The great video game 'crumple' of 201x?

[VeloZer0]

I don't know about Monster Hunter, but I usual hear Murmasa referred to as one of the examples on how when a good game is released on Wii it doesn't get any attention or sales.

[Madame Adequate]

I don't know about sales, but it's been one of the most talked about games among many sites I go to for some time now.

[Yeargdribble]

What makes you think casual money is going to develop 'hardcore' products? If I was raking in money from a new market why on earth would I re-invest it into my old market with a much lower ROI. More likely money coming in for casual is being re-invested into casual. If what you said was true the Wii would have a 'hardcore' line up that put the others to shame.

I don't see this casual money helping hardcore gamers at all. The only benefit I can see is increasing sales of consoles to lower the per unit cost.

I'm saying that development costs are so low for those games in relation to the income that there is literally too much to even feed back into the casual development. It's simply more than they need. For studios that do a little of both, the excessive overflow feeds the hardcore side. I think this is most true with first party studios, but not completely untrue of the rest.

You've still got your Zygna's, but even they aren't evil. They are the gateway drugs of the gaming world. People who would scoff at mainstream gaming will play Farmville type games and some of them might even start to try other stuff. I'm actually interested to see what happens with the Civilization game on Facebook. That's something that could cast a wide net and bring a few non-gamers to try out a real civilization game. The target for that net are the people playing Farmville incessantly. The same Skinner-box effect will draw them in.

[VeloZer0]

According to VG Chartz the sales are only 280,000. On an install base of almost 71 million.

The fact that it is a well respected game amongst the 'hardcore' game community and fails miserably on the Wii is exactly what I am talking about. (Anyone who reads and posts on sites about video games easily qualifies as hardcore for the purpose of this exercise)

[Jiro]

The emphasis on motion controls will, in my opinion, have a negative effect in the short term. It might cause a slump, but that will only inspire the people who aren't satisfied with shovelware to get off their asses and make something great. I don't think the industry has anything to worry about in the long term.

(didn't read anything in this thread, sorry )

[Madame Adequate]

According to VG Chartz the sales are only 280,000. On an install base of almost 71 million.

The fact that it is a well respected game amongst the 'hardcore' game community and fails miserably on the Wii is exactly what I am talking about. (Anyone who reads and posts on sites about video games easily qualifies as hardcore for the purpose of this exercise)

Oh damn, I didn't think the situation was THAT bad. =o

[Bolivar]

I highly disagree with their only income being casuals. I would hardly consider myself casual, and I certainly give a lot of money to Nintendo. Secondly, the people buying every iteration of the DS (I own original DS, Lite, and DSi) are certainly not casual gamers either. There are also some rare but very awesome other games, like Monster Hunter Tri, or Muramasa: The Demon Blade, which are exceptional games, for any console.

When it boils down to it, casual really only make them money on the system. Very few, to literally no one, is buying most of this trash. I know many casual gaming people that own Wii's, that buy 1, maybe 2 games a year.

THE JACKAL

you're right, but Vivi elaborated on what I meant, that the overwhelming vast majority of income they get is not on "real" (can i stop using "hardcore") or traditional games as we know them.

I still have to admit the situation isn't as clear as I may have led on. Smash Brothers, Zelda, and Mario (some of them are games) still perform very well, certainly comparable to the biggest titles on the others.

But everything else, from Mad World, to the Conduit, even Muramasa and Monster Hunter do not perform well at all.

IDK. It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

[Slothy]

I still have to admit the situation isn't as clear as I may have led on. Smash Brothers, Zelda, and Mario (some of them are games) still perform very well, certainly comparable to the biggest titles on the others.

But everything else, from Mad World, to the Conduit, even Muramasa and Monster Hunter do not perform well at all.

Which is pretty much what I meant when I said that losing the casual market would make the Wii the new Gamecube (or should I say Gamecube with a new controller? ). Nintendo's titles always sold just fine, but 3rd Party games just could not sell. Even legitimately good multi-platform games never did as well on it as the PS2 and Xbox, and now that the Wii is at such a severe hardware disadvantage I'd bet it would be even worse for them in the traditional gaming market. How do you compete when your competition can do everything you can but a lot better? Hell, how do you even get developers interested in making more hardcore games (for lack of a better term) in such a situation. I don't think they can.

[Wolf Kanno]

WARNING!!! WALL OF TEXT!!!

I couldn't finish reading the article cause it was just filled with too much odd conjecture. Besides, I agree with Yeargdribble that this guys "history" lesson leaves out too many important factors that really helped cause the Crash.

