Mundi Posted December 30, 2008 Posted December 30, 2008 So they needed them to have success, they didn't need to inovate. Different things. So if Nintendo did not use the innovative Wii controller Nintendo would still be on top? Except Nintendo created most of what makes those genres what they are, meaning they pretty much had the biggest role in creating them, while apple just became standard in a commercial way, they didn't exactly innovate a lot feature wise. Donkey Kong was the first real platform game, it was the first game where you could control your character's jumps and make him jump over gaps, so even without going in too deep, they did in both theory and practice create platform games. You cannot create something that is already there, platforming existed before Donkey Kong but that does not make it any less of a game or change the influence it had on the console market. Being highly successful in one area does not make you the creator of it. Before Ipods mp3 players were mosylt unheard of and not a lot of people had one and now it´s become a prduct everyone "must have"
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted December 30, 2008 Author Posted December 30, 2008 I think its fair to say whoever benefits from the innovation at hand would appreciate it more... For example, a wheelchair user would benefit and appreciate sloped flooring over three steps, whilst a fully able person might not appreciate the amount of time it takes to traverse the flooring over the steps. So the fully abled person doesn't feel the benefit... Enter the Wii. The Wii mote is the major driving force of Nintendo's home console of this gen. Most Wii software are based (or try to be) around the control scheme of the wii remote. Most games heavily utilising this scheme on the console are the lighter, party, "misc." games, which is without a doubt introducing a new bunch of people to gaming and I'm sure they are happy for the experiences... But to some - the core gamer - the Wii could just seem like a Gamecube 2.5 because the Wii remote - the main innovation of the console - doesn't add much at all to the major Nintendo games you expect to purchase and play on a Nintendo system (you still control Mario in galaxy as you did in Sunshine and 64), in most cases, as Choze states, the Wii remote detracts from a fair few games and the user opts for a last gen control method. On top of that, the hardware spec isn't anything 'cutting edge' or unseen of and so you arn't getting games with greater scope, technicalities or even improved visuals or sound from the last gen... And if anything, wrong or right, I know there would be hordes of people who would do anything to play a Zelda game in an HD/Dolby Digital environment... So really with Nintendo this gen, I feel there is a huge question mark as to who is really benefitting from this "revolution" and it's innovations. As a gamer who backed Nintendo since the N64 days, I'm not particularly feeling anything innovative being offered to me by Nintendo and I am more confused now than ever as to where Nintendo are going. Also like to add that the VC, at the time of announcement, I thought was an astounding idea and still do and of course that idea was "copied". But really, where the idea of such a service may be "new", we're still getting ie paying for and spending (precious) time on stuff we've mostly tried out in the past. The appreciation for such a service dies quick because it offers nothing new.
Hellfire Posted December 30, 2008 Posted December 30, 2008 So if Nintendo did not use the innovative Wii controller Nintendo would still be on top? Yeah I totally said that. 100% You cannot create something that is already there, platforming existed before Donkey Kong but that does not make it any less of a game or change the influence it had on the console market.Being highly successful in one area does not make you the creator of it. Before Ipods mp3 players were mosylt unheard of and not a lot of people had one and now it´s become a prduct everyone "must have" Platforming games didn't exist before Donkey Kong. Period. Frogs had a frog doing a jump animation, but you just chose the direction and Space Panic had you climbing ladders. I dunno about you, but a platform game to me is where you can press a button/whatever to jump in a desired direction and avoid gaps/obstacles. This is going into semantics, but what does it matter if a genre was created if it had nothing that could class it as a part of the genre today? Ignoring that in the 70s 80s they probably didn't think about genres, creation isn't a one time thing and labels hardly matter, what's important is what's inside and the features. If a company created the features that really made a difference in the early stages, they're no doubt one of the creators of the genre. I'm not talking about who created labels, I'm talking about who created the content and what we actually play. It's not like I'm saying they invented the concept of jumping or adventuring. And when I talk about adventure I talk about action-adventure. And why should I care if ipods are now must have or well known, they didn't innovate or come up with anything feature wise, they simply marketed it well. Completly different things.
