it is impossible, there are tons of examples that prove me wrong if that was my point. What I am saying is that it is more difficult to make a great piece of art with a tool that is inferior in a lot of ways when compared to other tools when it comes to art making. You have to have a vision that does not rely on the tools that the 360 and PS3 give you to make a great game on the Wii. If you're game is AT ALL about cool environments and effects, why would you make a game for the Wii?

Right. You can't do sculpture with paint. You can't do dance with literature. You can't do TV with chisel and hammer. The Wii is a different beast, and requires a different approach. If your game relies on 5.1 digital surround sound or shiny HD graphics to be fun, don't bring it to Wii. The Wii is a different tool, and requires developers to think differently in order to be successful. Is that a bad thing? No. But it is different... and some people have a problem with change.

[fitbabits]

I think this is what EA needs to focus on more than anything else.

Exactly. Let's discard the hyperbole and look at the facts. The Wii is in a stronger position than the PS3 in every meaningful sense - units sold (not shipped) and attach rate. Those figures absolutely play a part in how developers look at their target audience.

[Talon-]

Oh noeeess!!!

End of games industry!!!

/end "hardcore gamer"

[Admiral Ackbar]

[QUOTE=Heretic Machine;1578967]Funny, I haven't really seen anything done on the 360 that is particularly innovative compared to the last generation's offerings, outside of the shiny new graphics. What has been the biggest revolution in gameplay for the "HD consoles" this time around; proper cover systems for shooters? Not exactly something that was dependent on the upgrade from the XBOX to the 360.

Why do I have to have revolutions in the method of gameplay to think that gaming is progressing? Why is that always such a focus? "Next generation... play with your FEET ALONE!!!". What I want is an evolution in the quality and scope of games, which I think we have seen due to processor/space/media evolution on the other 2 systems.

And why is a system that makes a "revolution" that means "less good games" celebrated? Sure it's a cool technological feat and it is an interesting take on making games, but I buy a game system to eventually get some... games. Nintendo's revolutionary new control scheme has driven developers away. AWESOME!

[Roc Ingersol]

Rather than churning out more games for the Wii -- how about they apply that increased focus to the titles they're already shoveling out?

[Kamalot]

Really? I guess then it's a coincidence that the entire industry has been improving the graphical capabilities of consoles, arcade machines, hand helds and graphics cards since the 1960's.
You'll also note that in each generation, the most graphically powerful system is not the industry leader. The majority of console and handheld owners put graphics behind other factors, or last generation we would have all had Xboxes instead of PS2s.

[KNOTE]

No. Because making Wii games is boring.

[Heretic Machine]

Why do I have to have revolutions in the method of gameplay to think that gaming is progressing?

...Because that is what the fucking hobby is about: Gameplay, not shiny graphics or booming bass. You claim that the 360 and PS3 offer something significant to the hardcore gamer that the Wii is incapable of, and I ask you what that is? Shiny graphics are for the rubes, not the hardcore. I want exciting, addictive gameplay. What has the 360 given me in that department which the Wii is incapable of?

And why is a system that makes a "revolution" that means "less good games" celebrated? Sure it's a cool technological feat and it is an interesting take on making games, but I buy a game system to eventually get some... games. Nintendo's revolutionary new control scheme has driven developers away. AWESOME!

No, fear and mismanagement have driven developers away.

[Schnoogs]

You'll also note that in each generation, the most graphically powerful system is not the industry leader. The majority of console and handheld owners put graphics behind other factors, or last generation we would have all had Xboxes instead of PS2s.

Oh god...all of the consoles as a whole represented a step forward from the previous generation.

You bring up the PS2 well it was far more powerful than the PSX, Saturn and N64. We're talking about improvements by generation. Obviously within a generation there might be other factors that cause one to win out over another.

[bapenguin]

I kind of like this article (http://gamerscoreblog.com/team/archive/2008/07/28/560253.aspx) as my response to what EA says.

[Kamalot]

I think it is funny that one of the early examples of games that could ONLY be done on the HD consoles, Dead Rising, is coming to the Wii anyway. Same thing with Mercenaries 2 which was originally going to be PS3 only due to its amazing size and level of interactivity. Yet now it is now somehow magically able to be squeezed onto the PS2.

[Variable Gear]

As an independent PC developer, I feel that this article frightens me. I haven't seem Wii games that 'Wow' me with the technical prowess that PS3/360 games utilize.
That's not the point of the Wii. It has no chance to wow people with graphics, so developers need to focus on gameplay and better implementation of motion controls. Additionally, this thread shouldn't have degraded into the cliche, stale "Graphics vs. Gameplay" discussion. Graphics do contribute to the enjoyment of play, but good gameplay can make people more easily ignore sub-standard graphics. Again, I must mention that, in my opinion, graphic style has more impact on my appreciation of a game's visuals, because a great art style can shine through even on the technologically-challenged Wii.

[Kamalot]

I kind of like this article (http://gamerscoreblog.com/team/archive/2008/07/28/560253.aspx) as my response to what EA says.

Funny, that 'selfish gamer' is playing on a Nintendo DS, a system whose popularity was driven by casual games such as Nintendogs, Animal Crossing and Cooking Mama. With the huge install base of the DS, and the affordable development costs, developers found it good business to make hardcore games for the system (http://www.atlus.com/etrian2/).

Mainstream gaming is good for niche gaming.

Good article.

By becoming popular more opportunity exists. New companies may make products that I'm interested in. Television shows (or whole stations) may start to develop the type of content that I'm interested in.

If the video game hobby stayed niche, it could go away because it would be unprofitable as a business, but it's never been about mainstream respect.

[Itchyeyes]

Exactly. Let's discard the hyperbole and look at the facts. The Wii is in a stronger position than the PS3 in every meaningful sense - units sold (not shipped) and attach rate. Those figures absolutely play a part in how developers look at their target audience.
True, but it's unlikely that EA looks at the PS3 by itself. Most likely it sees the PS3, and 360, and to a lesser extent the PC as more or less a single unit, since the vast majority of EA games made for one system will also be ported to the others. Likewise EA probably views the Wii and PS2 collectively also. Additionally there are other considerations that EA has to think about long term, such as developing and maintaining certain brand images on certain systems. I'm not saying that it's a bad decision for EA to invest more in the Wii, just that it's not as cut and dry as people want to think it is.

[Baron Samedi]

From the article:

It needs to stop. Instead of clinging to the faulty belief that only Sony and Microsoft matter in the software space, developers need to start focusing more on the Wii and develop games that are not only innovative, but more in the vein of those titles they're creating for the competing consoles. And in the end, I think we'll all win.

[Kamalot]

*sigh*

Thanks for changing the article title AGAIN without making any kind of note.

The linked article is not about Electronic Arts, so the title is now wrong. In fact, nowhere in the linked article or in the referenced San Jose Mercury News article does EA state that other developers should focus more on Wii.

Another Evil Avatar administrator failure makes me sad. :(

[KidNicarus]

And some one needs to remind EA thst in spite of Boom Blox being an amazing game, it only sold 4 copies.

The Wii is unique in that third party games for the system do not do well. The attach rate compared to the other two systems is awful and the only games that perform well either have "Wii" in the title, or are made by Nintendo.

[fitbabits]

*sigh*

Thanks for changing the article title AGAIN without making any kind of note.

The linked article is not about Electronic Arts, so the title is now wrong. In fact, nowhere in the linked article or in the referenced San Jose Mercury News article does EA state that other developers should focus more on Wii.

Another Evil Avatar administrator failure makes me sad. :(

I changed the title the first time because, frankly, the one submitted was a little messy.

I just now changed it back to the way it was before it was changed the second time.

And this was not a "failure" of any of the admins here. Mistakes happen.

[Kamalot]

I changed the title the first time because, frankly, the one submitted was a little messy.

I just now changed it back to the way it was before it was changed the second time.

And this was not a "failure" of any of the admins here. Mistakes happen.

The submitted article title was the exact same one from the linked article, copied and pasted.

"It's about time developers focus on the Wii"

But hey, not my site.

[fitbabits]

The submitted article title was the exact same one from the linked article, copied and pasted.

Regardless, it was still a little messy. I changed it for that reason and that reason alone.

[Variable Gear]

I didn't think it was messy, but I'm not the best judge of character. ;)

[Kamalot]

Regardless, it was still a little messy. I changed it for that reason and that reason alone.

I should have attached some moist towelettes...

[fitbabits]

The submitted article title was the exact same one from the linked article, copied and pasted.

"It's about time developers focus on the Wii"

But hey, not my site.

And the difference between "It's about time developers focus on the Wii" and "Developers Need to Focus More on Wii Development" is what, exactly? The underlying sentiment is still there, it's the way it's phrased that's different.

And it's not my site either. It's all of y'all's.

[Talon-]

And it's not my site either. It's all of y'all's.

Is this the first instance of Scot saying "y'all" in human history?

Please tell me I got the right race.

[Baron Samedi]

And some one needs to remind EA thst in spite of Boom Blox being an amazing game, it only sold 4 copies.

The Wii is unique in that third party games for the system do not do well. The attach rate compared to the other two systems is awful and the only games that perform well either have "Wii" in the title, or are made by Nintendo.

Via MTV Multiplayer (http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/06/17/ea-on-boom-blox-sales/):

Electronic Arts CEO John Riccitello, however, told an audience at the William Blair Investor Conference today that sales were on target. “It has met our expectations internally,” he said. “It’s continued to sell well. It did break into the top 10 for the Wii, and the advertising is doing exactly what [our] team expected to: drive sales.”

[fitbabits]

I should have attached some moist towelettes...

That...

http://www.daverhoades.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/un-depends.jpgs

...entirely on what you submit.

[Kamalot]

And the difference between "It's about time developers focus on the Wii" and "Developers Need to Focus More on Wii Development" is what, exactly? The underlying sentiment is still there, it's the way it's phrased that's different.

I was only upset about the "EA Thinks" version of the headline, which was false. I've had submitted news that was changed to be false or inaccurate on more than one occasion in the past.

[fitbabits]

Is this the first instance of Scot saying "y'all" in human history?

Please tell me I got the right race.

You got the right race, and no - sadly I've said it before. I lived in NC for several years before moving to Denver.

[Talon-]

The thing with Boom Blox is that it's not a title that's going to sell a ton on release. Electronic Arts has stated that they expect it to have a long tail.

An "Evergreen Title," if you will.

[fitbabits]

I was only upset about the "EA Thinks" version of the headline, which was false. I've had submitted news that was changed to be false or inaccurate on more than one occasion in the past.

Right, which was why I reverted it.

Again, mistakes happen. Address them in an appropriate manner and all's well with the world.

[Kamalot]

The thing with Boom Blox is that it's not a title that's going to sell a ton on release. Electronic Arts has stated that they expect it to have a long tail.

An "Evergreen Title," if you will.

Yep and yep. A lot of titles that reach beyond the traditional gamer demographic have a lot longer burn as they spread by word of mouth. They typically don't sit in the top 10 for long, but they do continually sell over a very long stretch of time. Hell, people still buy Animal Crossing on the DS brand new even though the game is ancient.

[TrackZero]

The Wii has the worst attach rate, so why should they dump more resources on it? People aren't going to buy anything for it not called Wii *name* or *name* Mario *name* for it anyways. Not the masses at any rate. Boom Blox was proof of that.

[Norse]

Once you go HD, there's no going back. Gameplay is always more important than graphics, but graphics is still a major part of the experience. The Wii doesn't offer me anything that make up for the lack of HD graphics. I don't mind developers making more Wii titles as long as it doesn't = less 360/PS3 titles.

[fitbabits]

The Wii has the worst attach rate, so why should they dump more resources on it? People aren't going to buy anything for it not called Wii *name* or *name* Mario *name* for it anyways. Not the masses at any rate. Boom Blox was proof of that.

Actually, the worst attach rate is the PS3. Officially and everything!

* Xbox 360: 7.5
* Wii: 5.3
* PS3: 4.6

[Kamalot]

Once you go HD, there's no going back.

That's complete bullshit.

[Variable Gear]

Boom Blox was proof of that.
No it wasn't. Boom Blox wasn't properly marketed and priced.

[ShivaX]

So, there were no emotionally gripping stories last gen on the PS2 because the graphics were so bad, right?

You also have to remember that Nintendo tends to funnel things through the lens of Nintendo. Which means basically no M rated games at all. I'd say thats pretty limiting in the sense of what stories can be told. Not to mention blood is also a big negative. Add the hardware limitations on top of it and noones going to be making the next Gears/God of War on a Wii. Wii sells so well because: its cheap, family friendly and gimmicky (omg I can pretend to bowl/play tennis/jerk off with this remote thing).

Nintendo's only good games historically were from Square anyway. The only game I missed in the last TWO generations that was on a Nintendo system was Ogre Battle 64. Everything else was at best a "meh".

Bite me fanboys. :)

[Schnoogs]

That's complete bullshit.

So you prefer NTSC over HD?

[fitbabits]

No it wasn't. Boom Blox wasn't properly marketed and priced.

Yup, agreed. However, it wasn't the easiest IP to market.

[Kamalot]

So you prefer NTSC over HD?

I prefer quality writing over more pixels. I watch regular DVDs all the time, even though I have an HD setup in the living room, and an HD projector in the rec-room.

There is a lot more selection available on DVD than Bluray. Hell, I even watch streaming Netflix since watching something when I want to is more important that watching it with more pixels.

Would I enjoy it if everything was in high definition? Sure. Does that mean that I can't enjoy quality programming in standard definition? No way.

Stating that once you experience high definition means you can never go back to standard definition is complete and utter bullshit.

Edit: Hell... people watch freaking youtube-compressed 320x240 video all the time. People watch movies on their iphones and laptops. HD isn't some kind of holy-fucking-grail that'll change your life. It is more pixels... that is all. HD does not improve a shitty movie, or make the writing any better. it won't help the actor's performance, or make the camerawork any more creative. All it does is show you the same shit you've already seen with more clarity... more sparkle.

[Zaro]

Stating that once you experience high definition means you can never go back to standard definition is complete and utter bullshit.

I'm with you here. HD exist for age on Pc and it never prevent me to play games on any console.

[Variable Gear]

However, it wasn't the easiest IP to market.
Also, having Spielburg's name on the box didn't mean much. :)

[Schnoogs]

Stating that once you experience high definition means you can never go back to standard definition is complete and utter bullshit.

Not really...I know countless people who no longer buy DVDs. They no longer watch standard TV. They choose to play the 360 or PS3 over the Wii.