Will Motion Control cause a game industry crash? No. Why? cause the Crash of 83 didn't have a foundation of gamers who grew up on video games, it was simply just a fad for people in the 70's and early 80's but Nintendo saved it from "Macarena obscurity" by having good business sense and a decent piece of hardware.

Honestly, I do feel the game industry might be ready for a good old fashioned slump and recession (we might even be in it now) cause shovelware is not a Wii problem, its an industry problem cause all the consoles have shovelware. Yes, the Wii has more but what the new consoles do have is just a majority of sequels which are basically the first game with a bit of new dressing but ultimately the same game as its predecessors. You can't really say there are really many new types of games on the next gen consoles. The PS3, 360, and Wii from a gaming library standpoint, are little more than the Cube, PS2 , and X-Box with the same library of core games with new graphics. Could you really say MGS4 is radically different from MGS1? Especially when you compare them to their impacts on the console and the gaming industry? Not really. MGS4 is simply MGS1 with better graphics and controls and a few "gimmicky" abilites that MGS1 lacked but did MGS4 really radically change the series? No. Can we say the same of Halo, GTA, Gran Turismo, Smash Bros., God of War, and Zelda. Are they all completely original redesigns of their predecessors that are continuously pushing the industry forward or simply the original titles with a few extra features and some better graphics?

The problem with the industry isn't just "shovelware", its also "sequel-itis", and the fault of jaded "Hardcore" gamers. Nintendo and its motion controls may have brought in the "casual" crowd of gamers and flooded its own market with shovelware (though that's a completely different problem and has little to do with the casual market as much as Nintendo's own quality control problem), but they have also brought forth new ways into thinking about game design as opposed to Sony and Microsoft who only perpetuate the idea of better graphics and audio. Has the PS3 and 360 really brought in a new generation of gaming, or has it just done what's been going on since the 3D revolution of Sega Saturn, PS1 and the N64, re-releasing those generations of gaming. Sure Sandbox gaming became more mainstream as well as other genres like RPGs and FPS but they are hardly innovative as much as its just simply becoming mainstream, as many of those genres existed before the 3D revolution. (The major exception of course being LittleBigPlanet)

Nintendo at least seemed to realize that building bigger better hardware to make prettier games was an evolutionary dead end, seriously, how can you really say the PS3 and 360 are next generation gaming when they are simply just bigger better looking versions of the last generation. Halo, MGS, Bioware RPGs, and many other mainstream titles didn't radically change this generation, they picked up a slightly new trick here and there but the major elements are still front and center for most of them. They are not so radically different from previous installments of their franchises. Many of them lack serious innovation but its not the developers complete fault as much as its the fault of the hardcore fans who unwillingly hold onto the creed of "you changed everything and now it sucks" without really giving much objective thought to how the innovation could create a better gaming.

I feel that we as gamers are doing a disservice to the industry because we latched onto what we feel the industry is and never bother to stray too far from this perspective. If "Hardcore" gamers were truly "Hardcore" and major proponents of gaming as a medium, they should be a little more open to new ways of experiencing the medium instead of quickly dismissing things as "gimmicky" or "cash cows trying to take more money from us" and instead take a look at new technologies (and move out of your comfort zone once in awhile) to see new ways we can interact and play games. Ico, Katamari, Guitar Hero, DDR, Braid, and now the Wii are all titles and systems that are showing us different ways to experience our medium and I feel we should at least be trying to encourage these types of developments rather than try to keep the status quo. I love Snake and the MGS franchise but I'll be one of the first to say I would be happy if the franchise was retired for awhile. Yes, I'll be first in line for Peace Walker but I would actually be more excited for Kojima to be working on a new IP or an Snatcher and ZoE sequel than be trapped making MGS games forever.

Now this is not to say I feel the Wii has been a success, if I was going to compare the Wii technology to an era of gaming, its when the CD peripherals first showed up in the early 90's. Sega CD had some good games but a lot of it was crap and we never even saw some the satellite gaming peripheral for Nintendo which also featured mostly shovelware crap as well. This is how I view it all. Its not that Motion Controls is bad for gaming (its actually been good since its brought in a whole new group of gamers who actually graduate into the more socially accepted consoles from the gamer society and with that bring in new fresh perspectives of how games should be done) but rather it may have come a bit too early for the hardcore to appreciate. If the casual bubble crashes, Motion control might fade into a hobby market but in another ten years, someone else may pick up the technology and finally show us old people how it ought to be done.