Daft Posted December 30, 2008 Posted December 30, 2008 Edit: Forget I said anything. I don't want to get sucked into this.
Mundi Posted December 30, 2008 Posted December 30, 2008 I´m just gonna say the whole ipod thing is similar to Nintendo´s success and leave it at that. The whole platforming thing was just an little remark that was completely blown out of proportion and it is quite clear that like in every thread discussing these subjects is going nowhere and every post is a disagreement over an disagreement because of a disagreement. So let´s leave it at that and we can both enjoy thinking were right and the other is wrong because that is not changing.
Hellfire Posted December 30, 2008 Posted December 30, 2008 Will do, it's off topic too, so doesn't matter.
McPhee Posted December 30, 2008 Posted December 30, 2008 Not this bollocks again. Unless you want the thread locking be very carefull about how the discussion goes. As always if it gets too out of hand then infractions will be issued.
Shino Posted December 30, 2008 Posted December 30, 2008 Not this bollocks again. Unless you want the thread locking be very carefull about how the discussion goes. As always if it gets too out of hand then infractions will be issued. How exactly is this out of hand? Maybe it wont go anywhere, but hey, its just another internet forum.
Daft Posted December 30, 2008 Posted December 30, 2008 Not this bollocks again. Unless you want the thread locking be very carefull about how the discussion goes. As always if it gets too out of hand then infractions will be issued. You should change your name to The Peace Keeper! Bad joke? Okay, I'll leave.... :p
McPhee Posted December 30, 2008 Posted December 30, 2008 How exactly is this out of hand? Maybe it wont go anywhere, but hey, its just another internet forum. It's not, hence why the topic is still open It's a friendly warning because these threads rarely stay polite and on-topic for long, especially not during school/uni holidays when there's an influx of bored kids on the board. (i also posted it before i'd read the whole thread )
mcj metroid Posted December 30, 2008 Posted December 30, 2008 Yeah I totally said that. 100% Platforming games didn't exist before Donkey Kong. Period. Frogs had a frog doing a jump animation, but you just chose the direction and Space Panic had you climbing ladders. I dunno about you, but a platform game to me is where you can press a button/whatever to jump in a desired direction and avoid gaps/obstacles. This is going into semantics, but what does it matter if a genre was created if it had nothing that could class it as a part of the genre today? Ignoring that in the 70s 80s they probably didn't think about genres, creation isn't a one time thing and labels hardly matter, what's important is what's inside and the features. If a company created the features that really made a difference in the early stages, they're no doubt one of the creators of the genre. I'm not talking about who created labels, I'm talking about who created the content and what we actually play. It's not like I'm saying they invented the concept of jumping or adventuring. And when I talk about adventure I talk about action-adventure. And why should I care if ipods are now must have or well known, they didn't innovate or come up with anything feature wise, they simply marketed it well. Completly different things. hmm interesting i wouln't have considered donkey kong a platformer.. Would have thought super mario bros was the first oh well Then you simply haven't played many Wii games. Simple as that, with such ignorant thinking. How is the control scheme basic? It's not, accessible? Yes, but not basic! And how is the fact that technically it's pretty simple make games easier for the casual? That's just stupid!! You don't credit any gameplay innovation with Nintendo? You're crazy!! For a man who has Prince Of Persia in his signature, I find it hilarious how you can slag off Nintendo for dumbing down games.... huh haha what's wrong with prince of persia? Sony by a mile. Nintendo have done nothing this gen apart from make a handful of games better with the wiimote. I mean half the Wii's big tiles like SSBB and Mario Kart are best played with a controller from last gen. Not very innovative it seems. but you see i understand your complaints with the wii but the ps3 also has a signifianct lack of software also.. I believe they are in the same boat.. Only difference being ps3 gets plenty of pc and 360 games also.. but for exclusives i believe it;s on par if not worse than wii for years tehre was little reason to get a ps3 bar metal gear solid and warhawk