That might not work for you but it's silly to say that it's bullshit when countless people have made such a decision. I gagged the first time I saw a Wii. If I wanted those graphics I'll just plug in my PS2 or dig up my 5 year old video card.

[Kamalot]

I'm with you here. HD exist for age on Pc and it never prevent me to play games on any console.

Exactly. I was playing Counterstrike years ago in 'higher than high definition' on my PC. Yet I could still flip on my PS2 and play games that were fun as hell despite the PS2's shitty resolution. Many, many PS2 games aren't even a full 640x480!

[Schnoogs]

It is more pixels... that is all.

Way to completely trivialize something :rolleyes:

Conversation over.

[Kamalot]

Not really...I know countless people who no longer buy DVDs. They no longer watch standard TV. They choose to play the 360 or PS3 over the Wii.

That might not work for you but it's silly to say that it's bullshit when countless people have made such a decision. I gagged the first time I saw a Wii. If I wanted those graphics I'll just plug in my PS2 or dig up my 5 year old video card.

Just because someone has a preference for HD does not mean that SD is unwatchable. If HD would go away, and SD was the only option, would you give up watching things on screen altogether? Cause that's what you are saying if you state that 'once you see HD you CAN NOT GO BACK'!

OMG! I enjoy movies in B&W even thought I've seen COLOR!

What a stupid fucking argument.

[cp#]

And some one needs to remind EA thst in spite of Boom Blox being an amazing game, it only sold 4 copies.

The Wii is unique in that third party games for the system do not do well. The attach rate compared to the other two systems is awful and the only games that perform well either have "Wii" in the title, or are made by Nintendo.

For those wondering, here's the official attach rates per console (direct from NPD):

* Xbox 360: 7.5
* Wii: 5.3
* PS3: 4.6

Just because all the nerds here buy 1-2 games a month doesn't mean the 360 has an attach rate of 30 games. I somewhat disagree with your second point. A lot of the Wii "crapware" is aimed at the younger crowd and the parents are buying the games that kids want. Movie tie-in games, LEGO, anything with a recognizable brand. Nintendo trumps them all in terms of "Jimmy want!" and brand recognition.

[Heretic Machine]

Not to mention blood is also a big negative.

rYvW-LyqYRY

Nintendo's only good games historically were from Square anyway. The only game I missed in the last TWO generations that was on a Nintendo system was Ogre Battle 64. Everything else was at best a "meh".

Bite me fanboys. :)

Unless you consider the fact that Super Mario Galaxy is the best game ever made.

[Hellstorm]

When it comes down to it, if we are considering game development as an art form (which I think we need to)

"Games are not art. They are products." --Atushi Anaiba Platinum Games-Producer on Steel Battalion, God Hand, Phoenix Wright, Okami, Vewitiful Joe.

[Zaro]

Not really...I know countless people who no longer buy DVDs. They no longer watch standard TV. They choose to play the 360 or PS3 over the Wii.

That might not work for you but it's silly to say that it's bullshit when countless people have made such a decision. I gagged the first time I saw a Wii. If I wanted those graphics I'll just plug in my PS2 or dig up my 5 year old video card.

Anyway it's just sad for you, i like games on DS and even GBA and probably game for the PSP but i did'nt have one, i'm not restrict to anything.

[Schnoogs]

What a stupid fucking argument.

As I said in my previous post...I'm done discussing this with you. Now that you've resorted to childish insults I feel good about my decision.

Good day to you.

[Kamalot]

Way to completely trivialize something :rolleyes:

Conversation over.

Yep. You lose, cause you can't take the FACT that HD is nothing more than more pixels? Weak.

[Schnoogs]

Anyway it's just sad for you, i like games on DS and even GBA and probably game for the PSP but i did'nt have one, i'm not restrict to anything.

You play your DS on a 110" screen? Probably not so next time you call something or someone sad understand the context of the conversation.

[MosBen]

I don't have time to read the whole thread, but I'm sure plenty of people have already mentioned this: What attach rate does the Wii have? What have sales been like on most non-trivial (read: shovelware) third party games? How does it affect a games profitability if a game can be sold on both the 360 and PS3 with minimal conversion cost versus being made exclusively for the Wii?

My inclination, from both personal experience and online reporting, that the Wii audience doesn't buy a lot of games generally and third party games specifically. Obviously with a base as large as that you're going to want some kind of plan for the system as a software developer, but I don't know that studios should really be rethinking their focus if Wii owners don't seem willing to buy many games, and particularly non-party games. And just to be clear, that's not a knock on party games or people who play them, but if every developer tried to cash in on the Wii Sports craze you'd get a flooded market where nobody made money.

[Zaro]

You play your DS on a 110" screen? Probably not so next time you call something or someone sad understand the context of the conversation.

No, but it's not HD. But i understand that playing none HD game on a big screen don't look really good. I'm no insulting you. It's just that HD is nothing new and it's possible to go back but you make your choice and it's ok. Have fun!

[Heretic Machine]

I don't have time to read the whole thread, but I'm sure plenty of people have already mentioned this: What attach rate does the Wii have?

Yes, we have gone over this, it has a slightly higher attach rate than the PS3.

[T-Rex Commando]

It's kind of a shitty situation, really. Developers won't make "hardcore" games for the Wii because nobody will buy them, but "hardcore" gamers won't buy Wii's because they don't have any "hardcore" games.

I say "hardcore" because that word has lost all meaning and degenerated into "OMG SUPER AWESOME HD GRAFFIX AND BLOOD AND SHOOTING". I just have to say that while good graphics are a fantastic thing to have, if you overlook a game because it isn't the shiniest new thing on the block then you're about as "hardcore" as my mom.

[Schnoogs]

No, but it's not HD. But i understand that playing none HD game on a big screen don't look really good. I'm no insulting you. It's just that HD is nothing new and it's possible to go back but you make your choice and it's ok. Have fun!

Maybe it wasn't clear in my post but I was specifically talking about media or devices where you have a choice between HD or non HD. In those cases I will always pick HD.

In the case of cell phones, hand helds, youtube videos, etc there is no choice. It's all non HD. Of course I will keep using them or watching them because what other choice do I have?

When it comes to my HT and game consoles I have a choice and I chose the PS3 and the 360 over the Wii.

HD isn't just more pixels...that's a very limited and uniformed perspective. With HD came new aspect ratios and resolutions. The switch from analog to digital. Better compression in terms of the media. Better compatibility between PCs, TVs, etc.

[Kamalot]

HD isn't just more pixels...that's a very limited and uniformed perspective. With HD came new aspect ratios and resolutions. The switch from analog to digital. Better compression in terms of the media. Better compatibility between PCs, TVs, etc.

HD has nothing to do with compression, digital or compatibility. In fact, there is less compatibility out there now with the HDCP hardware handshaking that some manufacturers force into their products. Standard definition runs on every TV, it is therefore more compatible.

And yes, I and many others continue to play older games on our fancy new TVs. In fact, with Wii homebrew, I just set up a Genesis emulator that plays tiny 320x240 games on my projector screen. The pixels in the game are freaking ginormous, and beautiful.

Just because newer technology comes along does not render previous entertainment unwatchable/unplayable. People enjoy older games at very low resolutions. People enjoy movies in B&W. A great game/movie is great in spite of its limitations, and sometimes BECAUSE of them. I'd rather play Sonic 3 on my Genesis than the new Sonic in HD on my PS3.

[Norse]

1. I prefer HD over SD (who doesn't)
2. I got a 46" HDTV and SD looks like crap compared to HD content on it.
3. PS3/X360 fulfills my gaming needs.
4. The Wii offers nothing for me. Gameplay and storytelling is very important, but no Wii title does these things well enough to warrant a step back to SD for me.

I'm not saying SD is unplayable for me, but it will take something extraordinary for me to go back to last gen graphics. I'm not a complete graphics whore, but IMHO there's a just huge gap between Wii and PS3/360.

[Schnoogs]

Shakes head...some people will say the dumbest things just to keep an argument going.

The term "HD" became a catch all for describing what is considered the "next generation" of video. People have come to expect higher resolutions, more aspect ratios, digital content and output, increased compatibility (virtually everything now supports HDMI) and in the case of media more sophisticated compression.

Sure we can be completely obtuse and argumentative and say that HD simply means HDTV resolutions or we can see the term as it really is....a description of next generation video. The Wii fails in almost every way when you think HD.

[Kelegacy]

Once you go HD, there's no going back. Gameplay is always more important than graphics, but graphics is still a major part of the experience. The Wii doesn't offer me anything that make up for the lack of HD graphics. I don't mind developers making more Wii titles as long as it doesn't = less 360/PS3 titles.

People always seem to think great graphics and great gameplay cannot coexist in a game. That seems to always be the argument against HD gaming. "I'd rather have great gameplay than great graphics." Well, DUH. But who says they must be mutually exclusive? My 360/PS3 gaming library is filled with beauty and fun mingling together in harmony.

[bapenguin]

1. I prefer HD over SD (who doesn't)
2. I got a 46" HDTV and SD looks like crap compared to HD content on it.
3. PS3/X360 fulfills my gaming needs.
4. The Wii offers nothing for me. Gameplay and storytelling is very important, but no Wii title does these things well enough to warrant a step back to SD for me.

I'm not saying SD is unplayable for me, but it will take something extraordinary for me to go back to last gen graphics. I'm not a complete graphics whore, but IMHO there's a just huge gap between Wii and PS3/360.

What this guy said.

[Zaro]

Ouf! We feel better, no?
It's been a long time since we got this discussion. :)

[Baron Samedi]

Shakes head...some people will say the dumbest things just to keep an argument going.

*********blahblahblah

[vherub]

1. I prefer HD over SD (who doesn't)
2. I got a 46" HDTV and SD looks like crap compared to HD content on it.
3. PS3/X360 fulfills my gaming needs.
4. The Wii offers nothing for me. Gameplay and storytelling is very important, but no Wii title does these things well enough to warrant a step back to SD for me.

I'm not saying SD is unplayable for me, but it will take something extraordinary for me to go back to last gen graphics. I'm not a complete graphics whore, but IMHO there's a just huge gap between Wii and PS3/360.

I prefer color movies over b&w (who doesn't)
I have giant speakers so monaural sounds awful
movies released in the last 3 years fulfill all my movie-watching needs
I enjoy a good experience, but have self-imposed hurdles that make enjoying things difficult

[Variable Gear]

I just have to say that while good graphics are a fantastic thing to have, if you overlook a game because it isn't the shiniest new thing on the block then you're about as "hardcore" as my mom.
I agree. The respect that I have paid to the "hardcore" gamer has deflated rapidly in recent years.

[UglyPimp]

Funny, I haven't really seen anything done on the 360 that is particularly innovative compared to the last generation's offerings, outside of the shiny new graphics.

And of course, LIVE, but it's really a moot point. Nintendo really nailed it with the Wii.

[Schnoogs]

And of course, LIVE, but it's really a moot point. Nintendo really nailed it with the Wii.

Now if only there was a single game that I gave a damn about! :p

[Kamalot]

1. I prefer HD over SD (who doesn't)
2. I got a 46" HDTV and SD looks like crap compared to HD content on it.
3. PS3/X360 fulfills my gaming needs.
4. The Wii offers nothing for me. Gameplay and storytelling is very important, but no Wii title does these things well enough to warrant a step back to SD for me.

I'm not saying SD is unplayable for me, but it will take something extraordinary for me to go back to last gen graphics. I'm not a complete graphics whore, but IMHO there's a just huge gap between Wii and PS3/360.

See, I got no problem with statements like this. Blanket statements that classify standard definition as unwatchable, or saying you can never go back to standard definition are complete and utter bullshit though.

[Heretic Machine]

People always seem to think great graphics and great gameplay cannot coexist in a game. That seems to always be the argument against HD gaming. "I'd rather have great gameplay than great graphics." Well, DUH. But who says they must be mutually exclusive? My 360/PS3 gaming library is filled with beauty and fun mingling together in harmony.

But better graphics does mean bigger budgets, and that means fewer indy titles, and less creativity in general. Hence the glut of big-budget shooters that have been filling the libraries of the 360 and PS3.

Now, frankly, I don't think that there is a significant argument for the Wii over the 360 or PS3; I also don't believe that there is a significant argument for the 360 or PS3 over the Wii. When it comes down to it, you can put great games on any of them, and they all have their own issues that you may or may not be able to deal with (the Wii's lack of HD, full 5.1 surround sound or solid online play; the 360 being a piece of shit, ads on the dashboard, pay-for-play online play... etc; the PS3's price and Sony being slow to put new content on their online service).

I choose to support the Wii to supplement my PC, PS2 and DS, and no longer buy games for my 360 for various reasons. I understand that not everyone will make that choice, but I wish I didn't have to argue for the validity of my own decisions.

[Variable Gear]

Now if only there was a single game that I gave a damn about! :p
If you can't find one you aren't looking hard enough, which means you aren't hardcore.

[Wellscha]

It's kind of a shitty situation, really. Developers won't make "hardcore" games for the Wii because nobody will buy them, but "hardcore" gamers won't buy Wii's because they don't have any "hardcore" games.

I say "hardcore" because that word has lost all meaning and degenerated into "OMG SUPER AWESOME HD GRAFFIX AND BLOOD AND SHOOTING". I just have to say that while good graphics are a fantastic thing to have, if you overlook a game because it isn't the shiniest new thing on the block then you're about as "hardcore" as my mom.

+1 :)

I think people really forgot the war between DS and PSP. In which the PSP was trounced by FRIGGIN SNES ON STEROIDS!

[Schnoogs]

If you can't find one you aren't looking hard enough, which means you aren't hardcore.

Oh noes......

[Variable Gear]

Oh noes......
Yeah, I know, right? Sorry for the personal attack, but it's true that people who aren't actively looking to be entertained by all systems aren't very hardcore.

[Nighthawk]

The Wii is a great system if you have a family and definitely keeps me, a "hardcore" gamer entertained. On a budget, the Wii allows me to pickup several more games and accessories and still be paying what PS3/360 owners paid for their system itself.