I feel this is the problem with the Wii, its not that the technology is terrible. Its breaking new ground and its definetly a bit buggy but weren't early CD's the same way with their terribly long load times and some of the quality of those early titles? The other problem is that the industry doesn't know what to do with it. Nintendo had some great early ideas to get people to hop on-board with the idea but its obvious Nintendo isn't sure where to go from here. The rest of the 3rd party industry as usual, is looking towards Nintendo to copy... I mean "guidance" to see how to use the technology. What the Wii needs is a few more people to really experiment and show new ways to use the technology and not be afraid to fail. It also wouldn't hurt if Nintendo backed off a bit and made the Wii-mote another element of the gaming console as opposed to the main focus and this is what I think we'll see next generation. Motion Controllers and games, but they will not be the main attraction, just another element like online gaming and peripheral based titles like Guitar Hero/Rock Band.

I feel that the amount of sales and the fact that Sony and Microsoft are working on this technology (Sony longer than Nintendo, the EyeToy says hi) just shows that motion controls are not really a fad but possibly a future gaming opportunity. It is stuck in its infancy but I feel the technology has a lot of potential. Wii Fit and Wii Music may not be groundbreaking games that everyone enjoys but the technology it employs I feel could lead to better and more innovative games in the future Will we see it this generation? Possibly but I wouldn't expect it until the very end of this console generations lifespan if at all. It might be another decade before the technology hits its full potential but I don't see why that should be reason to hope for its demise. Nintendo dropped the ball on quality control but I feel the system has just as many good games on it as the other two consoles even though a good chunk of them are simply word of mouth rather than recognized by the industry and community.

Another problem here is that I feel we "old-timers" are completely underestimating the "casual crowd" we focus on grandma and our parents but really, the system is being built for more of a family appeal and that means the more tech savvy kids can call the shots. I don't think the shovelware titles on the Wii are being any more successful than some of the major successes like the Mario titles cause some of these casual gamers are smart enough to do a bit more research. I know my parents ask me my opinion before they make a choice on games and my own father is a huge PC gamer so he definetly does his research and hell, some of the more interesting and endearing games I've played were off the wall choices made by distant relatives finding a game they think I would like (I still love Seicross, thank you Uncle! ). G-parents might be in the dark but I feel some of our parents are probably just as tech savvy as we are and many of the parents for the Wii are people the same age as some of us. I know a few people who bought the Wii for kids and then bring out the 360 and PS3 when the kids are tucked away. Guys and gals for that matter. So I feel we are definetly underestimating things here and I wouldn't be surprised if the ""ultra causal" market has already moved on from the Wii and its silly motion controls but it hasn't stopped the system from doing well.

So for the ADD crowd... I'll summarize by saying: stop having a damn short attention span and read the whole thing you silly goose.

[Aerith's Knight]

[NorthernChaosGod]

Exactly.

[Slothy]

Could you really say MGS4 is radically different from MGS1? Especially when you compare them to their impacts on the console and the gaming industry? Not really. MGS4 is simply MGS1 with better graphics and controls and a few "gimmicky" abilites that MGS1 lacked but did MGS4 really radically change the series? No.

You know, I agree with you a lot of the time about a lot of things WK, but seriously, I have to wonder if you really played MGS4 when you say something like this. Did it change a lot in terms of features? Not really, but those few changes lead to a massive upheaval of the MGS game design. Not only was it now possible to sneak through an area (and sneaking was quite a bit different compared to MGS), but you could run and gun quite viably, you could side with one faction early on or neither. The games are massively different in terms of gameplay and MGS4 offered a variety of viable play styles that not only worked, but all worked pretty much perfectly. I have to say that it's by and large one of the most brilliantly designed titles I've ever played and a far cry from it's PSOne predecessor.

Nintendo and its motion controls may have brought in the "casual" crowd of gamers and flooded its own market with shovelware (though that's a completely different problem and has little to do with the casual market as much as Nintendo's own quality control problem), but they have also brought forth new ways into thinking about game design as opposed to Sony and Microsoft who only perpetuate the idea of better graphics and audio.

Adding in poor motion control that at it's best mimics a computer mouse reasonably well and at it's worst is a laggy inaccurate pile of waggle doesn't lead to more innovative games. The fact that 95% of games don't use it well and the other 5% would be better off with a traditional controller or mouse kind of proves it. I honestly can't think of a single Wii game that really impressed me in terms of motion control implementation. Are they more accessible for those who are afraid of a lot of buttons? Sure. Do they offer any experiences that can't be done just as well with other control methods? Not yet, and I'd say never if they continue in their current form.

