David Perry on Wiis future

[Teppo Holmqvist]

"casual" and "hardcore" both have many, many different meanings. It's just PR crap, really.

 

Indeed. I fucking hate "hardcore" tag, especially when it is used to describe guy who buys games such as Pro Evolution Soccer, Grand Theft Auto, Guitar Hero, Rock Band and Metal Gear Solid. Since when buying popular games has been fucking "hardcore"? Hell, if we look Perry's list, being "hardcore" is comparable to eating at McDonalds. Hardcore my ass...

[Patch]

To my mind, what separates the casual from the hardcore is one thing:

 

Knowledge.

 

It's the same difference between a moviegoer and a film buff. A wine drinker and a wine connoisseur etc...

[Cube]

To my mind, what separates the casual from the hardcore is one thing:

 

Knowledge.

 

It's the same difference between a moviegoer and a film buff. A wine drinker and a wine connoisseur etc...

 

That's probably the best definition I've heard - based on what you know*, not your tastes in games.

 

 

Edit: I mean how much you want to know.

[mariosmentor]

I don't think the issue is really graphics as the console with the largest user base right now is still the Ps2 and people continue buying games for it and developers continue making games.

 

The problem for the Wii is being too biased to casual or hardcore. I define casual are those who enjoy playing games and usually buy what is in the charts or recomended and hardcore are those who treat it as a serious hobby and have greater knowlege and experience with games.

 

Right now Wii is focused on the casual with a greater amount of pick up and play games like excite truck, brain academy, wii sports etc. games that hold no real depth and can be enjoyed by anyone usually at short bursts.

But it is changing with the release of some heavy hitters later this year and next.

The main problem I think is that developers were skeptical of Wii's success, then when it sold they were skeptical of it's appeal. Now developers are starting to take risks, notably rockstar releasing manhunt and bully.

So from here on out the 'hardcore' appeal of the Wii should pick up, hopefully.

[Jasper]

But it is changing with the release of some heavy hitters later this year and next.

 

Here's what bothers me: Nintendo has never released three of their most stunning and well-known titles in one year. I'll say more, they have never released that many franchised titles in a timespan of three months. But what will happen after that. Yes, we will see Disaster: Day of Crisis out there some time from now, we have Mario Kart next year, and we're pretty sure Pikmin is just waiting to roll out Olimar again. But what after that? Nintendo are good developers, but cramming all their hard-core titles so tightly together might have a temporary overblown effect. And a year after you'll ask Nintendo 'What do you have for the Hardcore this year' and Nintendo will answer 'Well you've still got Galaxy, Corruption and Brawl, haven't you?'

 

And that's the flaw in the businessplan right now. Microsoft and Sony have shown some great titles for this year and have great titles in the line-up for next year, but what does Nintendo have? Their greatest franchised will have been played and they can't release a quick rehashe next year and expect to keep gamers coming for more...

 

Help me out here, will yah?

[mariosmentor]

Zelda Wii? :P

[Fanelia]

just because we haven't heard from major nintendo releases after the current stream doesn't mean they aren't in full progress. patience grasshopper.

[Cube]

But what does Nintendo have?

 

Usually we find out at E3.

 

Thing is, the changes have thrown things off-course. Nintendo will announce next years titles at the GDC or TGS, perhaps even at E for All. Most developers didn't see the point of announcing too many new games at E3, the concentration was on already-announced titles.

 

So, what after?

 

Well, there's still franchises like Donkey Kong, F-Zero, Yoshi, Wario World, Pilotwings, Star Fox, Kirby, 1080, Wave Race, Pikmin, etc to reveal.

 

And who knows if they'll bring back any old franchises? They could give "failed" franchises like Geist another go; and they could start on sequels. Plus there's the chance of new franchises.

 

Anyway, by this time next year 3rd parties will be in full swing on the Wii, too.

[Jasper]

I still don't see what Nintendo has in mind placing it's big three this year, actually. They have many franchises, but none as big as Mario, Metroid and Smash Brothers, not?

 

We'll see. But Nintendo's approach for the classic gamer (the 'hardcore') is a little slacky if you ask me. Their E3 conference consisted of clipped together YouTube commentary of happy people playing Wii, five minutes of Mario and Metroid (if that much), a Little Brawl and a swinging twenty minutes on gaming for everyone. That sounds a little too much shifted focus for me.

 

But on topic though, I steel feel that my chart was pretty correct. You can say 'you can't add them up like that', but you do see the facts don't you? If Nintendo would have gone HD they would have really risen over the rest. Let's put it like this, what Nintendo has in Gameplay is made up by Sony and Microsoft in graphics. Next generation, all three will have the sale Nintendo-type chart, with more focus on gameplay, and whatb is Nintendo's advantage then? They should have advantage, something that makes them stand out, this generation, yet they're just on the same level. Lacking in graphics, innovative in GamePlay.

 

 

I used to defend Nintendo in this matter, but the more I think about it, the more I'm doubting.

[jammy2211]

I still don't see what Nintendo has in mind placing it's big three this year, actually. They have many franchises, but none as big as Mario, Metroid and Smash Brothers, not?

 

I think Nintendo just want to be far more aggresive, it is a very bold tactic placing so many big franchises close together. I think the basic premise was that the Wii was going to have next to no third party support (due to the GameCube's failure) and Nintendo needed to ensure they could keep their fans interested and people wanting the console.

 

As for 2008, well I think that will be the third parties year. Third parties started developing games late for the Wii (as it was 'supposed' to be a failure), and the best of these games should be ready for 2008. What comes from Nintendo? Well Animal Crossing and Mario Kart are both as big as SSBB / MP3 / SMG, and there is still all their other second tier franchises. What's to say Nintendo don't reveal an incredible and awesome game like a pokemon console adventure or something? It's not worth worrying about 2008 while we've still got the best of the 2007 line up to come.