Sheikah Posted December 30, 2008 Posted December 30, 2008 Then you simply haven't played many Wii games. Simple as that, with such ignorant thinking. How is the control scheme basic? It's not, accessible? Yes, but not basic! And how is the fact that technically it's pretty simple make games easier for the casual? That's just stupid!! You don't credit any gameplay innovation with Nintendo? You're crazy!! For a man who has Prince Of Persia in his signature, I find it hilarious how you can slag off Nintendo for dumbing down games.... Put it like this- I use the gamecube controller for two of the best games on the system (MK Wii and Brawl). The Wii remote control method for almost all Wii games bar Wii Sports is entirely unecessary and often included purely to tie in with the motion-sensing theme of the Wii. A fantastic example is swinging the sword in Twilight Princess - it added nothing to the experience. Monkey Ball was great on the gamecube, but utterly ruined by the motion-sensing only approach on Banana Blitz Wii. Some games like Zack and Wiki showed that while the Wii controls do work they were at most a novelty, with everything being more easily achievable by control pad rather than repeat the different hand action displayed on screen each time. I will give the Wii a point for the fact that the controls for Wii Sports work great, but that was a game structured entirely around the controls, rather than using games that have previously always been great with thumbstick controls. But for me, that's not enough to justify motion-sensing being a great concept for the console. I rarely touch my Wii compared to anything else and I do feel that every game on it could really have been pulled off technically on the gamecube. It's a console that is selling buckets compared to previous generations because it has found new buyers- the casual audience. I congratulate Nintendo on their business success.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted December 30, 2008 Author Posted December 30, 2008 And to add to the above, I don't see how Motion+ will change anything. It would just give the aforementioned waggle-heavy games more precision, but you're still going to control Mario and Link most certainly with an analogue stick and buttons. Of course it was great of Nintendo to be ballsy like this - using waggle as its core focus - but really, for the type of games it seems to work best with, it should be a secondary control option similar to what sixaxis is. The whole point of a controller is to be in precise control, and if a control scheme on its own can cause you a life, a goal etc... Then you're not really in 'precise' control and so waggle can often feel redundant.
jammy2211 Posted December 30, 2008 Posted December 30, 2008 The Wii should have more original content type stuff that you can't see anywhere else, which innovates. Stuff like Zack and Wiki, Trauma Centre, Boom Blox etc. I just don't see much on the Wii that does that and tickles my fancy, and not that much is on the horizon. PSN seems to have more stuff like that if I'm being honest, and even the PS360 software line ups are getting more original and different. Developers are just lacking the inspiration to come up with weird, quirky ideas, or maybe publishers are willing to fund them, even on the Wii. I guess the other thing is a price issue as I find it hard to pay as much for Boom Blox as I can get a game like LittleBigPlanet or Fallout 3 for...hm.
Cube Posted December 30, 2008 Posted December 30, 2008 Aye, waggle hasn't really benefited many games as it's often just replacing a button (it only seems to be actually used in minigames). The pointer, however, was a brilliant design choice and is actually used well.
dazzybee Posted December 30, 2008 Posted December 30, 2008 huh haha what's wrong with prince of persia? I quite like the game, but the game is unbelievably dumbed down! Though speaking of innovation, it's created the first on rails action platformer How the jumping and wall hugging and the lack of dying is really bothers me, been dumbed down for people who will never play it. I just think it's funny that someone can slag off Nintendo for dumbing down games yet love Prince of Persia! At least you can fail in Mario Kart Wii Put it like this- I use the gamecube controller for two of the best games on the system (MK Wii and Brawl). The Wii remote control method for almost all Wii games bar Wii Sports is entirely unecessary and often included purely to tie in with the motion-sensing theme of the Wii. A fantastic example is swinging the sword in Twilight Princess - it added nothing to the experience. Monkey Ball was great on the gamecube, but utterly ruined by the motion-sensing only approach on Banana Blitz Wii. Some games like Zack and Wiki showed that while the Wii controls do work they were at most a novelty, with everything being more easily achievable by control pad rather than repeat the different hand action displayed on screen each time. Well it really is down to preference, as I loved slashing with the wiimote in Zelda, I love racing with the wheel in Mario Kart (though I do use a GC pad in Brawl ) I love all the motion controls - the balance board in Shaun White and Skate it etc. I think it is a HUGE leap forward for gaming!! Does that make me a casual game player!?! Well you all better get used to it because MS and Sony (well they've tried already) will be ripping it off in some way - whether that be controllers or camera movement or whatever!! Aye, waggle hasn't really benefited many games as it's often just replacing a button (it only seems to be actually used in minigames). The pointer, however, was a brilliant design choice and is actually used well. But for me copying a real movement to replicate an action is still better than a button press, it's more immersive, for me anyway. Plus The Force Unleashed uses Motion Controls brilliantly and thats not a mini game!