Has the PS3 and 360 really brought in a new generation of gaming, or has it just done what's been going on since the 3D revolution of Sega Saturn, PS1 and the N64, re-releasing those generations of gaming. Sure Sandbox gaming became more mainstream as well as other genres like RPGs and FPS but they are hardly innovative as much as its just simply becoming mainstream, as many of those genres existed before the 3D revolution. (The major exception of course being LittleBigPlanet)

You don't have to create a new genre to innovate. The existence of Portal alone proves that. But while we're on the topic of how much innovation in terms of gameplay these companies have brought to the table, LBP is more than Nintendo has done in 14 years. The fact that we can also credit Sony with Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, producing Heavy Rain, Echochrome, and probably more that I'm forgetting makes Sony the most innovative console manufacturer out there as far as I'm concerned. If you want to talk about a company who rides the minimal changes sequel wave for all it's worth, Nintendo would be the poster company for it if Activision and EA didn't exist. They haven't made a new game since the N64 died.

Wii Fit and Wii Music may not be groundbreaking games that everyone enjoys

Wii Fit isn't a game. There I said it.

Calling Wii Music a game is a bit of a stretch too though you could make a better case for it than Wii Fit.

[VeloZer0]

I couldn't finish reading the article cause it was just filled with too much odd conjecture. Besides, I agree with Yeargdribble that this guys "history" lesson leaves out too many important factors that really helped cause the Crash.

I read GamesRadar articles quite often, and one thing you have to realize is even the serious articles are meant to be slightly humorous in nature. It was much more of a 'what if' for fun than something you would base an investment portfolio on.

Will Motion Control cause a game industry crash? No. Why? cause the Crash of 83 didn't have a foundation of gamers who grew up on video games, it was simply just a fad for people in the 70's and early 80's but Nintendo saved it from "Macarena obscurity" by having good business sense and a decent piece of hardware.

"Crumple", not crash. The main idea was that the rapid industry growth into the 'casual' market, advanced primarily by motion control, is not sustainable. Or in other words 'casual' gaming is a bubble market that will soon see a market correction, resulting in an overall decrease in total value of the video game industry.

Honestly, I do feel the game industry might be ready for a good old fashioned slump and recession (we might even be in it now) cause shovelware is not a Wii problem, its an industry problem cause all the consoles have shovelware.

The main issue is how well shovelware sells on the Wii in comparison to 'good' games. (I'm using so many quotation marks in this post I feel I should be translating FFT or something) Shovelwar is an inevitability for everything. TV, Books, Movies, it all happens. The main issue is making sure the standout products get the money they deserve.

Can we say the same of Halo, GTA, Gran Turismo, Smash Bros., God of War, and Zelda. Are they all completely original redesigns of their predecessors that are continuously pushing the industry forward or simply the original titles with a few extra features and some better graphics?

I personally don't think that original titles should be offering massive innovations. I like the Mega Man model quite a bit myself. The Mega Man X series, though very similar in nature, offered several different gameplay cornerstones. Adding stuff like the slide and charge in previous MM installments improved the games (imo) but dashing and wall jumping completely changed many aspects of the gameplay. Creating a new series that was still Mega Man was, in my mind, the perfect way to go about something like this. I don't see anything wrong with laying down an old series and starting on something fresh is the gameplay paridigms around which it is based are no longer relevant in the current market. Another example is FFT. The game still felt very 'Final Fantasy-ey', but it would not have been appropriate to continue the main series on as such. A spin of was an excellent way to go. As MMX has shown you can have entire spin off series that continue off in place of the main branch.

Now this is not to say I feel the Wii has been a success, if I was going to compare the Wii technology to an era of gaming, its when the CD peripherals first showed up in the early 90's. Sega CD had some good games but a lot of it was crap and we never even saw some the satellite gaming peripheral for Nintendo which also featured mostly shovelware crap as well. This is how I view it all. Its not that Motion Controls is bad for gaming (its actually been good since its brought in a whole new group of gamers who actually graduate into the more socially accepted consoles from the gamer society and with that bring in new fresh perspectives of how games should be done) but rather it may have come a bit too early for the hardcore to appreciate. If the casual bubble crashes, Motion control might fade into a hobby market but in another ten years, someone else may pick up the technology and finally show us old people how it ought to be done.

That is the thing, I am not seeing this transition from Casual Wii to bigger an better things gaming wise. Everyone I know who owns one keeps it in the closet and breaks it out for s and giggles once and a while. This idea that casuals will come in the door and become interested in the more conventional gaming seems to be wishful thinking. At best. If this were true then titles like Muramasa that are receiving a great amount of industry attention wouldn't be doing so poorly.

So for the ADD crowd... I'll summarize by saying: stop having a damn short attention span and read the whole thing you silly goose.

All you tl:dr people suck.

