Gimmicks, in and of themselves, are not necessarily bad. What's bad is that they use the gimmicks to market the product toward people who wouldn't otherwise buy it. I know at least one game on the Wii is good because I've played it on the PS3. It's just that damn gimmick that turns me off.
... So they add new features to get more people interested? And that's bad, because... ?What's bad is that they use the gimmicks to market the product toward people who wouldn't otherwise buy it.
look we all know the eventual future of all gaming will be completely realistic graphics in a virtual reality type situation. That's where they're all headed, it's just different routes. Nintendo has made more immersion with the physical things, while Sony and Microsoft made more immersion visually. They're just different branches down a path that will eventually lead to the same final stage.
THE JACKEL
add me, PSN: ljkkjlcm9
Yeah may as well change the thread title now
there was a picture here
Really? Because I'm not aware of any. The Wii is great fun for a short time with some friends. For anything approaching gaming, however...Originally Posted by Roto13
Where is the much-desired Star Wars game where you can use your lightsaber in real-time? Or any swordfighting game, for that matter? Red Steel pretty clearly displayed that the Wii does not have the chops to do the thing I was most excited about.
I'm hard pressed to think of a single good Wii game which actually useswagglemotion sensing to make the game something it couldn't be otherwise. Just like the stylus on the DS, unecesary motion balls is shoehorned into games which don't need it in any way.
It's not bad from Nintendo's perspective. It's smurfing genius in fact. They did something which had been attempted before and dismissed as just not feasable - i.e. motion control - and marketed it like some sort of Hayekian demon. The Wii is one of the most successful things ever made in this industry.
The problem is that the new demographies brought in by the Wii, well... they're just going to meet me with a blank stare when I talk about X-Com. They've probably barely heard of Civilization, they're not interested in Soul Calibur, and they're sure asnot buying Okami any more than other consoles did.
What the Wii has done changed the industry. No denying that. As you said, anyone who thinks the PS4/XBox3 aren't going to target casual gamers more is delusional. But I don't want that. I don't want the market to be a competition between minigames. I want real, serious games which take an investment of time and energy and, on lucky occasions, emotions. I want gaming to evolve, sure - and hopefully it's going to end up where The Jackal suggests pretty soon - but not in the direction Nintendo has steered it in.
That's what the WiiMotion Plus is for. They showed 1:1 swordfighting at the E3 press conference.Where is the much-desired Star Wars game where you can use your lightsaber in real-time? Or any swordfighting game, for that matter? Red Steel pretty clearly displayed that the Wii does not have the chops to do the thing I was most excited about.
No More Heroes and Zack And Wiki, to name two. Plus, the Wiimote isn't just waggle, it's also pointing. Drawing with the Wiimote in Okami is awesome, and collecting starbits with it in Mario Galaxy adds quite a bit to the game, and aiming with it in Resident Evil or Zelda is about fifty times better than using a control stick.I'm hard pressed to think of a single good Wii game which actually uses waggle motion sensing to make the game something it couldn't be otherwise. Just like the stylus on the DS, unecesary motion balls is shoehorned into games which don't need it in any way.
EDIT: Oh, also Boom Blox is wicked fun, but that probably falls more into the party game category.
Okami sold about as well on the Wii as it did in the same time period on the PS2. (I just happened to be looking that up yesterday for unrelated reasons. :P) The difference is the Wii, while hugely successful, hasn't sold as many units yet as the PS2 had at that point.The problem is that the new demographies brought in by the Wii, well... they're just going to meet me with a blank stare when I talk about X-Com. They've probably barely heard of Civilization, they're not interested in Soul Calibur, and they're sure as skullskullskullskull not buying Okami any more than other consoles did.
Well I dunno what to tell you. Nintendo makes more core games than casual games, but they market the casual games more because their target audience isn't going to actively seek them out like core gamers do.I don't want the market to be a competition between minigames.
The problem with Nintendo consoles these days is that the "real games" are almost exclusively from Nintendo themselves. You can almost count games from other companies on one hand, excluding shovelware, of course.
When PS4 and the next Xbox are released, I expect a more varied software library, with more real games. I hope I won't get disappointed again, like I got with Wii.
I don't think they are going to support them any more than they are now to be honest. People seem to forget that the market Sony and Microsoft are focusing on is just as profitable as the casual market. Do you know how much money Microsoft raked in with Halo 3? A hell of a lot more than Nintendo did with Wii Sports.
Funny how there are like 5 posts that even mention the thread topic.
Although I thoroughly doubt Sony would go down that particular road, I, personally, would be glad to see a develop towards more casual gaming. It broadens the concept of video games and helps the general public to accept gaming as a valid culture.