And the above statement is correct. If you can't find anything to play, you suck. I can tell you right now I have over a dozen games for our Wii, and none of them are shit. Wii games I have loved so far:

Super Smash Brothers Brawl
Super Mario Galaxy
Zelda: Twilight Princess
Super Mario Wii
Resident Evil 4

Wife enjoys:

Wii Fit
Wii Sports & Wii Play
Sonic & Mario At The Olympics
Brawl & Galaxy

Kids love:

Boomblox
Brawl
Galaxy
Sonic & Mario at the Olympics
Marioparty 8


Personally I don't see a big need for the 360 or PS3. I've got a nice damn PC computer, and I really feel like the only way to play FPS games is on the computer. I've owned all the Halos on the X-Box but I just prefer the higher quality graphics and much more precise control from a computer for this type of game. Don't know when the "hardcore" gamers became damn console fanbois anyways.

[Schnoogs]

Yeah, I know, right? Sorry for the personal attack, but it's true that people who aren't actively looking to be entertained by all systems aren't very hardcore.

Can you point out where I said I wasn't looking? :confused:

Don't confuse not having found anything with not looking to begin with.

[Citizen Philip]

Actually, the worst attach rate is the PS3. Officially and everything!

* Xbox 360: 7.5
* Wii: 5.3
* PS3: 4.6

Is there any official acknowledgment that the attach rate is including online content? Otherwise that number could be misleading, because Windows for example comes with 11 games.

I would hope the attach rates include the two categories, if it isn't done already.

[Kamalot]

Is there any official acknowledgment that the attach rate is including online content? Otherwise that number could be misleading, because Windows for example comes with 11 games.

I would hope the attach rates include the two categories, if it isn't done already.

I'm not sure if downloadable titles are included in the attach rate or not but I would doubt it. In the recent Sony financial statement, the amount earned in software most likely DOES include downloadable software, since it is a measure of software income, but I believe attach rate is determined with retail sales.

Could be wrong though.

[Itchyeyes]

I was going to avoid this whole conversation, but I have to weigh in on the whole "you're not teh hardcore if you can't find any games you like on the Wii". The fact of the matter is games require time and money, two resources that most of us have in limited quantities. If I had infinite time and resources then perhaps replaying the Wii version of RE4 or Okami to see the subtle differences that the interface makes might be a compelling reason to buy these titles, or perhaps I might devote more time to exploring more niche titles like No More Heroes trying to discover if they are, or are not for me. But since that is not the case my money and time go towards games that have a relatively high chance of entertaining me in genres that I already know I like, of which there are many that I have not played yet. That doesn't mean I'm any less dedicated to my hobby, it just means that I'm practical about it.

[Schnoogs]

I was going to avoid this whole conversation, but I have to weigh in on the whole "you're not the hardcore if you can't find any games you like on the Wii". The fact of the matter is games require time and money, two resources that most of us have in limited quantities. If I had infinite time and resources then perhaps replaying the Wii version of RE4 or Okami to see the subtle differences that the interface makes might be a compelling reason to buy these titles, or perhaps I might devote more time to exploring more niche titles like No More Heroes trying to discover if they are, or are not for me. But since that is not the case my money and time go towards games that have a relatively high chance of entertaining me in genres that I already know I like, of which there are many that I have not played yet. That doesn't mean I'm any less dedicated to my hobby, it just means that I'm practical about it.

Quoted for truth

[Nighthawk]

And I feel I am being more practical by playing games on the Wii and PC. If I already have these two, what is the need to buy a 360 or PS3 when my computer will play the games faster than both if I can't find it on the Wii? I resent the fact that the only way you can be "hardcore" is to own every system known to man. I knew I would not get any Mario games on the PC, but damn sure will be able to find the best games from 360 on the PC as well.

[Citizen Philip]

I'm not sure if downloadable titles are included in the attach rate or not but I would doubt it. In the recent Sony financial statement, the amount earned in software most likely DOES include downloadable software, since it is a measure of software income, but I believe attach rate is determined with retail sales.

Could be wrong though.

Why would you doubt it? If it comes to having a list with onyl one value per company, I don't see why in the quest for 'corporate truth' a $5 game is exactly the same as $70 game when it comes to being attached.

[Schnoogs]

And I feel I am being more practical by playing games on the Wii and PC. If I already have these two, what is the need to buy a 360 or PS3 when my computer will play the games faster than both if I can't find it on the Wii? I resent the fact that the only way you can be "hardcore" is to own every system known to man. I knew I would not get any Mario games on the PC, but damn sure will be able to find the best games from 360 on the PC as well.

For example the 360 has a much lower cost of entry than your typical PC so with that being said I have tons of friends who have a 360 but don't have a PC that can play most of the games worth a damn.

So the advantage for many is the 360 has a better community...it can play many exclusives that aren't available on the PC...it has Live Arcade....achievements.

There's a lot of reasons someone might opt to get a 360 over a PC. It's not like the two are synonomous.

[Heretic Machine]

I was going to avoid this whole conversation, but I have to weigh in on the whole "you're not teh hardcore if you can't find any games you like on the Wii". The fact of the matter is games require time and money, two resources that most of us have in limited quantities. If I had infinite time and resources then perhaps replaying the Wii version of RE4 or Okami to see the subtle differences that the interface makes might be a compelling reason to buy these titles, or perhaps I might devote more time to exploring more niche titles like No More Heroes trying to discover if they are, or are not for me. But since that is not the case my money and time go towards games that have a relatively high chance of entertaining me in genres that I already know I like, of which there are many that I have not played yet. That doesn't mean I'm any less dedicated to my hobby, it just means that I'm practical about it.

If you don't have time to at least look at a list of high rated games for a platform, I don't see how you can really consider yourself to be hardcore. I mean, what you're basically saying is, "I buy whatever shooter Microsoft tells me to buy." You say in your sig that you're playing FFT, but how the hell did you discover that? It wasn't exactly a break out hit back in the day, and you apparently don't have time to look into what games are good and what games aren't...

[Kamalot]

I was going to avoid this whole conversation, but I have to weigh in on the whole "you're not teh hardcore if you can't find any games you like on the Wii". The fact of the matter is games require time and money, two resources that most of us have in limited quantities. If I had infinite time and resources then perhaps replaying the Wii version of RE4 or Okami to see the subtle differences that the interface makes might be a compelling reason to buy these titles, or perhaps I might devote more time to exploring more niche titles like No More Heroes trying to discover if they are, or are not for me. But since that is not the case my money and time go towards games that have a relatively high chance of entertaining me in genres that I already know I like, of which there are many that I have not played yet. That doesn't mean I'm any less dedicated to my hobby, it just means that I'm practical about it.

I understand what you are saying. A lot of stuff on the Wii is really different, and may not appeal to everyone. Personally, I use a rental service to try out a LOT of different things that I would never normally buy. Sometimes, they are total crap, but I've also discovered gems among the turds, for ALL the platforms - 360, PS3 and Wii.

Then again, my tastes may not be in line with yours. I personally grow very tired of the same kinds of games again and again and LOVE to try new things. I can be happy with a new FPS title every few years, if they are remarkable, but most are derivative crap in my eyes. RPGs are another excellent example. I rarely sink my teeth into an RPG any more unless it is something truly special, like Mass Effect. I don't have time to explore the nuances between all the RTS titles and fighting games. I want something DIFFERENT that'll capture my imagination.

Personally, I also very much enjoy playing games with my family. Spending time with friends and family is probably the most enjoyable form of entertainment for me. So if I can get a great multiplayer experience that can happen in my own home, I'll be happier than I would with online-only multiplayer or a single-player experience for the most part.

The beautiful part of this generation is that there are systems and games that appeal to such a wide, and growing, range of tastes. Mass Effect puts Mrs. Kamalot to sleep, but she'll stay up till the wee hours throwing shells in Mario kart or kicking my ass at Super Smash Bros Brawl. Playing with the ones you love provides a lot more pleasure than playing with strangers disconnected over the Intertubes, or playing with yourself. Your mileage may vary.

When Silicon Knights pulled split-screen co-op out of Too Human, they pulled it right off my Must buy list.

[Itchyeyes]

And I feel I am being more practical by playing games on the Wii and PC. If I already have these two, what is the need to buy a 360 or PS3 when my computer will play the games faster than both if I can't find it on the Wii? I resent the fact that the only way you can be "hardcore" is to own every system known to man. I knew I would not get any Mario games on the PC, but damn sure will be able to find the best games from 360 on the PC as well.
Let's recap, you took my reply to another posters comment, inferred that it applied to your flamebait comment, and rebutted it by essentially paraphrasing the very same argument you're arguing against while simultaneously contradicting your earlier post.

I'm actually impressed. It must take a lot of effort to blind yourself to reason so completely.

[Kamalot]

Why would you doubt it? If it comes to having a list with onyl one value per company, I don't see why in the quest for 'corporate truth' a $5 game is exactly the same as $70 game when it comes to being attached.

Well, last I checked Nintendo's attach rate numbers don't include Virtual Console titles. That was prior to the launch of Wii Ware. I would ASSUME that Microsoft and Sony don't count Live Arcade or PSN titles in their attach rate either. Then again, just an assumption and like I stated before... could be wrong.

[51|RandoM]

Be careful what you wish for.

With the image of the Wii and its users that already has formed I'm not sure I'd be interested in any of the games that would be produced due to more focus on the platform.

Cooking Mama and Ninjabread man just aren't appealing to me.

[Itchyeyes]

If you don't have time to at least look at a list of high rated games for a platform, I don't see how you can really consider yourself to be hardcore.
Just because a game is highly rated doesn't mean I'm going to like it. I don't like party games, I don't like platformers, I don't like weird stuff like NMH, I've already played Okami and RE4 on previous consoles, I've already played MP3 and Twilight Princess. You tell me just how many games are out there on the Wii for someone like me.
I mean, what you're basically saying is, "I buy whatever shooter Microsoft tells me to buy."
That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that I prioritize how likely I am to try a game by how likely I think I will like it. I know I like strategy games. I know I like RPG's. There are dozens of strategy and RPG games out there that I have not tried yet, so I'm going to play those before I try some quirky party game on the Wii that there's a very good chance I'm not going to like anyways. Just because I decide that the next game I'm going to play is The Witcher instead of Boom Blox doesn't make me "less hardcore".

[Returner]

Developers Need to Focus More on Wii Development
Out of all the developers I know including myself want nothing to do with the Wii.

[Heretic Machine]

Just because a game is highly rated doesn't mean I'm going to like it. I don't like party games, I don't like platformers, I don't like weird stuff like NMH, I've already played Okami and RE4 on previous consoles, I've already played MP3 and Twilight Princess. You tell me just how many games are out there on the Wii for someone like me.

What do you mean you don't like "weird stuff like No More Heroes"? That's the lamest thing I've ever heard. You don't like platformers? When did you even start gaming then? How about SSBB, Mario Kart, Zack & Wiki, Fire Emblem, Chocobo's Dungeon? Getting a Lost in Blue game in September, Samba de Amigo (not sure on the release date), Tales of Symphonia 2, and the only console port of the new Sam & Max games.

[Schnoogs]

What do you mean you don't like "weird stuff like No More Heroes"? That's the lamest thing I've ever heard. You don't like platformers? when did you even start gaming then? How about SSBB, Mario Kart, Zack & Wiki, Fire Emblem, Chocobo's Dungeon? Getting a Lost in Blue game in September, Samba de Amigo (not sure on the release date), Tales of Symphonia 2, and the only console port of the new Sam & Max games.

Why do you care what kind of games he likes or dislikes. It's not like he's telling you you're wrong for playing the games you do. If he doesn't like platformers then he doesn't like platformers. Who fucking cares...it's not like you have to like those to be a gamer.

[Heretic Machine]

Why do you care what kind of games he likes or dislikes. It's not like he's telling you you're wrong for playing the games you do. If he doesn't like platformers then he doesn't like platformers. Who fucking cares...it's not like you have to like those to be a gamer.

He's making a complaint about the Wii, as if it's the Wii's fault that he doesn't look for good games. And considering that platformers, along with shooters, are the basis for gaming as we know it...

[Kamalot]

I don't typically like core Mario games. Yet this summer I've found myself REALLY enjoying Mario Galaxy. I mean, REALLY! I don't know why it didn't 'click' with me before. Never really got into Mario 64, and LOATHED Sunshine... but something about Galaxy is magic.

I like strategy games, especially Fire Emblem on the GBA, but something about the Wii version didn't sit well with me. Don't know what it was, but it didn't click at all.

Different strokes for different folks.

[Variable Gear]

Quoted for truth
There are also a few awesome Wii-exclusive titles that most people around here enjoy ignoring, such as No More Heroes, Super Mario Galaxy, and Boom Blox. When I talk about the Wii, I'm not talking about playing the slightly different port of a PS2 game that was released years ago, I'm talking about new content. And, the fact of the matter is, those three games are games that everyone should play, no matter where their console preferences lie. They are just that fun. :)

[Itchyeyes]

He's making a complaint about the Wii, as if it's the Wii's fault that he doesn't look for good games. And considering that platformers, along with shooters, are the basis for gaming as we know it...
I never once made a complaint about the Wii. I was arguing against that some here were trying to say that if you can't find something you like on the Wii, then you're not hardcore. Try actually reading things before you post knee jerk replies to defend your hallowed system. And even if I did, so the fuck what. I didn't realize my personal preferences on what I choose to spend my money on were subject to what some anonymous person on a message board deems acceptable.

[Heretic Machine]

I never once made a complaint about the Wii. I was arguing against that some here were trying to say that if you can't find something you like on the Wii, then you're not hardcore. Try actually reading things before you post knee jerk replies to defend your hallowed system. And even if I did, so the fuck what.

There is at least one good game, of every single genre (with the possible exception of traditional RPGs; which may not even exist anymore), on the Wii.

I didn't realize my personal preferences on what I choose to spend my money on were subject to what some anonymous person on a message board deems acceptable.

Try being a fan of Nintendo or Sony consoles on this site.

[Itchyeyes]

There is at least one good game, of every single genre (with the possible exception of traditional RPGs; which may not even exist anymore), on the Wii.
You still don't get it do you? It's not about what some collective Metacritic score deems is good, it's about what interests me. I don't give a shit about a game like Boom Blox. It doesn't matter if it's the best goddamned party game ever made if I'm not interested in party games. Just because some magazine reviewer deems a game good doesn't mean that it's a game for me.

[Heretic Machine]

You still don't get it do you? It's not about what some collective Metacritic score deems is good, it's about what interests me. I don't give a shit about a game like Boom Blox. It doesn't matter if it's the best goddamned party game ever made if I'm not interested in party games. Just because some magazine reviewer deems a game good doesn't mean that it's a game for me.

You don't care about good games, of any genre? So, no matter what genre a game is a part of, and no matter how good it is, that doesn't factor in to whether or not you are interested in it?

