Burny

Come on, be creative! You can always fall back on discussing the Zelda timeline or which Zelda is the best.

Looking at DQ 8/10's style, I don't see the problem. Highly stylized, cel-shaded or otherwise comic-like graphics don't require tons of geometry to look good. All you have to do is look at Wind Waker or the more stylized Wii games played via dolphin. Not to mention that even the supposedly "high-def" JRPGs this gen look like shit when you happen to inspect the environment too closely: FXIII-2, FXIII-2, Tales of Xillia. It's certainly not the console's fault with those games. There is a limit to how great a dev can make a game look. And with DQ10's style, it isn't set by the Wii. If anything with this style, all they have to do to make the WiiU version look great is render it at a high resolution, possibly use higher res textures and have it run at a good framerate.

As I said above: I wouldn't be surprised if we never saw the Wii-version released in the West, simply because the WiiU might have been out for a while by the time a translation would be done. On another note: GET XENOBLADE!

Oh, look! Features that should be expected if a console is to support online games. 6 years late on the Wii. Hopefully they realize at some point that voice chat is not some unthinkable luxury for a cooperative online game, too. I wonder why that's the only official (?) screenshot so far. It's definitely unflattering in a typical MMO-town-groupshot sort of way. So, any bets about the Wii-version actually making it to the West? They said 2012, which might mean sometime later 2012. Factor in a 6+ months for translation and the Wii-version would come over by the time the WiiU is out here. My guess is, if this makes it over here at all, we might only see the WiiU version.

I really wish Capcom - or actually all devs - were more honest with their "screenshots" for the 3DS. The 3DS will never render the game like this. Scaling the images back gives a much better impression of what the game looks like. If they need Higher Res stuff so magazines can print it larger than a post stamp, they can still do it.

What did past new console generations offer to people? Wasn't it new games and "Moah graphix!"? This would be a start even today (actual HD-resolutions and more solid fps), although I highly doubt that the differences will be as striking this time. It seems studios are already often hitting the limits of their budgets before they hit the limits of the machines they have available today. I can even see ports of the same game spanning console generations when the new machines hit. Eventually, the new CoD or GTA that'll only run on the new machines will come. Beyond that, I could imagine that MS and Sony will try to push social features even more than they do now. Organizing Clan's / Groups within PSN/XBL, copying features of social networks. Integrating new business models ("f2p" games) into their respective services. I wouldn't put it beyond Microsoft to integrate an evolved version of Kinect completely into their new system either. Going by MS' last two E3 conferences, they'll try even harder to establish the "Xbox720" as a media streaming device and Sony might follow. For the most part though, it's going to be games.

Far too many words and a page back, I was talking about the games that are possible when you know you'll be selling for 40€-60€, not necessarily on the 3DS, as the 3DS is technically rather outdated. I give you that it is absolutely possible to put together a team of the same size as you get for a large retail title, have them labor for two years and put out a phone game equaling any full priced retail title in scope. Let me correct myself then: Replace "possible" with "likely". Until there is hard proof that the grass is greener in the smartphone market that's going to stay this way. Quiet frankly though, yes. I am disputing that "Modern Combat 3: Fallen Nation" is able to keep up with the scope of the games it was inspired by - namely Call of Duty. That is, until you show me how many people worked on it for how long and that the resulting number of person months put into it is roughly comparable to what your average CoD takes now. Admittedly, I was rather impressed by the scope of Gameloft games on Smartphones, although I haven't played any of them. After reading that bit about working conditions above though, I'm distinctly less impressed. As for complete lack of third party support on the 3DS that you are assuming is set in stone: Look who's got a title in the eStore despite Nintendo's general online implementation being shit and not offering Game Center's functionality - Gameloft. Edit: @darkjak: I find myself agreeing with you. Please stop it! Mostly at least. Sub par control setups don't stop devs from developing games when there's money behind it and no alternative available. Neither do they stop people from buying the games if it's only X gold. And on another note: Did I miss something or has Activision no CoD title in the appstore? They've had external teams develop mobile CoDs in the past, so I'd expect they'd have such teams develop something to compete with Gamelofts blatant ripoffs.