dwarf Posted December 30, 2008 Posted December 30, 2008 I don't think Sony will copy Nintendo's control methods. If they tried something different, it might not work/be well recieved and no casuals would buy it. It would also alienate the millions of current users on the Playstation. I think they will add something to their new controller, but not as significant as Wii did this gen. They have always had quite a lot of periphals for the system like the PS Eye, dance mats and of course the new rock band stuff. Maybe they will make these standard or integrate them into the main system some-how?
Daft Posted December 30, 2008 Posted December 30, 2008 I think Sony will make the PSEye next time standard. It's a fantastic piece of underused kit although that should change with EyePet. That is some impressive tech.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted December 30, 2008 Author Posted December 30, 2008 I think Sony will make the PSEye next time standard. It's a fantastic piece of underused kit although that should change with EyePet. That is some impressive tech. ... Wow!
Pit-Jr Posted December 30, 2008 Posted December 30, 2008 This debate could go on for forever but all 3 companies are forcing one another to bring the goods and up the quality, which explains the recent deluge of excellent games between all systems, the majority of which ill never have the time or money to play.
jammy2211 Posted December 30, 2008 Posted December 30, 2008 This debate could go on for forever but all 3 companies are forcing one another to bring the goods and up the quality, which explains the recent deluge of excellent games between all systems, the majority of which ill never have the time or money to play. To be honest the PS3 and 360 are holding each others software back, companies have to develope games for two very different systems, meaning neither of the systems strengths are exploited and we are left with games which are down-graded to suffice both systems weakneses. There would still be competition in the software market to make the best product, infact there'd be more as there'd be less developement costs, better tech, bigger market etc. I don't think the industry can last much longer with 2 HD systems, at least I'd rather next gen either Sony or Microsoft drop out. I think what Nintendo do is fine as another console with a different market but for the HD hardcore gaming type experience thing there is no need for two consoles.
dazzybee Posted December 30, 2008 Posted December 30, 2008 I think Sony will make the PSEye next time standard. It's a fantastic piece of underused kit although that should change with EyePet. That is some impressive tech. Nintendeyepet!!!? Looks okay, extremely limiting, but the tech itself looks good. I don't play games in front of a table...... To be honest the PS3 and 360 are holding each others software back, companies have to develope games for two very different systems, meaning neither of the systems strengths are exploited and we are left with games which are down-graded to suffice both systems weakneses. There would still be competition in the software market to make the best product, infact there'd be more as there'd be less developement costs, better tech, bigger market etc. I don't think the industry can last much longer with 2 HD systems, at least I'd rather next gen either Sony or Microsoft drop out. I think what Nintendo do is fine as another console with a different market but for the HD hardcore gaming type experience thing there is no need for two consoles. You're probably right, but I can see Nintendo going HD pretty soon.... will the "hardcore" gamers take it seriously? Will the "casuals" upgrade?
Daft Posted December 30, 2008 Posted December 30, 2008 Nintendeyepet!!!? Looks okay, extremely limiting, but the tech itself looks good. I don't play games in front of a table...... Well if the tech works, i.e. you don't need a pristine white table to play it on, then I'm all in. This is one of the things that if integrated into Home would be fantastic. I'd love to have a little EYEPet monkey type thing in my virtual apartment to take for walks. You're probably right, but I can see Nintendo going HD pretty soon.... will the "hardcore" gamers take it seriously? Will the "casuals" upgrade? Nintendo wont go HD for at least a couple years simply for he reason that they don't need to.
Recommended Posts