[Schnoogs]

He's making a complaint about the Wii, as if it's the Wii's fault that he doesn't look for good games. And considering that platformers, along with shooters, are the basis for gaming as we know it...

That doesn't mean people should want to play them. My fiancé games a ton but plays puzzle games. She couldn't care less about platformers or shooters. I'm not gonna tell he she's wrong for liking puzzles only.

Playing games makes you a gamer regardless of the genre or platform.

[Schnoogs]

You don't care about good games, of any genre? So, no matter what genre a game is a part of, and no matter how good it is, that doesn't factor in to whether or not you are interested in it?

Now you're just trolling his posts...being argumentative for no reason at all.

[fitbabits]

Holy crap. This thread is heading for closure - fast.

Some people like some games. Other people like other games. Sometimes two people like the same game. Other times, they don't. Nobody is right. Nobody is wrong. You know why? Because different people sometimes like and dislike different things.

[Heretic Machine]

Now you're just trolling his posts...being argumentative for no reason at all.

I said that the Wii has at least one good game, of virtually any genre, and he said that didn't matter; what am I supposed to say?

Holy crap. This thread is heading for closure - fast.

Some people like some games. Other people like other games. Sometimes two people like the same game. Other times, they don't. Nobody is right. Nobody is wrong. You know why? Because different people sometimes like and dislike different things.

And I already said that I don't think that my choice of platforms is particularly superior to anyone else's. I'm just fucking sick of how hostile people treat the Wii around here. Every post even loosely related to the Wii degenerates into, "The Wii has no games"; "The Wii has X games"; "I don't like X games, they are teh suck, no HD's and bloods..."

[Kadoo]

Does this mean we get a NHL game EA?

Sorry to thread jack.

[Lutheran]

Not really...I know countless people who no longer buy DVDs. They no longer watch standard TV. They choose to play the 360 or PS3 over the Wii.

That might not work for you but it's silly to say that it's bullshit when countless people have made such a decision. I gagged the first time I saw a Wii. If I wanted those graphics I'll just plug in my PS2 or dig up my 5 year old video card.


Your a graphics whore :)

[cp#]

Be careful what you wish for.

With the image of the Wii and its users that already has formed I'm not sure I'd be interested in any of the games that would be produced due to more focus on the platform.

Cooking Mama and Ninjabread man just aren't appealing to me.

Yeah Cooking Mama needs more Unreal Engine 3 ;)

[Meatgortex]

Getting back to the original topic of focusing on Wii development, the numbers just don't support the assertions in the article that a switch to Wii is a path to success.

360
~12m - Consoles in NA
24 - Games over 1m units in NA
20 - 3rd party games over 1m

Wii
~13m - Consoles in NA
13 - Games over 1m units in NA
3 - 3rd party games over 1m

PS3
~5.5m - Consoles in NA
7 - Games over 1m units in NA
5 - 3rd party games over 1m

Yes there are more Wii consoles out there, but today the odds aren't in your favor for making a big hit. This is a big of a chicken/egg issue since less dedicated work has gone to the Wii. This is made more complicated because the audience is different to the one developers are used to building games for, so success is far more difficult to predict. So you have things like Sonic Olympics and Carnival Games outselling Metroid.

Wii development does cost less, but that is offset by the fact that a game developed for the 360 is easily ported to the PS3 and/or PC, while a game focused on utilizing the Wii must be significantly changed to work on other platforms.

EA is having a hard transition, but that has far more to do with mismanaged projects and a poor portfolio than jumping on the wrong console. Activision is doing extremely well with a 360/PS3 centric group of titles and Guitar Hero as their only Wii success, which doesn't even use the Wii controller.

[Verity]

It's about time one of the big dogs acknowledges the Wii in a more serious manner. We've had developers like High Voltage Software beginning to develop Wii games specifically for the system, rather then lobbing out half-assed efforts--and they can do a lot, mind you--but it's important to be backed by companies like EA because they have the resources to put forth decent efforts on separate consoles. Of course, EA's games have never been the epitome of quality, but they can produce some fairly good content, and I hope they can walk as they talk.

The Wii just has so much potential that has yet to be revealed, and I think that as we begin to see more and more companies--large and small alike--directing more focus on the Wii (something, I think, will gradually happen as this generation goes on) we'll begin to see some truly creative and genre-inspiring content.

I remember when the Wii was at the hight of its hype in the gamer community, just after E3 2006, and people speulated about all of the unique visual styles that would emerge out of the necessity to compensate for lack of hardware power. So far we've seen little more than attempts at improved realism and bubbly styles (not my cup of tea). Games like Super Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3 have been some of the only games to really display an effort in visual style, and they were great; but they were also made by Nintendo.

Hop-to 3rd parties!

[Lutheran]

I'm not saying SD is unplayable for me, but it will take something extraordinary for me to go back to last gen graphics. I'm not a complete graphics whore, but IMHO there's a just huge gap between Wii and PS3/360.


So are you saying a game like God of War 2 or RE:4 looks bad to you? Both are last gen games that look as good as a lot of PS3/360 games. The Wii SHOULD have a ton of games that look better then both of these but the dev's have done a poor job when making games for this console. Its not the Wii's fault or Nintendo's.

[Schnoogs]

Your a graphics whore :)

I probably am!

[Lutheran]

I probably am!


:) Hey I love great graphics too , just because I love the Wii doesn't mean I agree with their choice to not have a little more horsepower under the hood. Like I said earlier IMHO the dev's are to blame for the Wii having a lot of games that are shovelware/poor graphics.They could easily make acceptable looking games ( to people even like you , I assume you would agree that great games like RE:4 or GoW 2 are more then acceptable as far as graphics go even if they are not HD ) with good artwork if they spent more then 5 minutes on the graphics and not just ship out some shovelware onto already overcrowded shelves.

[Sl1pstream]

I think it is funny that one of the early examples of games that could ONLY be done on the HD consoles, Dead Rising, is coming to the Wii anyway.

That's like saying that Resistance is coming to the PSP. Sure, the game will be on the system, but it's not going to be the same experience due to the system's limitations.

[Kelegacy]

But better graphics does mean bigger budgets, and that means fewer indy titles, and less creativity in general. Hence the glut of big-budget shooters that have been filling the libraries of the 360 and PS3.

That's what XBLA and PSN are for. Also, graphics aren't the only advantage the PS3/360 have over the Wii. All that horsepower is not just for graphics. The PS3/360 have a huge advantage over the Wii.

I also don't believe that there is a significant argument for the 360 or PS3 over the Wii. When it comes down to it, you can put great games on any of them, and they all have their own issues that you may or may not be able to deal with (the Wii's lack of HD, full 5.1 surround sound or solid online play; the 360 being a piece of shit, ads on the dashboard, pay-for-play online play... etc; the PS3's price and Sony being slow to put new content on their online service).

The 360 hardware has some issues, but it's not a piece of shit. The games are excellent. Some people have never had a problem with their machine. Either way, the 360 is a great gaming platform.

And the PS3 might be a bit more expensive, but you get a lot of features in that $400 package, so many that it would cost you a lot more to upgrade your 360 to the standard features of a PS3. That's why they're selling at a loss--the fucking thing is loaded. Oh, and PSN has a lot of good stuff on it, updated more often now, and many times at a decent price.

The Wii is like a new-gen PS2 with a motion controller, but Nintendo branded. Only, the PS2 rocked.

[Xerxes]

You know the controller just doesn't do it for me. It's not accuate in it's movements for the most part. Waggling is a good term for what I feel I'm doing when it's on. Maybe the plus thing will help but I'm not too interested anymore.

[RMan]

Getting back to the original topic of focusing on Wii development, the numbers just don't support the assertions in the article that a switch to Wii is a path to success.
Yea, the numbers that are massaged to favor one company do not support this. However, real, relevant numbers do. What matters to a publisher is money put in vs. money gotten back, and these numbers (and obviously attach rates) strip that data out of the equation. Basically, if you want to judge how much profit you might make, how much profit others generally make is a good metric, but these don't tell you that. Listing the winnings of lottery winners also doesn't tell you how good an investment a lottery ticket is, no matter how much it might excite lottery players.

[ElfShotTheFood]

It's nice to see that so many console gamers (ie, people who only games for "fun") can be total graphics whores too.

[Heretic Machine]

That's what XBLA and PSN are for.

Welcome to the world of shitty graphics.

Also, graphics aren't the only advantage the PS3/360 have over the Wii. All that horsepower is not just for graphics. The PS3/360 have a huge advantage over the Wii.

Wouldn't it be great if that were true :rolleyes: Of course it's a complete fantasy, since the 360 has done nothing significantly noticeable with advanced physics or A.I.

The 360 hardware has some issues, but it's not a piece of shit.

Yes, it is; it is probably the worst gaming hardware that has ever existed. Even a NES took 7-10 years to die completely, though it would often be difficult to get a game to boot properly. The 360 has that, and so much more, like breaking down completely in multiple different ways (only one of which is covered by their much touted extended warranty). If you want to put up with it, fine, but I won't.

The games are excellent.

They're good, but none of them bring anything particularly interesting to the table (not that Wii games are doing much better). I really haven't seen much of an upgrade from last generation beyond better graphics, and viable digital distribution programs on all the consoles.

Some people have never had a problem with their machine.

Some people have working NES consoles that never had to have their pins replaced. Good for them.

Either way, the 360 is a great gaming platform.

Maybe for you; for me, it isn't even on my list of potential gaming platforms, and I own the damn thing. That level of unreliability is simply unacceptable, I won't put money into it. For me the Wii is much better, I'm never worried about my Wii dieing on me when I start it up. I won't hold such differences against you, I just wish that people wouldn't constantly call out Nintendo fans to convince them that the Wii is a viable platform.

And the PS3 might be a bit more expensive, but you get a lot of features in that $400 package, so many that it would cost you a lot more to upgrade your 360 to the standard features of a PS3.

Agreed, but that doesn't make it less expensive.

That's why they're selling at a loss--the fucking thing is loaded. Oh, and PSN has a lot of good stuff on it, updated more often now, and many times at a decent price.

I'm sure it is, and I have considered getting a PS3. It looks like a fine platform to me, and I'm sure I'd enjoy it; I just don't know if it would add enough to my experience as a gamer to justify the price tag. I have a gaming PC, Wii, PS2, and DS... do I really need a PS3? I haven't decided yet.

[Chris_D]

The problem with that seemingly high Wii software attach rate that doesn't seem to have been considered is that 2-4 of those 5 titles could easily be 1st party Nintendo games for many owners (especially if you include Wii sports). In comparison, I would say that the attach rate of 4.5 and 8 for PS3/360 respectively most likely contain fewer 1st party games on average.

So the window for opportunity on Wii is probably lower for 3rd parties on Wii than you might have assumed. Of course this is a compliment to Nintendo's consistently high selling high quality franchises but it does create a barrier for new IPs from 3rd parties.

[Schnoogs]

Kelegacy you're totally wasting your time...he's just arguing to argue.

[Variable Gear]

So the window for opportunity on Wii is probably lower for 3rd parties on Wii than you might have assumed. Of course this is a compliment to Nintendo's consistently high selling high quality franchises but it does create a barrier for new IPs from 3rd parties.
That's always been a problem for third-parties developing for Nintendo platforms. If they can't create an experience that rivals what Nintendo is offering, they shouldn't take the time to build their Wii games. Also, the strong first-party sales mean that there is a great number of people who buy the Wii exclusively for the Nintendo titles, giving third parties the opportunity to surprise consumers with games they didn't know they wanted.

This applies more to core gamers than the Wii's expanded audience, but I still feel that it bares being mentioned.

[oldjadedgamer]

Kelegacy you're totally wasting your time...he's just arguing to argue.

Yeah, basically Heretic Machine is Evil Avatar's version of the cranky old man that yells at everyone to keep off his lawn.

[bean19]

There are a few good reasons to develop on the Wii: lower development costs, a chance to be innovative with the controls and make something unique, and a chance to reach an install base that includes new types of gamers.

However, there are several reasons why we are seeing AAA titles from 3rd parties showing up more commonly on the Xbox 360 and/or the PS3.

1. 3rd party games have not sold well on the Nintendo Wii.

2. The Xbox 360 has the best worldwide sales for video games (better average sales, better total sales, and better attach rate. The Xbox 360 wins at any unqualified game-related stat.)

3. If you are a 3rd party developer, you can develop for the Xbox 360 AND the PS3 for a much larger combined install base and systems that have much higher attach rates than the Nintendo Wii.

4. If you are creating a successful IP that you want to build your business around or you already have IPs that you have built your business around then you have to go with the industry leader in technology. The technology of the Wii doesn't keep up and is closer to last-gen, so great games that are known for their graphics like Devil May Cry, Soul Calibur, Final Fantasy, etc. need to come to next-gen consoles. Likewise, if you are creating another AAA game that you expect to sell not just this generation but the one that follows, you have to come to the consoles that have the graphics, memory, and power to make your game happen (see Assassin's Creed, Dead Rising, Gears of War).

5. Finally, the most successful and creative designers in the game industry (Miaymoto aside) are more likely to want to work for companies that are making the types of games they want to play. While I could see Peter Molyneux of Lionhead coming up with all sorts of neat game ideas for the Wii and getting talented game designers to follow him, I cannot see Cliff Blezinski or David Jaffe doing this (maybe Jaffe). There isn't a shortage of talent out there, but there is a shortage of tested talent that publishers and development companies are willing to give the keys to multiple million dollar projects.

[Heretic Machine]

Kelegacy you're totally wasting your time...he's just arguing to argue.

Yeah, basically Heretic Machine is Evil Avatar's version of the cranky old man that yells at everyone to keep off his lawn.



http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3278/2715619826_077116716c.jpg

[Schnoogs]

...

You don't see me going around dismissing the 360 like it's this gens Saturn.

Show some respect where it's due.

[Heretic Machine]

You don't see me going around dismissing the 360 like it's this gens Saturn.

Show some respect where it's due.

No, you do that with the Wii, the most successful console of this generation :rolleyes:

"Make games for the largest install base in the market? Preposterous!"

[BTW: The Saturn worked fine, to my knowledge.]

[Schnoogs]

No, you do that with the Wii, the most successful console of this generation :rolleyes:

"Make games for the largest install base in the market? Preposterous!"

Actually I don't...but who am I to tell YOU what MY opinion is.:rolleyes:

[Xerxes]

No, you do that with the Wii, the most successful console of this generation :rolleyes:

"Make games for the largest install base in the market? Preposterous!"