Well... To believe that Gameloft has a somehow found a way to squeeze the work a full blown studio does over two years into a game that sells at about 1/10 of the price, while having shorter development cycles, without cutting corners, is a bit... overcredulous maybe? Provided, I haven't seen any articles about working conditions at Nintendo. As I said, with a strict pricing model, you get games that are subjectively - and even objectively - not worth the price. There is no other way around it other than to make informed purchases. And the question how Nintendo can charge this is easily answered: They own the platform. As long as people buy it, they can continue to charge what they like. You are arguing that they should make phone games when so far they've always gotten away with their pricing model, because you want to pay less? That's laughable at best. You could as well argue they should charge less, because it's the charitable thing to do. They aren't charitable and they won't care until they feel the pain. The recent price reduction for the 3DS has shown that they cannot get away with overly greedy pricing while delivering insufficient value. Jamba touches a much more sensible and important question: Should Nintendo continue to keep enforcing their price model for 3rd parties?

There is Amazon.de. But being the spoiled people that you are with your low prices over there, that's not an option I guess?

The reason for what? Abandoning Nintendo's model that has proven to be successful for Nintendo and is not proven to be unsuccessful in the future? Or for allowing other models beside that? There are tons of aspects where Nintendo's online structure (on the 3DS) could and should be accused of not being sophisticated enough. This however is not one of them. Supporting games financed by microtransactions isn't so much a matter of reinventing the wheel for Nintendo, it's more a matter of allowing regularly updated free downloadable software with paid DLC. Either way, the prospect of many third parties moving to such models isn't a reason for Nintendo to abandon their status as platform holder - no matter at which point or in which form. And the thread title still reads "Should Nintendo Develop for iOS Devices?" - No. Releasing Nintendo games on other competing platforms is just a weaker form of abandoning their own platform or an early stage of it. The discussion must be about the need for Nintendo to ease their current constraints on their partners.

If the current gaming handheld generation survives six years with a decent install base - by which time probably even the most low-end phones will begin to out-power them - there is even less of a reason to abandon them. If it collapses within this timespan for good though (below Gamecube levels), then there is a point to be made for abandoning them. And even then there are other options for Nintendo. Unifying their home-console and handheld systems into one platform somewhat might not be out of question with that kind of power. Before they divert their resources to two platforms, one of which is not theirs, this might even be preferable. Releasing a proprietary phone might be another option - although Nintendo would have to learn a lot of lessons or acquire know-how from elsewhere for that. Or maybe people understand exactly what they mean and just don't see why these methods of generating revenue suddenly invalidate everything that has so far proven successful for Nintendo? Opening their own store for such business models so other devs and publishers can use them would actually be the most obvious consequence. "Your princess is in another castle. To unlock world 5-1, please pay 0,99$" ?

@Jamba: So, you foresee Nintendo's mobile market section shrinking (after a rather unforeseen explosion), now that some potent competition shows up. Small wonder. I must've missed how this led to the conclusion that Nintendo needs to abandon their very business model for another one though. What you give aren't reasons why Nintendo should become an iOS dev, what you give are a lot of assumptions how Nintendo's business model isn't successful anymore and how everybody and their dog has moved on - which is simply not true. There isn't terribly more or less support than the DS had at this point - if anything the eShop might mean more support from smaller devs. Where is you crystal ball? Mind asking it how much the market section for dedicated handhelds is going to shrink? You don't know, I don't know, Nintendo doesn't know and shareholders seem to know even less. The thing is, nobody will know "at what level of success" Nintendo will end up, if they don't try. Let's say the the 3DS ends up with a 70 million install base after 6 years. That's not worth being platform holder anymore? As darksnowman already said: Square-Enix have been porting stuff over to iOS for some time now. They are even developing a dedicated FF for iOS iirc. Strangely, they haven't been singing the song about the death of gaming handhelds quiet yet. Neither have I heard the song about how iOS gaming saved Square-Enix. Or indeed any song about how a big-budget iOS game has made better revenue than any of the successful retail handheld titles. Which 3rd parties with mobile teams developing for phones are so opposed to additional streams of revenue that they would not consider porting their mobile games to the eShop? Recently acquired PopCap, who even sold Plants vs. Zombies as DSiWare? When did they come to hate money? Gameloft, who already have a title on the eShop? Don't even start with one example of an unsuccessful but critically acclaimed niche game and point at Nintendo. You get those on any platform. I agree with one thing though: Nintendo's mobile business model needs to evolve - into a business model that combines the retail business and a download platform that's also an attractive target for other mobile devs. And yes, at this point in time - before even trying to defend or stabilize their position - the business decision to go for iOS gaming is not just not sound but would be an idiotic overreaction of colossal proportions. Just because the previously almost unchallenged market leader and platform holder Nintendo is finally meeting resistance, their business model doesn't suddenly need to "evolve" into licking Apples shoes. When all else fails, they can still do that. And if they have sense, they won't limit themselves to a single manufacturer and their appstore then. :p