 

We'll see. But Nintendo's approach for the classic gamer (the 'hardcore') is a little slacky if you ask me. Their E3 conference consisted of clipped together YouTube commentary of happy people playing Wii, five minutes of Mario and Metroid (if that much), a Little Brawl and a swinging twenty minutes on gaming for everyone. That sounds a little too much shifted focus for me.

 

It was E3 though, and more so a redesigned E3. E3 is not a gamers day, it's an event which was set up to allow the video game industry to expand further from just being a nishe market for kids. It's the only place where all the major US TV networks, all the major U.S. newspapers, websites like Yahoo and AOL are present. It's pretty much Nintendo's only chance to present themselves to the mainstream press, and that's what they did. I don't see anyone outside the gaming press reporting about the latest MGS or Killzone 2 trailer, but everyone was talking about Wii Fit.

 

But on topic though, I steel feel that [stupid Image] was pretty correct. You can say 'you can't add them up like that', but you do see the facts don't you? If Nintendo would have gone HD they would have really risen over the rest. Let's put it like this, what Nintendo has in Gameplay is made up by Sony and Microsoft in graphics. Next generation, all three will have the sale Nintendo-type chart, with more focus on gameplay, and whatb is Nintendo's advantage then? They should have advantage, something that makes them stand out, this generation, yet they're just on the same level. Lacking in graphics, innovative in GamePlay.

 

You can't just compare gameplay and graphics, the whole premise of it makes no sense. Nintendo have something even more important then both of those put together - the price point. That's what sells consoles most, a cheap and affordable price point, and I think the Wii's (And DS's) sales speak for themselves in that regard.

 

I used to defend Nintendo in this matter, but the more I think about it, the more I'm doubting.

That's the problem I guess, you're thinking about it too much.

[theguyfromspark]

Just looking at this list and it seems that Nintendo publishes about 5-6 games a year that could be described as for the "Hardcore" audience, this year seems to be no exception. The only difference in Nintendo these days is that they are also developing games for the "casual" audience as well.

[Teppo Holmqvist]

Here's what bothers me: Nintendo has never released three of their most stunning and well-known titles in one year.

 

Incorrect.

 

Super Mario Sunshine (August 26th, 2002)

Metroid Prime (November 18th, 2002)

Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker (24th March, 2003)

 

These are US dates

[Jasper]

Incorrect.

 

Super Mario Sunshine (August 26th, 2002)

Metroid Prime (November 18th, 2002)

Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker (24th March, 2003)

 

These are US dates

 

2002, 2003 - not the sam year, yes? And aimed at different seasons. Come on, I wasn't doing accurate facts here, I was referring to your intelligence to put some things together, too! They bring three top-tier titles in one holiday season, the same year, aimed at the same market. That's an overflow, actually. That's my thought.

 

And E3 was, untill this year, the trade show for showing games - not a show made to expand the industry and audience! You showed games there and hoped you would expand public with these, yes, but untill this year it was the show that showed us the most. Right now, they didn't do that and I hope Leipzig can change that. I'm not putting my hopes down for games we haven't heard about for the past three years yet!

 

Come on: Metroid, Mario and Smash bros are known for two years now and we haven't seen anything new except for mario Kart. I don't like that.

[Cube]

Well, Nintendo announced 2 new titles at last year's Leipzig Game Show (Strikers and BWii), so who knows what they'll announce at this years?

[jammy2211]

2002, 2003 - not the sam year, yes? And aimed at different seasons. Come on, I wasn't doing accurate facts here, I was referring to your intelligence to put some things together, too! They bring three top-tier titles in one holiday season, the same year, aimed at the same market. That's an overflow, actually. That's my thought.

 

No, the 360 line up is overflow. 3 games in a 4 month period is pretty clustered, yes, but at the same time there are many games aimed at other markets, anyway I thought Nintendo weren't focused enough on the hardcore, now it's too much? :S. Either way the 360 line up is far worse for too many games with similiar appeal in a short release span.

 

And E3 was, untill this year, the trade show for showing games - not a show made to expand the industry and audience! You showed games there and hoped you would expand public with these, yes, but untill this year it was the show that showed us the most. Right now, they didn't do that and I hope Leipzig can change that. I'm not putting my hopes down for games we haven't heard about for the past three years yet!

 

It was set up originally to extend video games more into the mainstream, it then turned into this big Games show where companies would spend millions of dollars on just one presentation, and thus it got downsized. If it hadn't been downsized, I think we can guarentee Nintendo's show would have been very different.

 

Come on: Metroid, Mario and Smash bros are known for two years now and we haven't seen anything new except for mario Kart. I don't like that.

 

It's just how Nintendo can market and aim their line up. These are the 3 biggest games in their history, and if Nintendo need all 100% media focus to be on them. If Nintendo reveal the big game of 2008, then people might stop talking about Metroid, and thus sales will fall. Once Metroid is out and selling then Nintendo might reveal a new game, or might just get everyone talking about Smash Bros.

 

Sony are very much the opposite, the only reason they can't focus on 2007 is cause their 2007 is very weak, so instead they show off games like Killzone 2, MGS 4, FFXIII etc. If Sony had a killer 2007 line up, they wouldn't be showing us their entire 2008 line up, but unfortunately that's not the case.

 

Third parties will play an important role in the Wii's success no matter what I think, and perhaps if Nintendo don't have as many big-name games coming out post-2007 it'll only encourage third parties to make some bigger name games. I personally don't see NIntendo running out of games once we're into 2008 though, but I do agree at the moment in terms of confirmed games both the DS and Wii lack a 2008 line up.