Do you think the Nintendo "Revolution" did?
it seems like it inspired [a short burst of] older people gaming.
Printable View
Do you think the Nintendo "Revolution" did?
it seems like it inspired [a short burst of] older people gaming.
While it definitely brought a lot more people (older people) to gaming, in the same stroke it did nothing other than potentially set back the thinking that games are childish and more for children in general.
It caused me to buy a system and I haven't been much into console gaming since the days of FFX.
A revolution in marketing, sure. Otherwise, hahahahaha no.
There's that phrase again, 'good for a Wii game'.
Not sure I'd call it revolutional, but it was definitely innovative and different from everything that was out there and it still is. I guess the wii is more of a bridge console to a future console that does everything the wii does, only much better. That said, I've never had more multiplayer fun with any other console.
Remember back in 2006 when everyone was hating on the PS3 and 360 for being too expensive and not having any INNOVASHUN, and telling everyone to get a Wii instead for the true gaming experience
Those were good times
The Wii is a gimmick. It did nothing revolutionary for gaming; most of the games are shovelware.
It has good games, but they're best played with the NGC controller.
All the older people I know have DSes rather than Wiis.
It made people who are normally not that much into gaming more interested in it. It's more accessible than other consoles I think.
I mean, my dad bought a wii, which is totally out of character.
Do you think the Wii would still be seen as a sub-standard current gen system if it had kept the "Revolution" name?
I think most everyone has gotten over how silly "Wii" is for a console name. I don't think calling it the Revolution officially would have made much of a difference.
More so. Sure we all laughed at the Wii title as being a joke, but people quickly got over the d*ck and piss jokes. Revolution is a pretentious title and would've highlighted the fact that it was indeed not a revolution at all. People don't care that it attracts casual gamers (people hate the idea). People don't care about gimmicky controls (usually hate them). People notice processing power. They also notice when the console is the only one without HD in an HD world. They notice a library that has a spare smattering of decent 1st party titles with almost no decent 3rd party titles and a crapload of shovelware.Quote:
Originally Posted by rubah
At least if it's gonna be a silly console, the silly name is fitting and doesn't attract attention to the fact that it aspired to be more.
I think that if it kept the Revolution name, it would have been viewed very differently. "Wii" is meant to give the consumer an idea of playing together. "Revolution" makes gamers wet their pants in anticipation! The decision to name the console "Wii" doesn't seem like it was their shift of focus, though. I think the shift of focus was after the system was released, and publishers started to take notice that the more "casual" games were selling more. Looking at the earlier commercials for the system, it seems like they were really trying to appeal to gamers. Montages containing Excite Truck, Metroid Prime 3, Zelda: Twilight Princess and others ran rampant. Since then, they've ditched "Wii would like to play", and now go for game-specific commercials, most of which with a strangely light-hearted voice telling the viewer about the product. :mad2:
I still enjoy the Wii as a console, and if the new controllers for the 360 and PS3 catch on, I guess it will have been revolutionary. However, there are some things Nintendo could have done to appeal to gamers more in just the aesthetics of the system's software. The Nintendo Channel and Wii Shop Channel are both very un-cool in their designs, when they should've been much more "hip" in order to appeal to the gamers who are likely the only people using them!
I'm wondering if NATAL is going to negate the impact of the Wiimote. I'm so very skeptical, but I get increasingly curious because basically every review of their progress starts with "I was incredibly skeptical, but was blown away." This seems almost unanimous. I don't think we'll ever get away from hand held controllers, but I think waggle controls will be a gimmick just like blowing into/screaming at a microphone or any other silly crap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kentarou
Despite my jarring attacks against the Wii, I still really like it. I'm just trying to give a sober critique of its place in modern gaming and future history. The price point makes it attractive and though it lacks a fantastic library, there are definitely some Wii games are so must-have that they make it worth owning a Wii.
I've never owned either XBox because they had few exclusives that appealed highly to me. I've yet to purchase a PS3 because of a) the price point, b) no backwards compatibility, and c) not a large enough library.
Now the PS3 library has finally added enough titles to get me excited and dropped the price. Now I'm just biding my time until black Friday in hopes of a fantastic bundle or special deal somewhere and I'll finally pick one up.