*breathes in* Ok. The most successful handheld games include the likes of Mario Kart, Super Mario Games, Pokemon, Monster Hunter and in Japan tons of RPGs. While many of them have "pick-up-and-play"-qualitites - practically any Nintendo title has, including the home console ones - they're all also rather large in scope (including development costs) and could potentially profit from evolving into something larger. Meaning: a "handheld game design" absolutely doesn't imply a small game. And going "third party" in the mobile space in the manner people are suggesting recently seems not to be the way for Nintendo to achieve this. What these people suggest is effectively for Nintendo to somehow squeeze their mobile game's business-model into the app-market. What I see is a market that's flooded with glorified Flash-games and "you-can't-go-wrong-for-six-bucks"-copies of game concepts for more dedicated platforms - with the occasional gem thrown in. Why should Nintendo do that? What evidence is there to suggest that there is no market for dedicated handheld platforms besides the eventually ubiquitous smartphones? The 3DS is having a rough first year (out of probably six) and the dedicated handheld market might shrink somewhat - abandon the ship? And what evidence is there that app-markets are even a good fit for big mobile game projects like Nintendo does them? With the determination some people show at arguing Nintendo should stop making handhelds and start to develop for phones, you'd think everybody in the world was euphoric at the idea of playing a thirty levels mobile SMB with butchered touch-controls. I for one am not and I'm rather sick of people believing I - or Nintendo - should be because they are in love with their phones.

When they mention "state of the art online functionality" and the 3DS in the same ad, it's definitely not the cheekiest thing in there.

These discussions far too often degrade into this: "I've paid X money for this game on [not game-dedicated mobile platform goes here], which was Y less than for that game on [dedicated game platform goes here], and I've had so-and-so much more quality time with this game than with that one." And the (false) conclusion often is: games in general need to be cheaper. It's similar with Steam sales when PC-gamers mock console people for paying 60$ for a game that they (the master-race) got for a bit of spare cash during sales some months or years later. What they ignore is that in an environment, where games are sold at release for 40-60$/€, games of an entirely different scope are possible. And by scope I don't necessarily mean length and definitely not quality. This includes things like varied, visually and mechanically complex levels, extensive voice work, and the acting in more cinematic games like Uncharted - which aren't that long. Simply things that require large teams and a lot of time to even create. And if they turn out to be quality games or not doesn't change that the upfront investment necessary for creating these games in the first place is immense. As for overpriced games with too little content: They simply happen. Reading up a bit on the game before buying it saves you the trouble. Why are people even so obsessed with Nintendo developing for smartphones? Are they angry because they would have to buy a device they don't want to carry around in addition to their phone, but have to in order to play Nintendo games? Do they really think Nintendo would earn more money by putting their games on phones? Are people on crack to think that with current team sizes and development budgets devs like Nintendo would make a lot of money on app-stores if they had to sell these games for 10 bucks? Or do people want Nintendo to throw their whole development philosophy out of the window in order to be profitable with bite-sized games on smartphones? If so, I'm sorry to say, but these people are selfish assholes. There's a sea of bite-sized games on smartphones already and they can drown in them for all I care. I don't buy many games, but I still prefer to pay 60€ + a dedicated console's price upfront and to get something with the scope of Mario Galaxy or Zelda for it.

Obviously, you need to get a Vita now. Frankly, I'm kind of hoping for a WiiU-Port. That is, if this turns out to live up to the original. From the information Andrisang had so far, it seemed they weren't sure if this would be a true sequel or some kind of update of the original.

Not that it'll stay there for a long time. But it has made a splash. Edit: "Let's press on and on and on!" Edit: To NoA: "What a bunch of jokers!"

Hardly. What's the point? It does exactly the same things as the old Wii, it just comes with different games and hopefully at a slightly lower price. Yes, it does not play Gamecube games. In order to tell this to parents looking for presents this Christmas though, Nintendo would likely have to explain to them what a "Gamecube" is first.