Has the PS3 and 360 really brought in a new generation of gaming, or has it just done what's been going on since the 3D revolution of Sega Saturn, PS1 and the N64, re-releasing those generations of gaming. Sure Sandbox gaming became more mainstream as well as other genres like RPGs and FPS but they are hardly innovative as much as its just simply becoming mainstream, as many of those genres existed before the 3D revolution. (The major exception of course being LittleBigPlanet)

You don't have to create a new genre to innovate. The existence of Portal alone proves that. But while we're on the topic of how much innovation in terms of gameplay these companies have brought to the table, LBP is more than Nintendo has done in 14 years. The fact that we can also credit Sony with Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, producing Heavy Rain, Echochrome, and probably more that I'm forgetting makes Sony the most innovative console manufacturer out there as far as I'm concerned. If you want to talk about a company who rides the minimal changes sequel wave for all it's worth, Nintendo would be the poster company for it if Activision and EA didn't exist. They haven't made a new game since the N64 died.

I have never been an FPS fan, the genre is not something that appeals to me at all. Yet with tweaks that were all told relatively minor in the grand scheme of things Borderlands and MAG were able to deliver an experience that I, a decided non FPS gamer, enjoyed thoroughly. The idea that video games have to create a new genre every decade seems a little... ambitious.

[Wolf Kanno]

You know, I agree with you a lot of the time about a lot of things WK, but seriously, I have to wonder if you really played MGS4 when you say something like this. Did it change a lot in terms of features? Not really, but those few changes lead to a massive upheaval of the MGS game design. Not only was it now possible to sneak through an area (and sneaking was quite a bit different compared to MGS), but you could run and gun quite viably, you could side with one faction early on or neither. The games are massively different in terms of gameplay and MGS4 offered a variety of viable play styles that not only worked, but all worked pretty much perfectly. I have to say that it's by and large one of the most brilliantly designed titles I've ever played and a far cry from it's PSOne predecessor.

Its okay, if we agreed all the time we would never have interesting conversation now would we?

Yes I did play through the game but to be fair to MGS4, I only played it once (I now actually own a PS3 and the game so I'll play it again, maybe I'll find what I was missing and fall in love with the game) but I found it kinda underwhelming and personally I do sometimes wonder if its simply just me. I'm a hopeless fanboy for MGS and I will not deny that even if I didn't like the game I would have a hard time actually saying it. Despite my bitter post, I actually do like MGS4 but I really felt that many of the new elements simply didn't work as well as they sounded on paper or simply just destroyed the games balance for me. So I feel that MGS4 took a few steps back in some ways and simply misfired on others but at the same time this could also be a simple old gamer talk of "they changed it now it sucks" talking and that just goes to show you that despite my idealism I can still be counted as to adding to the problem of the industry.

I chose MGS4, not because I feel its a great example as much as its one of the few examples I have extensive knowledge of. Seriously I could easily hit Nintendo's major franchises as well and I probably should since my post came off a bit "Nintendo fanboy" despite not liking the company personally.

Adding in poor motion control that at it's best mimics a computer mouse reasonably well and at it's worst is a laggy inaccurate pile of waggle doesn't lead to more innovative games. The fact that 95% of games don't use it well and the other 5% would be better off with a traditional controller or mouse kind of proves it. I honestly can't think of a single Wii game that really impressed me in terms of motion control implementation. Are they more accessible for those who are afraid of a lot of buttons? Sure. Do they offer any experiences that can't be done just as well with other control methods? Not yet, and I'd say never if they continue in their current form.

This is my point though, its not that motion controls have proven themselves wonderfully, they frankly haven't and I even said in my original post that Nintendo pretty much sprung this technology about a decade too soon but I feel that just because its bad now doesn't mean it should be left on the waste side and I feel that its kinda silly to say its not going to work ever. We're talking about bringing in a new way to interact and play with games, damn straight its going to be buggy and frankly crappy but that doesn't mean it may never amount to something. I just feel that too many gamers are shutting themselves off from different experiences by giving up on stuff way too early. I think motion controls might have a future in gaming. Will it replace the standard controller? Not very likely but I can see it being a feature built into future console generations, especially something like Natal.

I also feel that they create a level of immersion that is lacking in standard controllers. There is just something a bit more satisfying about swinging the Wii mote to instigate the final kill in No More Heroes that I don't feel a standard controller could ever have given me. I also found my time playing Z:TP on the Wii was immensely more fun and satisfying for me than on the Gamcube where I often felt the controller got in the way of making the game flow better. Motion controls to me, work alot like peripherals like steering wheels and band sets. They work great for the games they are built for properly but I don't see myself trying to play Super Street Fighter IV with the Rock Band drum kit just as I don't necessarily feel I may ever use a motion controller to play a turn based RPG.