Despite all the criticism, nobody can attack Nintendo's business model on its face right now. They are being wise about their marketing and understand how to aim at their demographic even if it changes. Sony could learn some things from this and not make laughable hardware like the PSPGo.
considering both Sony and Microsoft are creating motion centered controls for their systems, you can hardly say it wasn't a step forward in gaming.
Fact is, if Nintendo hadn't have done so, the only step in gaming has been graphics. And you can sit there and say the Wii library is full of "shovelware" but how much shovelware was on the PS2. The system leading the generation always has a bunch of trash on it.
Having just bought a PS3 as well, and my roommate having a 360, I must say the most attractive games for me are on the Wii. I bought my PS3 and realized it only had like 2 exclusive games that really meant anything to me, while Nintendo has a bunch. On top of that, Nintendo has tons of great titles coming up, more so than I see on the other systems that I want.
Simply put,
Nintendo did something smart. They widened the gaming market and pushed it out of people's minds that only "certain" people played games. Because of their success, Microsoft and Sony are trying to get some of that market as well. It was definitely a step forward for gaming, whether you like it or not.
Yeargdribble:
NATAL is impacting me the same way as Scribblenauts. Everyone stated how amazing the game was and how awesome it was. In the end, yes the game is fun and cool, but it quickly turns into a useless gimmick. That's what most people feel about the Wii-mote. However, like the Wii-mote, Natal could be awesome for some games, and not so much for others. I saw a picture of someone playing Gears of War, and to chainsaw they did the chopping motion with their arm. That to me is stupid. But for some games, it could be awesome. Other games, it will completely defeat the purpose/fun of the game. (skateboarding? So the guy on screen can only do the tricks I can do?)
THE JACKAL
It's really controversial, even looking at this thread.
I want to point out that not only did it bring a new demographic into the gaming fold, but it brought a lot of original gamers back into the fold. I'm talking 40-50+ dads who owned the arcade scene back in the day, spent countless nights on the NES, and have moved on since. With Punch-Out and Tiger Woods it's a really good fit for them. You don't necessarily need a lot of buttons to play a game, and some titles like twilight princess and the mario games have shown it pretty well.
It had a great start, and definitely made itself look like a gamer's console in the first year. There's 6-7 great titles I'm really interested in on the Wii, which is more than I can say about the XBox 360. However, it's absolutely lost that, which is a shame. I got a chance to play New SMB Wii, and it's hella fun.
This is actually something we should be concerned about. Business models do not and can not have any relevance to a gamer, but the larger trends and perception do. Video games worked really hard as a medium to work their way out of the closet toys & board games category of entertainment, it'd be a real shame to see it go back. I love a lot of easier games you can pick up and play real quick, then put them down, but what I want most as a gamer are those big budget, big event blockbusters that are made for the surround sound system and large TV. That's what does it for me, and that's why I play video games to begin with.Quote:
While it definitely brought a lot more people (older people) to gaming, in the same stroke it did nothing other than potentially set back the thinking that games are childish and more for children in general.
Beyond that, I'm just concerned about game content being regulated by the concept older people (in the regulating position) have of what gaming is. It is for kids. Doesn't matter if you stick an M rating on it, it's for kids and therefore no game should have blood or violence and even if we do allow those since they are all over TV
YOU CAN'T HAVE SEX IN SOMETHING MEANT FOR KIDS ZOMG!!!!
Seriously, you don't have to get sleazy and nudity/sexuality =/= maturity, but there are times it has a place. I hate the cliché in film where a woman always has the sheets pulled over her breasts after sex or people always have sex under the covers. Who the fack does that? Not me. But games get it even worse. You can't even consider putting nudity in games without people losing it.
A single breast or even simulated sex with no nudity in a video game would tend to have the ESRB leaning toward AO. That's she stupidity. If it fits with the theme whether it's a book, a movie, a game, a piece of art hung in a gallery... don't censor it.
The thought that games are for children (even though the numbers show that the average gamer is well over 18) is largely what makes parents groups so apoplectic when there is any mature content in game, yet the same doesn't apply to movies (with an R rating) with 80 F words, full-frontal nudity, strong sexual content, and extreme, graphic violence.
R rated movies are for adults. M rated games are for children.
I don't think it's changed the opinion of society in general. Sure, they've been shown games that are very kiddy, but now we have both negative views at once - games are either childish and stupid, or they make children violent and have sex and do drugs so they should be banned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeargdribble
While the Wii opened the market up to a lot more people, I don't think it did anything truly revolutionary. I mean, they even waited until now to release Motion Plus which is what I thought we were getting to begin with.