@Aimless Ok, I understood that as being directed against DRM altogether. The flexibility is out of question. I do wonder about what the income at later points is though. Sure, income is made at later points as older games never have to leave digital "shelves" and that's already a big improvement over pure retail releases. How much is it though? I guess what pays the bills for the development and raises the funds for a new project, is the money of early adopter's who paid the full price instead of the spare change of those who waited until they got the GOTY edition for 5€ during Steam sales? @The Bard: Steamworks being free is great. Makes being dependent on Steam no better for big publishers though. But these "service instead of one-time product"-philosophy has its limits. Namely: singleplayer games. Unless you chop the games into pieces and sell content as "free post release DLC" for those who register. @Cube: That's where my prediction that EA, Ubisoft and Activision will try to establish own alternatives to Steam comes from in the first place. EA has apparently already started, because they want more control. It's hard to imagine Activision and Ubisoft wouldn't want the same. Also: According to EA, the removal of Crysis 2 from Steam was done by Valve due to Steam's business terms, which don't go well with the way Crytek (EA?) would like to distribute the game via other services.

I don't know if it's different in the UK, but I'm pretty disappointed with the reversible cover. It's just an image. The spine of the Box doesn't have the Logo or game's name, the front doesn't even have the Logo. It just looks unfinished to me. And why people chose the touched up "game graphic" image instead of the awsome concept art (second choice) is still a mystery to me. Too much niggling I guess, but I will just leave the normal cover. Although, being the special edition, aside from the USK-rating they apparently had to destroy it even more by writing "Not to be sold separately" in 7 languages all over the lower right corner.

That's a mightily fine idea. And what would possibly encourage people who've preferred to "find" their games up until now to suddenly fork out and buy them, when there is still nothing that discourages them from just continuing to "find" their games? I like Steam, it works great and is incredibly convenient. It's one example of how DRM can work without being intrusive and how value can be added through the required connection (friendlist, achievements, cloud saving). Unfortunately that "surefire alternative" means that big publishers like EA or Activision are dependent on Valve. I don't know if they have to pay anything if they integrate Steamworks into their game and make a Steam account and connection mandatory, but even if not, not having control over something like that is understandably not in their interest. You just can't ask big publishers to make themselves completely dependent on Valve, as great as Steam might be. I expect that EA, Ubisoft and Activision will try to establish their own alternatives in the next years.

In principle, I don't think that "always on" DRM is a bad thing. It sucks having to be online for a singleplayer game, yes. But it also sucks that publishers and devs are so afraid of their game being pirated, that they prefer platforms where the self service mentality isn't as widespread. "Just make good enough games so people will want to pay for it" simply doesn't work. The better the game, the more people will want it without paying for it. Who wants to pirate a bad game? What counts though, is the implementation. When losing the connection for some seconds (which is completely out of the player's control, e.g. general congestion at the ISP for whatever reason) renders the game unplayable while you're already playing, something is wrong. When the publisher is unable to provide sufficiently reliable servers for these types of DRM, than everything falls apart. The DRM has to be fair. And fairness might also include loosening or removing the "always on"-DRM once the game is a couple of years old. Ideally, while they're already demanding constant connections, they could also provide services that exploit this connection and offer value to the player like cloud saving, friendlists to chat with people currently in other games (e.g. SC2 & WoW or Steam's friendlist), their own achievement systems etc.. Penny arcade had a nice strip about the always on DRM in Diablo 3 Don't know if directly linking their strips is advisable, but I wanted the strip on the page without uploading it to imageshack myself.

I'd be more outraged about how hard it is to make out the characters, even on these screens with ridiculously blown up resolution. When you scale them back to what you'll actually see on the 3DS, it doesn't get better. Why do publishers insist to show 3DS games in these blown up resolutions? Yes, they show up larger on a computer screen, but textures supposed to be viewed in 400x240 don't exactly look flattering, even if they're not as shit as this.

Lucky you: Xenoblade is not turn-based. And which review praised the "complicated" battle system? The basics are pretty much like an MMORPG. Characters attack automatically and you simply select "Arts" (special attacks, spells etc.), which have a cooldown before you can select them again. How much more simple do you want it to be? One button combat?

Movies are recognized as art, aren't they? Naturally, turning a game into a movie would make it art then.