I feel motion controls can have a place in gaming but I don't necessarily feel it will become the standard. I seriously doubt standard controllers will disappear until gaming becomes us jacking our brains into a terminal and even then I'm sure someone's going to keep making games that create a virtual standard controller.

You don't have to create a new genre to innovate. The existence of Portal alone proves that. But while we're on the topic of how much innovation in terms of gameplay these companies have brought to the table, LBP is more than Nintendo has done in 14 years. The fact that we can also credit Sony with Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, producing Heavy Rain, Echochrome, and probably more that I'm forgetting makes Sony the most innovative console manufacturer out there as far as I'm concerned. If you want to talk about a company who rides the minimal changes sequel wave for all it's worth, Nintendo would be the poster company for it if Activision and EA didn't exist. They haven't made a new game since the N64 died.

Wow, I seriously need to re-read some of my longer posts...

I won't argue that Nintendo has done very little in terms of innovating their major franchises and yes, Sony is definetly one of the better companies out there when you start to stack together their indiviadual games but I ask you where does their console design lead the industry? Heavy Rain for example is basically the PC adventure games of old (its been called the spiritual successor to Indigo Prophecy) it is hardly dependent on the technology of Sony or the PS3 to be the game it is. Hardware is getting more powerful but I don't feel like its been making games better overall. Why do I have to wait an entire console generation to get two games like Ico and Shadow of the Colossus when the shelves are lined up with dozens of samey type games. This was what I was trying to point out with my second response about gamers sending the wrong message to developers, when you start to stack the best games from each console and the rare awesome gems like Ico, Okami, Katamari Damacy, and other great titles, you quickly realize they only make up a small percentage of the whole gaming library.

Every console is filled with lost gems and games that got credit for how good they were long after they were released. We as gamers want stuff like Heavy Rain, LBP, NMH, and Ico but at the same time, we are faster to spend our money on the new Madden, Zelda, and Final Fantasy and even quicker to turn around and say how much those games we bought suck because it was either too different or felt like a rehash of the older versions. I feel we are sending very mixed signals here and I feel we tie developers hands especially considering costs of big AAA titles is getting more expensive. Most of the innovative and interesting titles are either coming out of the indie scene or are fun pet projects made for cheap by companies to be sold on DLC.

I think I lost my point somewhere around paragraph 2... Overall, I agree that Nintendo is just as guilty as the rest.

Wii Fit isn't a game. There I said it.

Calling Wii Music a game is a bit of a stretch too though you could make a better case for it than Wii Fit.

Exercise is good for you

My point is that motion controllers and motions detection technology has some interesting applications that I feel we can explore to make better games. Nintendo talked about creating a heart monitoring sensor for the Wii to go with Wii Fit but I was thinking how neat it would be to use the technology to use your heart rate to calculate game flow. Imagine a horror game that actually based how much action and tension happened by basing it on your pulse? Food for thought...

I read GamesRadar articles quite often, and one thing you have to realize is even the serious articles are meant to be slightly humorous in nature. It was much more of a 'what if' for fun than something you would base an investment portfolio on.

Meh, I just got bored reading it.

"Crumple", not crash. The main idea was that the rapid industry growth into the 'casual' market, advanced primarily by motion control, is not sustainable. Or in other words 'casual' gaming is a bubble market that will soon see a market correction, resulting in an overall decrease in total value of the video game industry.

I understand the main article, I think I mostly talked about crash cause he kept bringing up the Crash of 83. I actually agree his doomsday scenario is very plausible.

The main issue is how well shovelware sells on the Wii in comparison to 'good' games. (I'm using so many quotation marks in this post I feel I should be translating FFT or something) Shovelwar is an inevitability for everything. TV, Books, Movies, it all happens. The main issue is making sure the standout products get the money they deserve.

I agree but as I began to point out in my response to Vivi22 not many of the high profile titles on other consoles ever got their fare due. Ico, Vagrant Story, Rez, Okami, Beyond Good and Evil are considered by most of the gaming community and some of the industry as excellent titles but all of them were underwhelming in the market. Hell just looking at Clover Studios career or Prince of Persia franchise you see that very few great games actually become smash hits in terms of sales. Some of the best RPGs I've ever played are made by companies that are not known for making games from the genre.

Yes, Muramasa, Mad World, and NMH had underwhelming sales on the Wii but Nintendo's mainline products are still going strong and Metroid: the Other M is one of the more anticipated titles for the console. Its not that the Wii's shovelware is drowning out the good games as much as this is the problem of all the Nintendo consoles since the N64, third party games sell terribly cause Nintendo fans seem to only want to play the main franchises. About the only shovelware title that has sold remarkably well on the system is Wii Play and that's because it was bundled with an extra Wii mote and about ten bucks cheaper to buy than the standalone.