It is when they don't sell.

[Heretic Machine]

It is when they don't sell.

But we have statistics that say that they do sell; better than the PS3, in fact! :rolleyes: And that's when the publishers are focusing on the 360.

Actually I don't...but who am I to tell YOU what MY opinion is.:rolleyes:

You've done nothing but troll the Wii through this entire topic, not to mention every other Wii topic on this site, ever.

[Schnoogs]

But we have statistics that say that they do sell; better than the PS3, in fact! :rolleyes:

Everyone knows the PS3 is a BluRay player. :p

Heck, I own 20 BluRay movies and 1 game. That's probably typical.

[bean19]

Wouldn't it be great if that were true :rolleyes: Of course it's a complete fantasy, since the 360 has done nothing significantly noticeable with advanced physics or A.I.
You just don't notice it, which is a credit to game designers on the Wii. They are making the Wii's limitations not noticeable to you (but they are noticeable to me. . . don't study game design if you don't want this ruined for you).

If you are interested though, look at the difference between Dead Rising and the Wii version.

Even a NES took 7-10 years to die completely, though it would often be difficult to get a game to boot properly.

First, before I address this point. . . What does this have to do with whether or not the Xbox 360/PS3 are better for 3rd party developers to develop on than the Wii?

The Xbox 360 is terribly unreliable. You're right. That's why they have a free one-year warranty for anything and a 3-year warranty for the major problem the RROD (both of which reknew if you have your unit replaced due to a problem). While there are a few people that have had horror stories like having the disc drive mess up after their year is up or having to get their units replaced for free several times, there are tons of other people who have either never had a problem or who have had a good experience having their Xbox 360 replaced.

Except for a few aluminum hat types, most people seem to be fine with the Xbox 360's lack of reliability given that they do a good job cleaning up their fuck-ups. Personally, I had a launch unit that broke 3 days after I got it, and the replacement RROD'd two years later. Both fixed for free with about ten days of time from when I first call with the problem until I got a fixed unit.

[Schnoogs]

You've done nothing but troll the Wii through this entire topic, not to mention every other Wii topic on this site, ever.

Actually what I've done is state over and over that the Wii isn't for me. That's a far cry from calling it a dud. That's a matter of my preference. I fully respect though how well it's doing.

[Chris_D]

I think even blueray movie sales can benefit Sony through licensing fees so it's not such a bad thing.

[Hellstorm]

You don't see me going around dismissing the 360 like it's this gens Saturn.

Show some respect where it's due.

Totally. The 360 is more like this gens Dreamcast. Good machine, playing second fiddle to the Wii.

So far there hasn't been much on either 360 or PS3, that from a gameplay standpoint couldn't be transferred over to the Wii seamlessly.

Also you guys are putting way too much into attach rate, when there are many things that factor into it. Consider the amount of Wiis sold every month. Nearly 700k, that is a huge boost in userbase each month. It is going to take some time till parity is reached between hardware and software. The Wii's attach rate WILL go up and could be bigger than the 360's eventually.

But it's funny how people still believe that the Wii has the lowest attach rate, when it's been proven time and again that PS3 has that honor.

Eventually numbers are going to turn towards the Wii, where the Wii world wide will have sold more units than PS3 and 360 combined. It's inevitable, the damn system is doing Christmas numbers in the middle of freaking July. You can't ignore that forever. Can't stick your head in the sand.

The Wii is following in the footsteps of the DS. Eventually all the core games you love will end up or have a version for the Wii, some even exclusive. You'll get used it and life will go on.

[Heretic Machine]

You just don't notice it, which is a credit to game designers on the Wii. They are making the Wii's limitations not noticeable to you (but they are noticeable to me. . . don't study game design if you don't want this ruined for you).

If you are interested though, look at the difference between Dead Rising and the Wii version.

...Man, don't act like Dead Rising is an example of the 360 doing something great with it's "horse power." If anything, it's symbolic of the lack of progress being made with the advanced hardware: Moar shambling, mindless zombies, doing absolutely nothing in the background... woohoo!

You know, when it does come out the Wii the gameplay isn't even going to be effected by the shrinking zombie population. It will have the same clunky animations and controls, it will still be just as repetitive; you just won't be able to look out on a huge zombie horde. If that meets your definition of a game breaking feature, I think we've said enough. Maybe RE5 will do something more impressive? Probably not though.

First, before I address this point. . . What does this have to do with whether or not the Xbox 360/PS3 are better for 3rd party developers to develop on than the Wii?

Someone else derailed the thread, I went along for the ride.

The Xbox 360 is terribly unreliable. You're right. That's why they have a free one-year warranty for anything and a 3-year warranty for the major problem the RROD (both of which reknew if you have your unit replaced due to a problem).

To my knowledge, there is no renewel of the 3-year warranty on the RRoD problem; never mind all of the other system killing issues.

While there are a few people that have had horror stories like having the disc drive mess up after their year is up or having to get their units replaced for free several times, they are the ones that are paying for it.

Umm... go ahead and ask Evil about Microsoft's support of his dad's 360. Hell, ask me about Microsoft's support of -my- two 360s.

Except for a few aluminum hat types, most people seem to be fine with the Xbox 360's lack of reliability

...No, some people are fine with it. Many people aren't going to tolerate it, especially once you get away from the HDcore (yeah, I just came up with that; go me) crowd. Normal folks aren't going to put up with that shit, certainly not once MS starts telling them to pay $100 to fix a three year old piece of hardware that costed anywhere from $350-$450 to begin with.

given that they do a good job cleaning up their fuck-ups.

You have an interesting definition of good.

Personally, I had a launch unit that broke 3 days after I got it, and the replacement RROD'd two years later. Both fixed for free with about ten days of time from when I first call with the problem until I got a fixed unit.

I had a launch unit that worked until the October of the following year, which was replaced with a noisy POS, whose disk drive never worked quite right to begin with, and has only gotten worse over time.

[Schnoogs]

...Man, don't act like Dead Rising is an example of the 360 doing something great with it's "horse power." If anything, it's symbolic of the lack of progress being made with the advanced hardware: Moar shambling, mindless zombies, doing absolutely nothing in the background... woohoo! .

I guess I'll ignore the fact that a) it was a kick ass game and b) it could not have been done on the Wii

Is this gonna be a game where every positive thing people list about the 306 you simply respond by saying "well that wasn't that great"?

If so then we get the idea that you hate the 360.

[bean19]

...Man, don't act like Dead Rising is an example of the 360 doing something great with it's "horse power." If anything, it's symbolic of the lack of progress being made with the advanced hardware: Moar shambling, mindless zombies, doing absolutely nothing in the background... woohoo! They actually do have AI even when the AI is telling them to shamble. . . you can have a hundred zombies who have had their AI notice you. Did you never play with that? Also, do you not have an HDTV?

There are a lot more limitations that the Wii has that you aren't seeing beyond having far superior graphics, and more enemies and more AI active at once, though those are the ones that most people notice very easily.

You know, when it does come out the Wii the gameplay isn't even going to be effected by the shrinking zombie population.
You think so? I think it will be far less scary and a lot easier.

Someone else derailed the thread, I went along for the ride.
Are you interested in talking about the subject of the thread. I made a long post with 5 reasons why AAA 3rd party titles are showing up on the Xbox 360/PS3 rather than the Wii.

[bean19]

But it's funny how people still believe that the Wii has the lowest attach rate, when it's been proven time and again that PS3 has that honor.
No. The Wii has a very low attach rate due to it's new casual customer base. Where are you getting that misinformation?

[Heretic Machine]

I guess I'll ignore the fact that a) it was a kick ass game

Bullshit. I bought that game when it came out, and I've played through it plenty of times (gotten the full Megaman suit twice because of a corrupted save), and I will tell you with absolute certainty that it was a mediocre game with an excellent premise. People don't play Dead Rising because of it's exciting gameplay... it was clunky as hell, most people (though I disagree with them) hate the save system, Otis is annoying as fuck, no body likes the escort side missions, and bosses required little more strategy than "blow it's friggin head off, fast."

It was a mediocre game that was sold on a premise that every geek enjoys, "You're trapped in a mall with a zombie outbreak... survive." If you applied the same gameplay to any other premise, no body would give a shit. I'm glad I bought it, the novelty aspect was excellent; but it's a mediocre game. If you don't go in with a love for Dawn of the Dead, you won't enjoy the experience, period.

Excellent stylistic and thematic choices though, I'll give them that.

and b) it could not have been done on the Wii

Yeah, I think I'll take Capcom's word on this one, Schnoogs.

No. The Wii has a very low attach rate due to it's new casual customer base. Where are you getting that misinformation?

From this topic.

lrn2read, wrds ar ur frind.

And if publishers were actually putting effort into their Wii games (as they do with the 360), the attach rate would be even higher.

[Schnoogs]

Bullshit..

Oh you didn't like it? Oh well in that case your opinion trumps my own. I now officially didn't like the game. :rolleyes:

And I thought I had issues.

[Schnoogs]

Yeah, I think I'll take Capcom's word on this one, Schnoogs.

Yeah because they stated it would look IDENTICAL to the 360 version. :rolleyes:

[Kelegacy]

Perigon, when was the last time you played a game on the 360? I can't imagine someone that has fired up any of the gems from fall '07 to present can hate the 360. Even I, a former proponent against the machine, enjoy it. Must be doing something right to make me say that.

Nowadays I'm a PS3 fanboy (new owner syndrome), but I can't lie and say the 360 is lacking. Hardware reliability, perhaps. But for an overall experience? No-brainer.

[Heretic Machine]

They actually do have AI even when the AI is telling them to shamble. . . you can have a hundred zombies who have had their AI notice you. Did you never play with that? Also, do you not have an HDTV?

Yes, I bought an HDTV soon after I got my 360, looks snazzy. I'm a PC gamer though, it's not really all that impressive. And no, I've never seen this amazing zombie AI you're talking about.

There are a lot more limitations that the Wii has that you aren't seeing beyond having far superior graphics, and more enemies and more AI active at once, though those are the ones that most people notice very easily.

Name some specifics, from specific games. I have extensive experience with the 360, and haven't noticed anything significantly advanced beyond what we were seeing last gen..

You think so? I think it will be far less scary and a lot easier.

...When was it either scary, or hard, to begin with? Are we talking about Dead Rising here?

Are you interested in talking about the subject of the thread. I made a long post with 5 reasons why AAA 3rd party titles are showing up on the Xbox 360/PS3 rather than the Wii.

Did it include, "Publishers don't know their market very well?" Because that's the reason.

[Hellstorm]

I guess I'll ignore the fact that a) it was a kick ass game and b) it could not have been done on the Wii

Is this gonna be a game where every positive thing people list about the 306 you simply respond by saying "well that wasn't that great"?

If so then we get the idea that you hate the 360.

Dead Rising being kick ass is a matter of opinion (No More Heroes is a better highly repetative game than Assassins Creed, but that's just my opinion). But if it couldn't be done on the Wii, why is it coming out for the Wii? :) The mere fact that a Wii version exists somewhat kills your arguement.

Again, nothing the 360 or PS3 are doing from a gameplay standpoint couldn't be done on the Wii seamlessly. Heck, RE5 is just RE4 with normal maps. I mean look at it, it IS just RE4 with normal maps. No reason that RE5 cannot be done on the Wii. Heck, I expect Capcom to announce a Wii version running on the RE4 engine.

Then again, I think RE5 is probably using the RE4 engine.

[Zeal]

it's simple, developers give wii no respect because it's a shitty, gimmicky system. how can an artist express himself on a system that is only marginally stronger than a gamecube? what you're saying is a repeat of the nintendo 64 and the cube era...there's gonna be no games.

[Heretic Machine]

Perigon, when was the last time you played a game on the 360? I can't imagine someone that has fired up any of the gems from fall '07 to present can hate the 360. Even I, a former proponent against the machine, enjoy it. Must be doing something right to make me say that.

Nowadays I'm a PS3 fanboy (new owner syndrome), but I can't lie and say the 360 is lacking. Hardware reliability, perhaps. But for an overall experience? No-brainer.

The last game I actually bought for it was Halo 3. After I let my Live account lapse a month or two later, I pretty much stopped messing with it. Since then I've played a little R6: Vegas terrorist hunt mode, played through Kameo again, and messed around with Dead Rising long enough to get my Megaman suit again. I don't think I've really bothered with anything outside of that, though I'm tempted to play through the Halo 3 campaign again; at least the good parts.

EDIT: I did show Bioshock to my girlfriend.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that the 360 doesn't have the superior library. It absolutely does, by a very large margin. It has a lot of great games (Dead Rising not being one of them; don't buy the hype, it's a novelty), and if it weren't for the hardware issues, it would likely still be my platform of choice despite a few other issues. I was a big fan of the 360 for a long time, but sooner or later you just have to face facts and own up to the 360's serious hardware issues. I can't put up with it, so I abandoned it. And no, the 360 isn't doing anything particularly special with it's power. No one is doing anything terribly different with any of the hardware upgrades (I think the level design in Mario Galaxy is pretty innovative, but it is nothing that couldn't have been done on a Gamecube or XBOX).

[Hellstorm]

No. The Wii has a very low attach rate due to it's new casual customer base. Where are you getting that misinformation?
Well then NPD must be lying out of their teeth. Suck it up man, Wii does not have the lowest attach rate. Accept it and move on.

[Schnoogs]

Dead Rising being kick ass is a matter of opinion .

I know...I stated that in the very post you quoted. :confused:

[Hellstorm]

Yeah because they stated it would look IDENTICAL to the 360 version. :rolleyes:

Looking at screen shots, outside of zombie density, it pretty much looks about the same. Granted Capcom still has time to polish the game as well.

[Chris_D]

The mere fact that a Wii version exists somewhat kills your arguement.

Neither stance can be entirely validated until the Wii version is in gamers hands. That much should be fairly obvious I would have thought.

[Schnoogs]

But if it couldn't be done on the Wii, why is it coming out for the Wii? .

Did you ever play Pac Man in the arcade as a kid?

Did it look like this?

http://www.consoleclassix.com/info_img/Pac-Man_2600_ScreenShot2.jpg

You can port a game to any system...that doesn't mean it will look the same or play the same.

[Schnoogs]

outside of zombie density, it pretty much looks about the same..