I don't think it did anything revolutionary to be honest. It gave us a pretty poor implementation of motion controls that were inaccurate and often anything but intuitive as a result. The games certainly haven't been revolutionary either with pretty much every first party title being a rehash of exactly what we saw on the N64 and Gamecube all over again. A new control input method does not an innovative game make and no one proves that as well as Nintendo with titles like Mario Galaxy.Quote:
Originally Posted by rubah
The best I can really say is that it tapped a market that doesn't usually play games, but even that isn't a glowing success. They may be pushing some huge console sales as a result but the game attach rate has been very low from numbers I've seen in the past, especially for third party titles. To the point that I wonder if these new people will even stick around or see any point in buying a new console down the road. If they're not buying games now, why would they continue to buy another console when they seem to either spend all of their game time playing the same games, or care very little and buy what catches their eye (regardless of how good it is) every few months.
In fact, given the amount of shovelware that makes it to the console specifically targeted at this demographic at the expense of solid titles, I have to wonder how much we really want this demographic to stick around. Because if they do then there's a much stronger chance that Microsoft and Sony could try to pander to them some more and undermine their less casual audience. I'm not going to say that will definitely happen, but at best I'm not seeing this new demographic as helping me get my hands on truly amazing games.
Don't see how "oh shiz we need to get on this bandwagon guize" = genuinely innovative, or revolutionary, step forward.Quote:
Originally Posted by ljkkjlcm9
Quite simply motion control can't be more than a gimmick without sufficient feedback. Otherwise as I said elsewhere you'll swing your lightsaber at Vader, and he'll block in-game, but IRL you've just swung right past him. Even if the game can in a technical sense reconcile those two different positions without bugging, that's the end of your immersion. Remember the Sony demo for their new motion control? How does archery make sense without the tension of the bow pulling against you?
NATAL might be a useful tool for RTS games and the like. Beyond that I can see nothing which motion controls can do in a fashion superior to existing control systems. Nobody has come out with game changers in motion control. Nevermind that there's no ArtGod - there's not even a Virtua Cop. I've yet to see a single game which fundamentally justifies the existence of the Wii (That sounds more inquisitorial than I mean it to; the Wii has every right to exist and good for Nintendo for succeeding so well with it. Doesn't mean I see it as worthwhile.) in the way that Ape Escape instantly justified analogue sticks, or nevermind Virtua Cop, how Duck Hunt justified lightguns.
As for expanding the market, I'm a bit skeptical about that as a serious and longstanding achievement. Are soccer moms really going to keep buying Wii games and peripherals in current economic circumstances? Those of us who have been gaming for a long time and consider it a large part of who we are will prioritize gaming. We'll cut out other things before we cut out StarCraft II. Quite simply there was a loyal base which arguably Nintendo shouldn't have neglected (I know some argue they didn't but it does look like they have to me). And whilst the Wii's sales are impressive the PS2 was no slouch. The PS1 probably did more to popularize games than the Wii has; Wipeout was genuinely innovative and helped Sony market the system as a cool and necessary item not for kids but for employed adults. The size of the gaming market post-1994 has been much more thanks to Sony than to Nintendo, and whilst the PS3 has been relatively fail, I think Sony did a good deal more overall.
I'd like to point out something to those who say that the Wii's library is mostly shovelware. That is, that the NES' library also consisted mostly of shovelware. :p
I'm just going to pre-empt the next 5 posts and say that yes, all the consoles had :bou::bou::bou::bou: games.
While Super Mario Galaxy and some other big hits don't use the motion sensors, there are many great games on the wii that does use it and would be boring or impossible to play any other way. If you can't name any, you probably don't own a wii or haven't checked out enough games. Hint, here's a great place to start: Boom Blox.
Screw shovelware, every console has it. It's something you're supposed to ignore. There's so much else you can play.