A quick look at the top ten best selling games for the platform shows the age old problem with Nintendo that Vivi22 pointed out which is that all of them are 1st party games. I wouldn't be surprised if the top 20 were all exclusively Nintendo made. I don't really believe that the casual gamers are actually opening their wallets for every Wii sport clone on the shelves. Nintendo is just doing its old song and dance.

I personally don't think that original titles should be offering massive innovations. I like the Mega Man model quite a bit myself. The Mega Man X series, though very similar in nature, offered several different gameplay cornerstones. Adding stuff like the slide and charge in previous MM installments improved the games (imo) but dashing and wall jumping completely changed many aspects of the gameplay. Creating a new series that was still Mega Man was, in my mind, the perfect way to go about something like this. I don't see anything wrong with laying down an old series and starting on something fresh is the gameplay paridigms around which it is based are no longer relevant in the current market. Another example is FFT. The game still felt very 'Final Fantasy-ey', but it would not have been appropriate to continue the main series on as such. A spin of was an excellent way to go. As MMX has shown you can have entire spin off series that continue off in place of the main branch.

I think there are many ways to innovate but lately it feels sometimes that companies are going too slow out of fear of losing their audiences.

My point here really wasn't to slam all the other consoles and make Nintendo out as a hero rather as I was trying to point out that instead of just relegating motion controls as a gimmick, I feel we should look at it as an opportunity to experience something new. I'm not saying motion controls should be integrated into the major franchises either.

I just feel that this technology would allow game designers to think outside of the box and help them become a bit more daring in more established mediums. I think its interesting to see if motion controls, Virtual reality, and other non-mainstream notions of technology can be sued to create new gaming experiences. We'll always have the standard consoles and stuff but I feel it would be silly of us as gamers to ignore other possibilities for the medium. That was really my point, but I got off topic ion some weird Sony, Microsoft, Squenix, MGS4 rant. I guess my brain is still fried from finals...

That is the thing, I am not seeing this transition from Casual Wii to bigger an better things gaming wise. Everyone I know who owns one keeps it in the closet and breaks it out for s and giggles once and a while. This idea that casuals will come in the door and become interested in the more conventional gaming seems to be wishful thinking. At best. If this were true then titles like Muramasa that are receiving a great amount of industry attention wouldn't be doing so poorly.

I doubt will see it until another five or ten years later from now. This is a social change, it doesn't happen overnight you know. What I will say is that I've talked to lots of parents and many of them think games are violent and stupid but are utterly fascinated with the technology. Many of the professors I talk to in computer science and communication technologies are becoming more fascinated with gaming and a lot of it was because of the technology in the Wii and DS. I'm talking old guys who haven't touched a game since Pac-Man are intrigued by what Wii Fit and Wii Sports are doing in terms of technology and a lot of it is because of its social acceptance by people who are not technology hobbyist.

Gaming is becoming socially acceptable because all us young tykes were raised on them and now we've grown up but, I feel the Casual market is starting to bridge some gaps between the gamer generation and the oldbies who've been asking us to shut off the damn games and play outside. Even if the market bursts and implodes on itself, I feel its social impact will affect the industry for years to come.

All you tl:dr people suck.

Quoted for the truth

I have never been an FPS fan, the genre is not something that appeals to me at all. Yet with tweaks that were all told relatively minor in the grand scheme of things Borderlands and MAG were able to deliver an experience that I, a decided non FPS gamer, enjoyed thoroughly. The idea that video games have to create a new genre every decade seems a little... ambitious.

We don't need to make new genres, it would be a little interesting and its going to happen whether or not stuff like Rock Band and the Wii are successful. I just feel like its been awhile since I played something that really defined a genre or changed my perspective on gaming. I just feel that the established franchises are not really getting any better and though some interesting titles have been coming and going, none have really caught my eye.

I think my rant is partly due to how underwhelmed I am with the PS3. I've played the system off on and on since it came out, finally picked one up for myself a few months back, picked up a few titles I've been interested in and have not felt the desire to touch it since I finished FFXIII. Even going into game stores, I spend less time in the PS3 section cause there is very little in terms of games I want to own. I've played through MGS4 and despite my ranting, I really did like the game but I have no real motivation to go through it again and I have not felt a need to play the game since I finished it. I'm not sure what's up with me lately...