Since when did IDENTICAL = about the same? :confused:

[Hellstorm]

Neither stance can be entirely validated until the Wii version is in gamers hands. That much should be fairly obvious I would have thought.
But yet it exists. Not in the Duke Nukem Forever sense mind you. :D

[Hellstorm]

Since when did IDENTICAL = about the same? :confused:

Since when does "pretty much" == IDENTICAL? :confused::confused:

Your point was that it could NOT be done at all on the Wii. :D

[Heretic Machine]

it's simple, developers give wii no respect because it's a shitty, gimmicky system. how can an artist express himself on a system that is only marginally stronger than a gamecube? what you're saying is a repeat of the nintendo 64 and the cube era...there's gonna be no games.

Games weren't art until the 360 came out? Weird.

[Schnoogs]

Since when does "pretty much" == IDENTICAL? :confused::confused:

What are you talking about? :confused:

Your point was that it could NOT be done at all on the Wii. :D

It couldn't be done AS IS. I never said AT ALL.

Find me where I say AT ALL and I'll paypal you $1,000,000,000,000.

Don't tell me what you think my point is.

[Heretic Machine]

What are you talking about? :confused:



It couldn't be done AS IS. I never said AT ALL.

Find me where I say AT ALL and I'll paypal you $1,000,000,000,000.

Don't tell me what you think my point is.

and b) it could not have been done on the Wii

You never said as is. Hell, you couldn't do it as is on the PS3, if you want to be nit-picky; something has to change for a port to be necessary at all.

[Chris_D]

Your point was that it could NOT be done at all on the Wii. :D

I think he was suggesting that features would be lacking from the 360 version, not that it couldn't be done. Following your argument, I could animate a 2D zombie sprite on my 286, and call it Dead Rising, and say that even a 286 could do Dead Rising.

Anyway, until the game comes out (duh) we won't know exactly what features have been sacrificed, and what new features have been added. We can say it won't be HD since the Wii can't output it, but I doubt the sacrifices will be limited to just that. I imagine they'll fix the small text problem at least..

[Kamalot]

Did you ever play Pac Man in the arcade as a kid?

Yep. I also played Asteroids... and the arcade version (http://www.grebz.fr/Images/atari_vcs/asteroids_arcade.jpg) didn't look like the home version (http://www.grebz.fr/Images/atari_vcs/asteroids_2.jpg). Did that stop the home version from being fun? Nope.

Some people play for fun, and not because they need to get their latest graphics whore (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=graphics%20whore) fix.

[Schnoogs]

You never said as is.

I didn't think I had to...I'll dumb down my posts from now on.

[Kamalot]

You never said as is. Hell, you couldn't do it as is on the PS3, if you want to be nit-picky; something has to change for a port to be necessary at all.

Can you take a screen shot of the paypal transaction and post it here?

That'd be great.

[Schnoogs]

Yep. I also played Asteroids... and the arcade version (http://www.grebz.fr/Images/atari_vcs/asteroids_arcade.jpg) didn't look like the home version (http://www.grebz.fr/Images/atari_vcs/asteroids_2.jpg). Did that stop the home version from being fun? Nope.

Some people play for fun, and now because they need to get their latest graphics whore (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=graphics%20whore) fix.

Did I say it wouldn't be fun? :rolleyes:

[Schnoogs]

something has to change for a port to be necessary at all.

Tell us more Mr. Scientist. We're not talking about bit for bit similarity. :rolleyes:

[Schnoogs]

Can you take a screen shot of the paypal transaction and post it here?

That'd be great.

He pointed out where I said AT ALL?

FAIL

[Heretic Machine]

I didn't think I had to...I'll dumb down my posts from now on.

Well, most of us here on EvAv haven't evolved enough to simply create your posts for you in our own minds. I mean, I could take over writing them for you, if you like, but I can't promise that they'll come out exactly as they would normally be. I think we'll be looking at some feature cuts:

teh graphx on the wii sux

[Schnoogs]

You're putting me to sleep here

[bean19]

It was a mediocre game that was sold on a premise that every geek enjoys, "You're trapped in a mall with a zombie outbreak... survive." If you applied the same gameplay to any other premise, no body would give a shit. I'm glad I bought it, the novelty aspect was excellent; but it's a mediocre game.
Well they also delivered on the whole idea of it. There are hundreds of zombies around, and the whole save system makes it feel like you have one life that is precious and must be protected. . . it had genuinely scary bits, and I played without cheating so I was constantly running into new and interesting things.

From this topic. lrn2read, wrds ar ur frind.
Come on. You are above this.

Also, you could have been more helpful. I tracked this back to Joystiq (http://www.joystiq.com/2008/04/24/npds-latest-software-tie-ratios-for-consoles/) who say they contacted the NPD for the most recent numbers in 4/08. We didn't read it here, of course, because Joystiq is a notoriously unreliable site that is not accepted as a source here.

Assuming this is correct, it is still from 4/08. At that time, Brawl was out already but MGS 4 and Grand Theft Auto 3 were not out yet, so it is probably no longer the case.

It's a big deal if the Wii attach rate is even close to 5 though, even though they are counting Wii Play with the remotes (seriously, I know people with 3 copies of Wii Play because they couldn't buy remotes without getting it attached). Part of the new audience of the Wii is that they simply don't buy as many games. However, even with the pack-in inflating this, getting to 5 would be really significant for the Wii.

[bean19]

Well then NPD must be lying out of their teeth. Suck it up man, Wii does not have the lowest attach rate. Accept it and move on.
Actually the original source is Joystiq's report from 4/2008. See my other reply.

[Heretic Machine]

Tell us more Mr. Scientist. We're not talking about bit for bit similarity. :rolleyes:

Well, that isn't as is, now is it? If it were, you could just take the 360 disc out and pop it into a PS3, and play it with your 360 controller.

[Schnoogs]

Well, that isn't as is, now is it? If it were, you could just take the 360 disc out and pop it into a PS3, and play it with your 360 controller.

I meant gameplay and graphics...not the source and binary code.

I'm actually applauding your effort here...it's rare I meet someone who can match my own ability to argue aimlessly. :rolleyes:

[Heretic Machine]

Well they also delivered on the whole idea of it. There are hundreds of zombies around, and the whole save system makes it feel like you have one life that is precious and must be protected. . . it had genuinely scary bits, and I played without cheating so I was constantly running into new and interesting things.

Meh... I played without cheating too, but I really never had a problem outside of the first run against that gun store guy.

Come on. You are above this.

Sorry, I was projecting annoyance on you that you probably didn't deserve.

Also, you could have been more helpful. I tracked this back to Joystiq (http://www.joystiq.com/2008/04/24/npds-latest-software-tie-ratios-for-consoles/) who say they contacted the NPD for the most recent numbers in 4/08. We didn't read it here, of course, because Joystiq is a notoriously unreliable site that is not accepted as a source here.

Well, fitba quoted numbers earlier that place the Wii slight ahead of the PS3, and the 360 a bit further ahead of the Wii. Looked kind of similar all around though, IMO. I think it's safe to say that people are buying games for all three. You also have to remember that the Wii has a much larger install base, thus that attach rate represents a larger number of games; but that's really just fanboy wanking material.

[bean19]

Did it include, "Publishers don't know their market very well?" Because that's the reason.

No. Here are the reasons:

1. 3rd party games have not sold well on the Nintendo Wii.

2. The Xbox 360 has the best worldwide sales for video games (better average sales, better total sales, and better attach rate. The Xbox 360 wins at any unqualified game-related stat.)

3. If you are a 3rd party developer, you can develop for the Xbox 360 AND the PS3 for a much larger combined install base and systems that have much higher attach rates than the Nintendo Wii. (Edit: A Joystiq article from 4/08, if you believe it says that the NPD showed a slightly higher attach rate for the Wii than the PS3. Keep in mind that this is Joystiq and that this is also in April/08 before Metal Gear and GTA III but right after Brawl).

4. If you are creating a successful IP that you want to build your business around or you already have IPs that you have built your business around then you have to go with the industry leader in technology. The technology of the Wii doesn't keep up and is closer to last-gen, so great games that are known for their graphics like Devil May Cry, Soul Calibur, Final Fantasy, etc. need to come to next-gen consoles. Likewise, if you are creating another AAA game that you expect to sell not just this generation but the one that follows, you have to come to the consoles that have the graphics, memory, and power to make your game happen (see Assassin's Creed, Dead Rising, Gears of War).

5. Finally, the most successful and creative designers in the game industry (Miaymoto aside) are more likely to want to work for companies that are making the types of games they want to play. While I could see Peter Molyneux of Lionhead coming up with all sorts of neat game ideas for the Wii and getting talented game designers to follow him, I cannot see Cliff Blezinski or David Jaffe doing this (maybe Jaffe). There isn't a shortage of talent out there, but there is a shortage of tested talent that publishers and development companies are willing to give the keys to multiple million dollar projects.

[Kamalot]

I meant gameplay and graphics...not the source and binary code.

Nice. Nobody here is a mind reader. When you state "it could not have been done on the Wii" how are we supposed to know what portions you are talking about if you don't explicitly state them?

You make absolute statements, and then worm your way out by stating, "I didn't say AT ALL!" I've seen more mature arguments on the playground.

[Kamalot]

3rd party games have not sold well on the Nintendo Wii.
Maybe that's because people aren't making the right kind of games on Wii. I'm looking forward to buying The Conduit, and even Dead Rising... provided the save game system isn't as frustrating as it was on the 360 version.

Electronic Arts themselves stated that they weren't producing enough quality content on Wii. How can it be fair to say that 3rd party titles don't sell when there are so few quality titles designed for the system?

As I stated earlier on, the Wii is different. The designers, artists and developers need to learn how to harness the unique qualities of the Wii to make compelling software for it. Is it easy? Maybe not. But the system is RIPE for people to come along and make compelling experiences unlike any we've ever seen before. Not only that, but the owners are clamoring for games, as evidenced in this thread.

[Schnoogs]

Nice. Nobody here is a mind reader. When you state "it could not have been done on the Wii" how are we supposed to know what portions you are talking about if you don't explicitly state them?

You make absolute statements, and then worm your way out by stating, "I didn't say AT ALL!" I've seen more mature arguments on the playground.

Give me a break...way to ignore commonly accepted rules of conversation.
...you know...like fucking context!

We're talking about the 360 version of the game...did you honestly think that I meant that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to port any version of the game, not matter how butchered, to the Wii???? :confused:

All sorts of games get ported to machines with much slower hardware...and you know what happens??? The game ends up looking different. This isn't new or rocket science.

So continue playing dense and taking things either literally or devoid of context so you can continue arguing OR you could apply some common sense when reading a painfully obvious observation....the 360 version exceeds the capabilities of the Wii.

[bean19]

Maybe that's because people aren't making the right kind of games on Wii.

Oh, that's part of it. I think high quality 3rd party titles will sell well on the Wii too. I also think that they can make money doing it.

My point is that there are a lot of reasons why 3rd party developers are making AAA games for the Xbox 360 and PS3.

[Heretic Machine]

No. Here are the reasons:

1. 3rd party games have not sold well on the Nintendo Wii.

But how much effort is being put into creating and marketing third party games? Very little, in my opinion; I don't think the 360 would have such a thriving third party market if it consisted of unadvertised shovelware. Still, some good games do get made, and because of the lower budgets involved, they do pull in profits.

2. The Xbox 360 has the best worldwide sales for video games (better average sales, better total sales, and better attach rate. The Xbox 360 wins at any unqualified game-related stat.)

Sure, but that just means that the Wii is an untapped market. It's larger install base suggests that there are people ready to buy good games made for it, even if you accept that some portion of them aren't going to be actively looking for new games.

Personally, I'd rather invest a quarter of the budget for a AAA 360 game into a Wii game, where there will be a larger possible customer base and less competition for said customers.

3. If you are a 3rd party developer, you can develop for the Xbox 360 AND the PS3 for a much larger combined install base and systems that have much higher attach rates than the Nintendo Wii. (Edit: A Joystiq article from 4/08, if you believe it says that the NPD showed a slightly higher attach rate for the Wii than the PS3. Keep in mind that this is Joystiq and that this is also in April/08 before Metal Gear and GTA III but right after Brawl).

The combined forces of the 360, PS3, and PC is the best argument against making Wii games. This I will give you.

4. If you are creating a successful IP that you want to build your business around or you already have IPs that you have built your business around then you have to go with the industry leader in technology. The technology of the Wii doesn't keep up and is closer to last-gen, so great games that are known for their graphics like Devil May Cry, Soul Calibur, Final Fantasy, etc. need to come to next-gen consoles. Likewise, if you are creating another AAA game that you expect to sell not just this generation but the one that follows, you have to come to the consoles that have the graphics, memory, and power to make your game happen (see Assassin's Creed, Dead Rising, Gears of War).

You're assuming you'd prefer to expose such an IP to the user base of the 360 (which could easily ignore it in favor of the many other games available), rather than the larger Wii crowd, who are obviously okay with last genish graphics. One would think that a developer like, say, Nippon Ichi would benefit from putting low-tech games out on the Wii.

5. Finally, the most successful and creative designers in the game industry (Miaymoto aside) are more likely to want to work for companies that are making the types of games they want to play. While I could see Peter Molyneux of Lionhead coming up with all sorts of neat game ideas for the Wii and getting talented game designers to follow him, I cannot see Cliff Blezinski or David Jaffe doing this (maybe Jaffe). There isn't a shortage of talent out there, but there is a shortage of tested talent that publishers and development companies are willing to give the keys to multiple million dollar projects.

Frankly, Cliffy B. makes games that really aren't that exciting. I mean, they're good games, great games even... but we're talking about shooters, which cover ground that have been tread frequently in the past. It isn't like I'm really going to be missing out on anything with GoW2, I've been there and done that. Would I care to take another go on the ride? Sure, it's fun stuff; but I can live without it and seek out games which are just as fun elsewhere. I guess he does have a lot of clout to throw around though, which would be handy in motivating publishers towards a Wii project.

The same could be said for most great devs. Really, I'm not even sure I have any big interest in specific devs outside of Nintendo, Valve, and Blizzard; a lot of the more famous devs aren't doing anything terribly interesting with their time. Indy stuff on Steam, XBLA, Wiiware, PSN... that's where you'll find the interesting new talent with crazy ideas. There are also those wacky indy Japanese devs, but an interesting title from them is just as likely to wind up on the PS2 as it is the PS3. Hell, the next jRPG I'll be buying is Persona 4, and that's going to be a PS2 game.

[Kamalot]

Oh, that's part of it. I think high quality 3rd party titles will sell well on the Wii too. I also think that they can make money doing it.

My point is that there are a lot of reasons why 3rd party developers are making AAA games for the Xbox 360 and PS3.