Wii Sports is free in most of the world.I don't think they are going to support them any more than they are now to be honest. People seem to forget that the market Sony and Microsoft are focusing on is just as profitable as the casual market. Do you know how much money Microsoft raked in with Halo 3? A hell of a lot more than Nintendo did with Wii Sports.
Halo 3 didn't do as well as Microsoft was expecting. (I know this because it cost me my job.) Microsoft is just now over the last few months beginning to make a profit, and only on a monthly basis, not overall. The PS3 is doing better than it was, but it's still not profitable. Nintendo has been making money with the Wii since day one. They don't sell the hardware at a loss. None of their own games have been commercial failures.
Nintendo has been making ridiculous amounts of money since they launched the Wii. Lots more than their competitors.
When people say the coming gen of consoles will follow the Wii's trend, what exactly do they mean? If you mean releasing a relatively inexpensive console, I really don't know about that one.
If you mean releasing games that appeal to all kinds of people outside of the "hardcore" market, I have to say the PSN Store and XBL Arcade already do that. Pretty well.
And while I agree the Wii is gimmicky, I gotta give some credit to the DS. In one game (New SMB) Nintendo pretty much crushed every touch game I ever played, using Palm Pilots for years, and then some (talkin about the minigames).
For the Sony fans talking about Sony wouldn't use gimmicky stuff like the Wii-mote, one word: Siaxxis, need another? Eye Toy
Back on the more interesting topic... I can definetly see Sony and Microsoft curbing their game library a bit in favor of more casual gamer fare but probably not to the extent Nintendo has. They will both say they are here for the Hardcore gamers but I wouldn't be surprised if the next generation of consoles and gaming has a bias in favor of the super casual market. It all depends on whether the super casual market crumbles by then.
I think the problem with the XBL and PSN with their more casual fair of games is that 1) They are not exactly the type of games I see the super casual market wanting to play with a few amazing exceptions, and 2) I don't think the super casual market is sold on downloading games from their consoles. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if any of them know the gaming consoles can even do that. My grandmother barely knows how to check her Yahoo account on her own computer let alone access a XBL account or even know how to input a friend code. So with this assumption, I feel that Sony and Microsoft have little to no claim to the financial pie the Super Casual market is bringing.
Technically, Nintendo has a good thing going considering there console is easy to make games for, the games are far cheaper to make, and yet they can still charge you $50 bucks for something a crack team of high school programmers can make in their garage. From a business perspective, its a way better model than what Sony and Microsoft have going for them. Hell if, Microsoft didn't have XBL, I'm pretty sure they would be hurting as much as Sony right now considering what the Red Ring has done to their image concerning quality. As for Sony, I feel they are just reaping what they sowed.
The next generation will be more interesting and unless we get some grand breakthrough in visual and audio technology in the next few years, I have a feeling we may not see systems designed for grand leaps of technology except perhaps for motion sensors
True beauty exists in things that last only for a moment.
Current Mood: And it's been a long December and there's reason to believe. Maybe this year will be better than the last. I can't remember all the times I tried to tell myself. To hold on to these moments as they pass...
I disagree. Nintendo are certainly making more money than the competitors but not as much as you'd think. For one a lot of people who buy the Wii don't buy many games. While Microsoft and Sony get most of their revenue from software sales. They depend on it because they are making a loss on each console sold. The average consumer for Sony and Microsoft spend a lot more money than one for Nintendo.
Plus there is a fairer competition between Microsoft and Sony. It should be obvious that Nintendo is unstoppable at this point, they went all the way with getting the casual market interested and unless Sony or Microsoft do the same there is not much point.
Yes, but Sony and Microsoft NEED to sell a lot of games to make up for the losses on every console they sell. And each game is a lot more expensive to produce, so they don't make as much money. How much do you think Wii Fit cost to make? They may sell a few more games, but if the first few just recoup some of the losses from selling the system in the first place, that doesn't mean much.I disagree. Nintendo are certainly making more money than the competitors but not as much as you'd think. For one a lot of people who buy the Wii don't buy many games. While Microsoft and Sony get most of their revenue from software sales. They depend on it because they are making a loss on each console sold. The average consumer for Sony and Microsoft spend a lot more money than one for Nintendo.
Even if your argument is non-downloadable software, you're still overlooking how hard Sony is pushing games like Sing Star, Buzz, Little Big Planet, and the 360 has Rock Band/guitar hero just as the others do in addition to Viva Pinata. It doesn't get much more casual than that.
Also, just because Sony released a machine like the PS3 doesn't mean the company itself has a "hardcore" business design. They're still pushing PS2's, the fact that they'rve released yet another new bundle with the new Lego Batman and a Justice League DVD is obvious of that. Hell, there's even still games being developed for the ps2, so to say that nintendo's competitors are going to be forced to change their business plan is beyond rediculous.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