[Slothy]

Yes I did play through the game but to be fair to MGS4, I only played it once

I wasn't really questioning whether you played it since I knew you had, only that it not changing much from MGS isn't the reaction I expect from someone who played the entire game at least once, let alone more times. My point was really only that I've never seen a game merge so many disparate play styles so well. I played through it several times like it was a third person shooter, a stealth game, siding with the various factions, etc. and each was a substantially different experience. You don't really get that in any game, so that it was done so well utterly floored me.

I think motion controls might have a future in gaming. Will it replace the standard controller? Not very likely but I can see it being a feature built into future console generations, especially something like Natal.

I also feel that they create a level of immersion that is lacking in standard controllers. There is just something a bit more satisfying about swinging the Wii mote to instigate the final kill in No More Heroes that I don't feel a standard controller could ever have given me.

I agree with this statement up until you mention Natal. Because honestly, the biggest reason I see motion controls never working in any current form that they exist in is because of a lack of sufficient physical feedback. Our bodies and brains expect physical feedback when making the motions required of us for the purposes games ask of us but we never get it. Physical feedback is an integral part in reacting to swords clanging together, steering a car, or dribbling a ball but we get none of that feedback from Natal and almost none from the Wii-mote.

I'll agree that the actual motions feel more natural and immersive, but that immersion has always been immediately broken for me because of the lack of physical feedback. Because without it, everything in Wii Sports was based as much on luck and randomly swinging the controller as anything else and Mario Kart Wii was utterly unplayable with the motion controls. I agree there's potential in some genres and game markets for motion control, but until they workout the problem of physical feedback I have no problem saying that I don't think it will ever reach it's potential.

I won't argue that Nintendo has done very little in terms of innovating their major franchises and yes, Sony is definetly one of the better companies out there when you start to stack together their indiviadual games but I ask you where does their console design lead the industry? Heavy Rain for example is basically the PC adventure games of old (its been called the spiritual successor to Indigo Prophecy) it is hardly dependent on the technology of Sony or the PS3 to be the game it is.

I disagree actually. Were the developers not able to utilize the technology to make Heavy Rain look as good as it did and build the atmosphere as well as they did I don't think it would have worked as well. Not that lesser hardware can't make immersive games, but I honestly think that the sheer realism of it's settings helped to elevate the immersive qualities inherent in the gameplay.

But for a much better example, I can really just name Portal. By no means is Portal a technical powerhouse, but it couldn't have been made ten years ago in the form it's in. Not only is there some complex physics going on with the portalless games anyway, but I don't think anything could have handled some of the workarounds they had to make to get the physics working through portals if they tried to do it ten years ago, and certainly not 15 or 20 years ago. And even if you don't think GTAIV is innovative (I don't think it is nor do I like it), but it's hard to say it didn't benefit from more power by creating a much more believable and immersive world. And a more recent example of Battlefield Bad Company 2; it literally wouldn't be the game it was without the massive environments, seamless environmental destruction and vehicles, all of which would be difficult or impossible to integrate so seamlessly on 5 year old hardware let alone ten year old hardware. I could probably come up with more examples of games that legitimately benefit from more power, but I just woke up and thinking is hard.

But really, I'm not trying to say that hardware is required to innovate, but it certainly removes barriers to innovation so developers can more easily realize their game whether it's an innovative masterpiece or an iterative step forward.

This was what I was trying to point out with my second response about gamers sending the wrong message to developers, when you start to stack the best games from each console and the rare awesome gems like Ico, Okami, Katamari Damacy, and other great titles, you quickly realize they only make up a small percentage of the whole gaming library.

I won't disagree with you on that, but given the rise of the indie scene I think we're actually able to see the second coming of more innovative game design since game development is so much more accessible. That said, when it comes to innovation on consoles, I really don't think we're any worse off now than we were even on the SNES as far as innovation. I mean a lot of great games came out in that era, but how many can you think of that were truly innovative and didn't just make incremental steps in already established genres? I'm having trouble thinking of many right now.

I think my rant is partly due to how underwhelmed I am with the PS3. I've played the system off on and on since it came out, finally picked one up for myself a few months back, picked up a few titles I've been interested in and have not felt the desire to touch it since I finished FFXIII. Even going into game stores, I spend less time in the PS3 section cause there is very little in terms of games I want to own. I've played through MGS4 and despite my ranting, I really did like the game but I have no real motivation to go through it again and I have not felt a need to play the game since I finished it. I'm not sure what's up with me lately...

I can't blame you for getting through FFXIII and not wanting to touch a console (any console). It's pretty easy to lose any desire to play games after too much time with that.

But the PS3 has some legitimately awesome and creative titles even if not all of them are over flowing with innovation. I'd be happy to make some recommendations if you'd like (though that's probably best left outside of the thread).

Also, Portal is free on the PC and Mac until the 24th. If you haven't already then get it.