There are. Probably the biggest reason is that developers didn't think the Wii was going to be a success with consumers. Even Electronic Arts, the big cheeze with all its analysts and risk management, didn't foresee the Wii being such a clear-and-away winner with consumers. They were blind sided while they waited for the Wii bubble to burst. They waited and waited... and now have come to the realization that they were wrong. They hitched their wagon to the wrong horses this time.

One thing that's different is we typically figured out who the market leader was going to be before the start of the cycle and bet with our development resources on that platform. We made the wrong call there (by betting on the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360), which made this transition harder than it would otherwise be. But now we're catching up, and I think we're fine. We've got some incredibly innovative Wii titles, incredibly innovative DS titles coming. And so I think that issue's sort of behind us. (http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_10012948?nclick_check=1)

Just like when EA came around and said they were going to focus on new IP and creativity. I didn't believe them. In enough time, they convinced me though, with titles like Mirror's Edge and Dead Space coming out. Yes, it took time for EA to turn around... and it will take time for the results of their shift to Wii to materialize as well. But if EA can admit mistakes, and change their course, maybe there's hope for some closed-minded individuals on message boards as well... given time.

[Heretic Machine]

There are. Probably the biggest reason is that developers didn't think the Wii was going to be a success with consumers. Even Electronic Arts, the big cheeze with all its analysts and risk management, didn't foresee the Wii being such a clear-and-away winner with consumers. They were blind sided while they waited for the Wii bubble to burst. They waited and waited... and now have come to the realization that they were wrong. They hitched their wagon to the wrong horses this time.

I still lulz about how so many "hardcorez" guys got completely sideswiped by the Wii. I remember, the day after they first showed it off, I went down to this place me and my friends hung out, and there was this guy there who worked at Best Buy (thought he knew everything about games; didn't know jack), and he told me that it was the dumbest thing that he had ever seen, and no body would ever want to play with it for fear of looking stupid. I told him that he was simply wrong, and that it would likely be the most popular console out there by the end of the generation.

lulz, Geek Squad. Bet he ended up waiting in line for a PS3.

Going to bed... I'll check this topic in the morning.

[cp#]

AlA51bIuvi4

[Schnoogs]

I told him that he was simply wrong, and that it would likely be the most popular console out there by the end of the generation.

Good to see this is a popularity contest for you. The rest of us can pick the consoles we enjoy...you can pick the one that sells the most. :rolleyes:

"The wii has sold a ton...therefore I'm right for owning one!!!"

[Kamalot]

"The wii has sold a ton...therefore I'm right for owning one!!!"

Boy, you sound like Playstation owners from the last 10 years.

[Schnoogs]

Boy, you sound like Playstation owners from the last 10 years.

PC gamer...nice try though.

[Chris_D]

he told me that it was the dumbest thing that he had ever seen, and no body would ever want to play with it for fear of looking stupid. I told him that he was simply wrong,

He might have been right if the Wii-mote had the sensitivity and motion sensing capability that seemed promised early on. Then maybe we would have been leaping around our living rooms playing pseudo realistic games of football and tennis (as per some of the early adds). Of course, the reality is we are mostly just sitting on the couch furiously wanking the wii-mote in various ways depending on the game.

[Admiral Ackbar]

Alright, I last posted on this thread a whole hell of a long time ago, and skimmed up to the now. It is shocking how long you can keep up a circular argument Heretic. You are swiftly approaching 12 hours. That aside, I want to try to make a point and then never return.

My original thoughts on the whole piece was that Nintendo is knowingly limiting the capabilities of development studios simply in the name of making more money (which is fine, because they are a business) and somehow you (as a gamer) are trying to defend their actions. They added a new control scheme (revolutionary, gimmicky, doesn't matter), marketed it to old people, had a killer ad campaign and blammo. However, they put shit for hardware in it. By doing this, they are limiting what is possible to get out of a game for their system. There can be no arguing this. They have enabled the extra bit with the controls, granted, but when compared to other systems, they are limiting what can be done. What I mean by this is that there are things that the 360/PS3 can do that it is simply not possible for the Wii to match.

I, for one, argue that this is always bad, in any category, for any company, at any generation. They took a step backwards. Steps backwards when it comes to what we can get out of the software are bad. Microsoft is talking about adding a WiiMote. I won't use it at launch, but I support it like crazy because that enables developers to make more games. And maybe something I love will come out of it. All the shitty hardware is doing for the Wii is making it so certain types of games (whether you like them or I like them or whoever likes them) CANNOT be made, while they can be made on the other systems. This is not good. I don't understand why you would ever disagree on that single point (I don't care about you looking at shitty SD on you one million inch TV or whatever you were arguing about earlier, I passed out while reading it).

[bean19]

But how much effort is being put into creating and marketing third party games?
Yes, as I responded to Kamalot, both of you are right that if there were really great 3rd party titles on the Wii, they would probably sell well. However, there are some games like "No More Heroes" and that RE rail shooter that underperformed. No More Heroes was probably too experimental and odd and both weren't really AAA. . . but there is also the fact that this diverse market is perfect for Nintendo first-party titles but that these leaves less room for "core" games to do well (just as the inverse is true. . . party games and family titles don't do as well on the 360/PS3). Still, with time and good enough 3rd party games, this would probably change. Quality games sell well with very few exceptions (Psychonauts, No One Lives Forever, the one with Jade and the Hog. . . Beyond Good and Evil?)

You're assuming you'd prefer to expose such [a new IP that you are planning to develop as a multi-title hit spanning console generations] to the user base of the 360 (which could easily ignore it in favor of the many other games available), rather than the larger Wii crowd, who are obviously okay with last genish graphics. One would think that a developer like, say, Nippon Ichi would benefit from putting low-tech games out on the Wii.
Well, Disgaea 3 is already an established IP. However, I think you are right that Atlus will sell games on the Wii and the PS2 like Baroque. Perhaps Persona 4 will make it to the Wii as well as the PS2 at some point and that will help it become a bigger deal in the West.

There are definitely some genres that appeal to the Wii's wide customer base that you coudl develop Wii exclusive AAA 3rd-party games for. . . but a lot of them are covered pretty thick and aren't what you or other Wii fans want. . . you don't really want or need more sports titles, puzzle or party games (and those could all easily be multiplatform - possibly as PSN and XBLA games which could make you more money). The real crowd-pleaser that I think could make a lot of money here would family-friendly adventure/action games. Something that is fairly well made and fun like "The Mark of Kri" would totally get a lot of attention. Look at Zack & Wiki, if a similar game came out on the Xbox 360 no one would have paid attention to it, but it got tons of buzz on the Wii.

So there is a place for them certainly, but I would definitely go with that genre if I were designing for the Wii. If I was trying to make a lot of money, then I'd look for a great movie license and develop a great game for it (after the movie's release and only when the design was all okayed or we had freedom to do what we wanted with the license as I wouldn't want a studio mucking it up).

Frankly, Cliffy B. makes games that really aren't that exciting. I mean, they're good games, great games even... but we're talking about shooters, which cover ground that have been tread frequently in the past. It isn't like I'm really going to be missing out on anything with GoW2, I've been there and done that. Would I care to take another go on the ride? Sure, it's fun stuff; but I can live without it and seek out games which are just as fun elsewhere.

Well, the innovators want the best tech too. The Ico Team and Double Fine ares making their new games for HD systems . . not the Wii. Remember how last generation a lot of companies made Xbox exclusives even though it was a loser compared to the PS2 simply because the PS2 couldn't run their game?

Plus, when you talk about games by Cliffy B. or any big-budget shooter or RPG, well, the graphics are part of it. These things tie together. They are wanting to do new stuff that the new tech allows, but it's also about the other things. . . preserving the power of their IP, developer freedom, and the largest multiplatform install base.

[Mr.Green]

Well that sure hit the collective nerve!

[Hellstorm]

I think he was suggesting that features would be lacking from the 360 version, not that it couldn't be done. Following your argument, I could animate a 2D zombie sprite on my 286, and call it Dead Rising, and say that even a 286 could do Dead Rising.


Ah! But my contention was not about graphics, which I concede. It has been about base gameplay, which is going to port over seamlessly. Okay, outside of taking pictures.

[KSmitty]

My original thoughts on the whole piece was that Nintendo is knowingly limiting the capabilities of development studios simply in the name of making more money (which is fine, because they are a business) and somehow you (as a gamer) are trying to defend their actions. They added a new control scheme (revolutionary, gimmicky, doesn't matter), marketed it to old people, had a killer ad campaign and blammo. However, they put shit for hardware in it. By doing this, they are limiting what is possible to get out of a game for their system. There can be no arguing this. They have enabled the extra bit with the controls, granted, but when compared to other systems, they are limiting what can be done. What I mean by this is that there are things that the 360/PS3 can do that it is simply not possible for the Wii to match.

I, for one, argue that this is always bad, in any category, for any company, at any generation. They took a step backwards. Steps backwards when it comes to what we can get out of the software are bad. Microsoft is talking about adding a WiiMote. I won't use it at launch, but I support it like crazy because that enables developers to make more games. And maybe something I love will come out of it. All the shitty hardware is doing for the Wii is making it so certain types of games (whether you like them or I like them or whoever likes them) CANNOT be made, while they can be made on the other systems. This is not good. I don't understand why you would ever disagree on that single point (I don't care about you looking at shitty SD on you one million inch TV or whatever you were arguing about earlier, I passed out while reading it).

No they took a step forward. It may not be as powerful as you would like, but it is more powerful than their last system. The simple fact that God of War 2 was in many critics game of the year listing (you know on the 8 year old PS2) shows that great games can be made on lesser hardware even when more powerful hardware is available. By your logic MS and Sony limited what their consoles can do by not making them as powerful as the newest PC gaming rigs (at the time).

[Variable Gear]

1. 3rd party games have not sold well on the Nintendo Wii.
Tell this to Activision. They'll laugh you out of the room and then remind you that the best-selling Guitar Hero III SKU was the Wii version of the game. :rolleyes:

[Chris_D]

Ah! But my contention was not about graphics, which I concede. It has been about base gameplay, which is going to port over seamlessly. Okay, outside of taking pictures.

How would you know, have you played the final version?

[Admiral Ackbar]

No they took a step forward. It may not be as powerful as you would like, but it is more powerful than their last system. The simple fact that God of War 2 was in many critics game of the year listing (you know on the 8 year old PS2) shows that great games can be made on lesser hardware even when more powerful hardware is available. By your logic MS and Sony limited what their consoles can do by not making them as powerful as the newest PC gaming rigs (at the time).
It is not more powerful than their previous system by some estimates and even if it is, it is not remotely comparable to what is being offered by the other systems. When the 360 and PS3s came out, they were pretty close and offered actually a great deal when it came to system capabilities vs. price. The Wii is laughable. The ONLY reasons they made the Wii suck so much when it comes to hardware are (1) to make money more quickly and (2) old people can't tell the difference. I understand as a business it was a sound move, but I don't know why a gamer would be in favor of any decision by a hardware maker to release something that is so underpowered when compared to the latest hardware. It just makes your investment in their hardware less worth it because you aren't going to get the attention of studios. That might be okay if you love 1st party titles, but that doesn't cut it for me.

[bean19]

Tell this to Activision. They'll laugh you out of the room and then remind you that the best-selling Guitar Hero III SKU was the Wii version of the game. :rolleyes:
Xbox 360 - 3.2 million (http://vgchartz.com/games/index.php?name=&console=X360&region=All&developer=&publisher=&genre=&keyword=&boxart=Both&results=50&order=Hits)
Wii - 3.01 million (http://vgchartz.com/games/index.php?name=&console=Wii&region=All&developer=&publisher=&genre=&keyword=&boxart=Both&results=50&order=Hits)
PS3 - 1.41 million (http://vgchartz.com/games/index.php?name=&console=PS3&region=All&developer=&publisher=&genre=&keyword=&boxart=Both&results=50&order=Hits)

So that's not true, but it is within 200K, so it's close. Still, even if it was better, that would be fairly predictable. Rhythm games will do great on the Wii, even if they have competition from Rock Band (which the Xbox 360 version had).

If you'll read more of my post, you'll see that I think there is a place for AAA 3rd-party Wii titles, and I think they could do well. My post does not posit that they would not be successful on the Wii, but that there are reasons why AAA 3rd-party games are most usually found on (and are so succesful on) the Xbox 360 and/or the PS3.

[Variable Gear]

Grrr...nice digging, beany. I didn't know that the 360 had the crown. Sorry for the arrogance!
Sorry, I'm unable to read any more of your post.
I agree that there's a place for triple-A, third-party, multiplatform titles on the Wii, although they might not be as successful on the system due to the popularity of first-party software and the difficulty in discerning the good games from the bad games. Still, there's definitely a place for multiplatform games that appear on the PS2, PSP, and Wii. We are seeing that more and more, because all of the respective consoles are doing well, and because it is an inexpensive way for publishers to hedge their bets.

In the long-term I am sure that developers will adjust to the Wii, but I worry about the experiences that Wii owners will have in the short-term. Sure, The Conduit looks great and MadWorld looks great, but there is little outside of those two titles that is actually taking advantage of the power of the Wii and the potential of online multiplayer.

[Hellstorm]

How would you know, have you played the final version?
Well according to Capcom the base gameplay is all there, except for pictures. I am sure they are by far more better suited to say what is and is not there than either of us. I am just taking their word for it, they are Capcom afterall.

[Hellstorm]

Xbox 360 - 3.2 million (http://vgchartz.com/games/index.php?name=&console=X360&region=All&developer=&publisher=&genre=&keyword=&boxart=Both&results=50&order=Hits)
Wii - 3.01 million (http://vgchartz.com/games/index.php?name=&console=Wii&region=All&developer=&publisher=&genre=&keyword=&boxart=Both&results=50&order=Hits)
PS3 - 1.41 million (http://vgchartz.com/games/index.php?name=&console=PS3&region=All&developer=&publisher=&genre=&keyword=&boxart=Both&results=50&order=Hits)

So that's not true, but it is within 200K, so it's close. Still, even if it was better, that would be fairly predictable. Rhythm games will do great on the Wii, even if they have competition from Rock Band (which the Xbox 360 version had).

If you'll read more of my post, you'll see that I think there is a place for AAA 3rd-party Wii titles, and I think they could do well. My post does not posit that they would not be successful on the Wii, but that there are reasons why AAA 3rd-party games are most usually found on (and are so succesful on) the Xbox 360 and/or the PS3.