Actually, I would say the Wii has revolutionized gaming in one way. Out of everyone I know, I'm probably one of the biggest geeks, I play more video games than most people. When I meet new people, I assume they are not into video games until proven otherwise, so I don't talk much about games and I know it's unlikely we'll be playing anything together. This is different with the wii because even if they're being skeptic I know they'll change their mind as soon as we start playing, it's easy and fun to get into. Firstly, Almost every game is designed for multiplayer, only a handful is single player. And even if the purpose of the game is simple, it can be tremendously fun if done multiplayer. I don't have headcount of how many people I've dragged into my room and made them play the wii only for them to come crawling back wanting more. I wouldn't have the guts to do this with any other console, btw. All in all, expanding the market argument seems valid to me. This seen from a personal view and, well, there's always the sales statistics.
Basically, show me any other console I can have an 8 player couch party for 2 hours with a couple sixpacks of beers where everybody is having so much fun they have trouble playing and I'll probably buy that console! We were 4 girls and 4 guys, it was great fun and we still talk about it. One of them even bought a wii shortly after.
It's not a fail console, it just depends what you're looking for. When I venture into the xbox (and often the ps3) section, I'm lucky if I see two games I'm interested in. I'm well aware there are people who feel differently.
This is so extremely true in so many ways. The Wii might have gotten some older (read: geriatric) gamers to join briefly, but the PS1 actually saw the start of gaming becoming a more mature (as in targeted at adults) medium. Like I said before, the Wii may have actually damaged this view which has had to cultivate slowly over many years.Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
Definitely not going to debate that for NES or any console up to and including PS3 and XBox360. However, I would argue that there's something more viscerally shovelware-y about about the Wii. PS3 doesn't have games like Party Babyz (or if it does, they don't seem so mainstream to the console). Perhaps there needs to be a further dichotomy, because while all console have shovelware, Wii definitely has something more putrid.Quote:
I'd like to point out something to those who say that the Wii's library is mostly shovelware. That is, that the NES' library also consisted mostly of shovelware.
Wah? If you're playing SMG without motion control (both with the pointing of the Wiimote and waggling the nunchuck) you're doin' it wrong.Quote:
While Super Mario Galaxy and some other big hits don't use the motion sensors...
I'll agree with you there. But at the same time, there are games that use it in a very gimmicky way or sometimes even in downright idiotic ways. De Blob (which is fantastic, but not that familiar to most) requires to waggle to jump. Why? Did they run out of other buttons? Fack no... they just wanted to take advantage of gimmicky BS and so with all the jumping you have to do you get very tired not to mention it's not always as accurate as it needs to be.Quote:
...there are many great games on the wii that does use it and would be boring or impossible to play any other way.
I do have to agree with the accessibility of the Wii. My stodgy in-laws would almost never do anything remotely considered fun. But we managed to get them to play Wii. I've had plenty of non-gamer friends that we've had over for small entertainment sessions playing silly Wii games. But to be fair, these are rare and the novelty wears fast. Maybe Wii could be a gateway drug, but I honestly haven't seen that.
And I'll say again, for all the grief I give it, Wii, for all its sub-shovelware, has more or equal must-have exclusives than PS3 and XBox360... maybe even combined. I'm sure that's a contentious statement, but I'd like to hear a rebut in list form if you disagree.
I thought it helped its rhythm sense, and it made changing land-marks feel more normal. But I've got to admit that it would've been nice if you could change the direction of your jump based on how you swung it. Or just used a button.Quote:
De Blob (which is fantastic, but not that familiar to most) requires to waggle to jump. Why? Did they run out of other buttons? Fack no... they just wanted to take advantage of gimmicky BS and so with all the jumping you have to do you get very tired not to mention it's not always as accurate as it needs to be.
So, casual gamers aren't "people"? Because, if they are, I think they would care that they are attracted to the new system.Quote:
Originally Posted by YeargdribbleMore so. Sure we all laughed at the Wii title as being a joke, but people quickly got over the d*ck and piss jokes. Revolution is a pretentious title and would've highlighted the fact that it was indeed not a revolution at all. People don't care that it attracts casual gamers (people hate the idea). People don't care about gimmicky controls (usually hate them). People notice processing power. They also notice when the console is the only one without HD in an HD world. They notice a library that has a spare smattering of decent 1st party titles with almost no decent 3rd party titles and a crapload of shovelware.Quote:
Originally Posted by rubah
At least if it's gonna be a silly console, the silly name is fitting and doesn't attract attention to the fact that it aspired to be more.
And I know plenty of people who don't give a damn about processing power, myself among them. You can get absolutely phenomenal games on systems with less processing power than the Wii.