VGchatz??!! I think I will take Nintendo's E3 keynote over VGchartz any day.

[Chris_D]

Well according to Capcom the base gameplay is all there, except for pictures. I am sure they are by far more better suited to say what is and is not there than either of us. I am just taking their word for it, they are Capcom afterall.

Yes, and we'll see what they mean by base gameplay when we play it. What did you expect them to say about it?

[bean19]

VGchatz??!! I think I will take Nintendo's E3 keynote over VGchartz any day.
Sure. Nintendo would never lie to you. The independent source that uses NPD numbers and the foreign equivalents is lying to you.

Even if these numbers are wrong and the completely unsupported statement by an interested party at their most important yearly conference is not a falsehood, you should expect that the leader in console sales would beat the Xbox 360 on ALL multiplatform titles, shouldn't you? That was the case in previous generations, but it simply isn't true this generation, and, if you do want to contribute to this conversation rather than playing pigeon, we are discussing the many reasons that this unlikely scenario has come to pass.

[Hellstorm]

Sure. Nintendo would never lie to you. The independent source that uses NPD numbers and the foreign equivalents is lying to you.

Even if these numbers are wrong and the completely unsupported statement by an interested party at their most important yearly conference is not a falsehood, you should expect that the leader in console sales would beat the Xbox 360 on ALL multiplatform titles, shouldn't you? That was the case in previous generations, but it simply isn't true this generation, and, if you do want to contribute to this conversation rather than playing pigeon, we are discussing the many reasons that this unlikely scenario has come to pass.

But as we all know that last gen the PS2 version did not always outsell other versions of the same game.

As far as the scenario being unlikely to pass... well Lego Indiana Jones on the Wii outsold ALL the other versions. So it is a start, even if rather meager.

Also let us take into consideration how many PS3 and 360 games do have Wii versions, which is undoubtedly low and by low I mean really freaking low. So therefore it is difficult to judge. That is like saying No More Heroes would have sold better on the 360. It might have, but no version exists for parity.

When there is true complete parity for multi-platform games on the Wii with the 360 and PS3 (release date, effort put into graphics and quality) this may allow for a better judgment.

Do I think Dead Rising on Wii is going to sell like the 360 version? Probably not. It's an old game and people who wanted it have already gotten it.

[trip1eX]

@Ackbar -

There are benefits to having a system with lesser graphics.


It takes much less time to do the art on a system like the Wii than it does on a system like the 360 or Ps3. If you read numerous interviews and articles you'll see that it used to take developers a week to render a weapon and now it takes them months. I read that to render cars in GT5 it takes like 10 times as long or longer there as well compared making the cars in GT3/4.

That's a big tradeoff imo. While you might get more finely detailed graphics with a 360 game, on a Wii game you could easily get much more variety in enemies/weapons/environments and/or get more refined gameplay given the same budget. You could get a longer playing experience. There's many ways to use the resources you save from being able to draw the art for the game much faster.

Theoretically you could make a lesser graphic game on the 360 or Ps3, but I think the problem is developers get so caught in the graphical arms race it doesn't happen. Consumers get caught up in it too.

Also you have guys on record like John Carmack saying that in mp games graphics don't matter. Yeah the 3d graphics guru said that a few times in recent interviews. And it's because people tend to forget about the graphics in these games after a few hours.

Graphics are basically a gimmick. Graphic whores go wow and then want a new gimmick, ie better graphics.

Personally I think what you'll see on the 360 and Ps3 is games going forward won't sell as well. I think the graphics whores will get bored when the graphics are that much better than the earlier 360 games. On top of it you'll probably see better Wii games which won't help the 360 and Ps3.

[Schnoogs]

Graphics are basically a gimmick. Graphic whores go wow and then want a new gimmick, ie better graphics.

Graphics are not a gimmick. There are many genres of games where immersion is one of the key selling points.

You sound pretty foolish trying to dismiss a trend that has been going on for 40 years as a mere gimmick.

[Schnoogs]

Also you have guys on record like John Carmack saying that in mp games graphics don't matter.

Yeah...Carmack has long been promoting the idea of using text only for MP since graphics don't matter. :p

Lot of FAIL going on in this thread

[mister_slim]

Is there any official acknowledgment that the attach rate is including online content? Otherwise that number could be misleading, because Windows for example comes with 11 games.

I would hope the attach rates include the two categories, if it isn't done already.

Those are NPD numbers, so they're only for North America and they're only retail.

[Chameleo]

Yeah...Carmack has long been promoting the idea of using text only for MP since graphics don't matter. :p

Lot of FAIL going on in this thread

you're such a troll i hope someone punches you out.

[mister_slim]

Yeah...Carmack has long been promoting the idea of using text only for MP since graphics don't matter. :p

Lot of FAIL going on in this thread

Wouldn't it be better to choose an example where players don't intentionally turn down graphics to increase playability?

[Variable Gear]

Lot of FAIL going on in this thread
Does any of it involve you? Or me?

[RMan]

The problem with that seemingly high Wii software attach rate that doesn't seem to have been considered is that 2-4 of those 5 titles could easily be 1st party Nintendo games for many owners (especially if you include Wii sports).
Umm, who cares? Seriously, it’s kinda funny, MS fans here yell about how godly attach rates are then if Nintendo seems to have good numbers someone must talk about how their numbers don’t matter. Not trying to pick on you, just cracks me up in the context of discussions like these. Let me give you a hypothetical that hopefully illustrates the silliness of trying to project profit potential with numbers that lack context…

Console A has attach rate of 5
Console B has attach rate of 10
1. Which console is the better place to release a game?

Console A has 100 games released on the system
Console B has 400 games released on the system
2. Now which console is the better place to release a game?

Console A has 5 million consoles in the market
Console B has 10 million consoles in the market
3. Now which console is the better place to release a game?

What are the answers to each question, and at which point can you tell which system is more likely to result in a profitable game?

Graphics are not a gimmick. There are many genres of games where immersion is one of the key selling points.
Immersion and top notch graphics are not synonymous. Top notch graphics are not remotely required for immersion, top notch graphics are for people who care about top notch graphics, it is purely relative. Being immersed is a choice the player makes, while a player can choose to find graphics a hindrance, they can just as easily find control a hindrance, or anything else, really. MS/Sony’s efforts to improve graphics are just as much a gimmick as Nintendo’s efforts to improve controls, both are as relevant to immersion as the other, but you can NEVER say one requires a certain baseline feature-set/quality for immersion, which is what your statement seems to suggest.

[ElectricMonk]

that article reads like angry fanboy ranting

[Zeal]

that article reads like angry fanboy ranting

that's just what nintendoheads do.

[Gorvi]

Is it stated somewhere that you can't like both the Wii and PS3/360? Hell, as someone who still plays a ton of PS2 games (not many "next gen" games really do it for me yet) I have no problem with the Wii's graphics. I do have a problem with the complete lack of any games in the forseeable future that I'm looking forward to on the Wii. As a console, though, it's library isn't too bad, and it performs just fine when properly developed for.

[Zaro]

And some one needs to remind EA thst in spite of Boom Blox being an amazing game, it only sold 4 copies.


To be a little more precise it sell 450 000 copies which is not bad at all.

[TrackZero]

To be a little more precise it sell 450 000 copies which is not bad at all.

Psychonauts sold 400,000 copies. So yeah, it's considered bad.

[Zaro]

Psychonauts sold 400,000 copies. So yeah, it's considered bad.

No it's not bad, and it continue to sell and Psychonauts not.
C'mon not every game need to sell over the million to be a success.
With this number i think this game cannot be seen as a failure.

[Talon-]

No it's not bad, and it continue to sell and Psychonauts not.
C'mon not every game need to sell over the million to be a success.
With this number i think this game cannot be seen as a failure.

Psychonauts was a commercial failure. The game shipped less than 100,000 units in 8 months.

[Schnoogs]

you're such a troll i hope someone punches you out.

Because I posted a joke about text based gaming? :confused:

BTW...Man up and try your luck :rolleyes:

[Schnoogs]

Wouldn't it be better to choose an example where players don't intentionally turn down graphics to increase playability?

No idea what your post has to do with a joke about text based gaming :confused:

[KSmitty]

It is not more powerful than their previous system by some estimates and even if it is, it is not remotely comparable to what is being offered by the other systems. When the 360 and PS3s came out, they were pretty close and offered actually a great deal when it came to system capabilities vs. price. The Wii is laughable. The ONLY reasons they made the Wii suck so much when it comes to hardware are (1) to make money more quickly and (2) old people can't tell the difference. I understand as a business it was a sound move, but I don't know why a gamer would be in favor of any decision by a hardware maker to release something that is so underpowered when compared to the latest hardware. It just makes your investment in their hardware less worth it because you aren't going to get the attention of studios. That might be okay if you love 1st party titles, but that doesn't cut it for me.
This is just the type of attitude that is so prevalent. Do you own a Wii? Did you own a Gamecube? Now what kind of fanboi can't tell that the Wii looks better than the Gamecube? I didn't say that the Wii blows the GC out the water, simply that the Wii is more powerful than the previous GC. The Wii 'sucks' compared to the other two consoles because it is less powerful. Nintendo decided to not make graphics/power/HD a selling point of their console and you know what they made a great business decision. The average consumer cares more about price than power (and some powerful branding never hurts). Once again your statements about what studios will or won't do is handily trounced by the behemoth that is PS2. And if lesser hardware is such a concern for you I recommend purchasing a gamimg PC as it is far more powerful than the 360, gets almost all the same games and has better online/community features.

Is it stated somewhere that you can't like both the Wii and PS3/360? Hell, as someone who still plays a ton of PS2 games (not many "next gen" games really do it for me yet) I have no problem with the Wii's graphics. I do have a problem with the complete lack of any games in the forseeable future that I'm looking forward to on the Wii. As a console, though, it's library isn't too bad, and it performs just fine when properly developed for.

Well Gorvi obviously you aren't a hardcore gamer. The Wii only has kiddie and party games and the PS2 is old tech so obviously all of its games suck.

[Schnoogs]

This is just the type of attitude that is so prevalent. Do you own a Wii? Did you own a Gamecube? Now what kind of fanboi can't tell that the Wii looks better than the Gamecube? I didn't say that the Wii blows the GC out the water, simply that the Wii is more powerful than the previous GC. The Wii 'sucks' compared to the other two consoles because it is less powerful. Nintendo decided to not make graphics/power/HD a selling point of their console and you know what they made a great business decision. The average consumer cares more about price than power (and some powerful branding never hurts). Once again your statements about what studios will or won't do is handily trounced by the behemoth that is PS2. And if lesser hardware is such a concern for you I recommend purchasing a gamimg PC as it is far more powerful than the 360, gets almost all the same games and has better online/community features.



Well Gorvi obviously you aren't a hardcore gamer. The Wii only has kiddie and party games and the PS2 is old tech so obviously all of its games suck.

YOu do realize the PS2 was vastly more powerful than the PSX and the Dreamcast.

Stop trying to compare the Wii to the PS2 just because the GameCube and XBox were more powerful than it. Sony did not make the PS2 only marginally more powerful than the PSX.

Apples and fucking oranges.

[KSmitty]

You do realize the PS2 was vastly more powerful than the PSX and the Dreamcast.

Stop trying to compare the Wii to the PS2 just because the GameCube and XBox were more powerful than it. Sony did not make the PS2 only marginally more powerful than the PSX.

Apples and fucking oranges.

Actually it is an apt comparison given that the OLD PS2 is still selling well for Sony (consoles and games) and the fact that God of War 2 was a contender for Game of the Year in the same year that Bioshock, Orange Box, Halo 3 and Mass Effect were released. My point is that good games can be made on lesser hardware even when much more powerful hardware is available and that moar powr is not something that is in high demand among consumers. Apples and fucking apples (although I can't imagine that eating a fucking apple would be very fun, what with all the thrusting)

[Schnoogs]

Actually it is an apt comparison given that the OLD PS2 is still selling well for Sony (consoles and games) and the fact that God of War 2 was a contender for Game of the Year in the same year that Bioshock, Orange Box, Halo 3 and Mass Effect were released. My point is that good games can be made on lesser hardware even when much more powerful hardware is available and that moar powr is not something that is in high demand among consumers. Apples and fucking apples (although I can't imagine that eating a fucking apple would be very fun, what with all the thrusting)

It is not even remotely an apt comparison.

In most side by side comparisons the PC/360/PS2 version of game only showed minor differences....IGN use to do this side by side all the time and more often than not you had to squint to see the graphical difference.

That is hardly the case with the Wii/360/PS3.

Your comparison is just plain silly because the Wii isn't even on the same page as the other two seeing as Nintendo had a completely different goal in mind.

When you've sold 120 million+ of a console developers are going to tap into it. But keep on comparing an underpowered console to the winner of last generation that kicked the shit out of a similar piece of hardware that has been repackaged with a gimicky remote.

Don't reality get in the way of a silly argument though. How do you like them apples? :rolleyes:

[bean19]

Is it stated somewhere that you can't like both the Wii and PS3/360? Hell, as someone who still plays a ton of PS2 games (not many "next gen" games really do it for me yet) I have no problem with the Wii's graphics. I do have a problem with the complete lack of any games in the forseeable future that I'm looking forward to on the Wii. As a console, though, it's library isn't too bad, and it performs just fine when properly developed for.

You are responding to the things that the Wii fans are being defensive about and not the things that anyone (besides Admiral Ackbar) has said in this thread.

I wanted to discuss the reasons that AAA 3rd party games sell so well on the Xbox 360 and PS3 and have often underperformed (with some exceptions) on the Nintendo Wii, as well as the advantages of developing such games on each platform. There is interesting stuff to this, and that went on for a page or two of this thread, but Ackbar had to bring up every criticism gamers have about the Nintendo Wii and the Wii fans had to become extremely defensive (not that it is all Ackbar, there are some Wii fans in this thread who are being illogical and worrying more about winning points than having discussion too).

Personally, I play PS2 games all the time still, and I plan to get Person 4 when it comes out. If the Wii's game library improves so that it includes more titles that I actually want to play (and not just for a few minutes or with a group of friends who are there with me), then I will probably get another one (sold my first one because there was nothing to play). I'm a gamer though. . . I always end up getting all of the consoles eventually.

However, I know that if I had one now, it would be sitting there collecting dust while I wait for new first-party Nintendo games to come out. Just like my Gamecube.

Don't reply if you expect it to be read or replied to. I'm abandoning this thread to the trolls.