Shigeru Miyamoto's Patent

[Fierce_LiNk]

Also just as an after-thought, if Nintendo patented this and it is the Godly idea that'll save hardcore gaming on the Wii, or whatever, third parties can't use it so it just means we'll see less third party efforts?

 

Hardcore gaming doesn't need saving on the Wii. The games are out there, and more will always be coming. As a gamer, I think we have better choice at this moment in time than we did with the Cube, at this moment in time. Probably with the 64, too.

 

It's a patent. Nintendo register so many, and you know they're always thinking of something new, or different, or something to become the next big thing. That's how Nintendo always have been and how Nintendo always will be. I'm writing this reply at half past 12 on a Saturday Night, which just goes to show that Nintendo are always creating waves. That's how I like them.

 

As for this patent itself: I haven't read too much into it yet, but surely it's a good thing that they're looking to address these issues of accommodating all kinds of users. These so-called hardcore and casual gamers. Notice how it is only gamers (mainly hardcore) who refer to these terms. To everyone else, it's just gamers. I'm not gonna get caught up in another one of these, because it is late, and because it'll just end up turning into some kind of pantomime:

 

"Nintendo doesn't care about the hardcore!"

"OH YES THEY DOOO"

"OH NO THEY DOOON'T!"

 

Rinse and repeat.

[jammy2211]

To stop Sony and Microsoft using it?

 

Do you realise how dumb you made yourself sound with this statement?

 

Pardon me if I'm wrong but I don't see Microsoft of Sony caring about using whatever the hell this patent says. The only people it affects are those developing on the Wii....

 

As for sounding stupid? Er, no, I don't see it.

 

If Nintendo didn't want third party games to sell they wouldn't license them to release anything. They wouldn't sell them the SDKs in the first place. Why would they let them do some things, and not others? Sure, the games themselves are competition with Nintendo's, but they still need a quality third party backing in order to keep ahead of the competition in the shape of the PS3 and Xbox360.

 

So you've gone from two extreme's, they have third parties their to sell games cause they have to. I'm struggling to see how any of your post addressed what I said.

 

Nintendo don't want third parties competiting with them and stealing their sales, surely patenting something like this just shows that? Common sense shows that more, but yeah, again I just feel this patent is drawing far more discussion then it deserves.

 

I'm really just struggling to see how this constitutes to the huge megaton epic news some people made it out to be, when I struggle to see it as positive in any sense of the word.

[Gizmo]

Hardcore gaming doesn't need saving on the Wii. The games are out there, and more will always be coming. As a gamer, I think we have better choice at this moment in time than we did with the Cube, at this moment in time. Probably with the 64, too.

 

It's a patent. Nintendo register so many, and you know they're always thinking of something new, or different, or something to become the next big thing. That's how Nintendo always have been and how Nintendo always will be. I'm writing this reply at half past 12 on a Saturday Night, which just goes to show that Nintendo are always creating waves. That's how I like them.

 

As for this patent itself: I haven't read too much into it yet, but surely it's a good thing that they're looking to address these issues of accommodating all kinds of users. These so-called hardcore and casual gamers. Notice how it is only gamers (mainly hardcore) who refer to these terms. To everyone else, it's just gamers. I'm not gonna get caught up in another one of these, because it is late, and because it'll just end up turning into some kind of pantomime:

 

"Nintendo doesn't care about the hardcore!"

"OH YES THEY DOOO"

"OH NO THEY DOOON'T!"

 

Rinse and repeat.

 

Surely though you can't believe that the Wii has the same number of games catering to the "hardcore" audience as the other consoles, though? Because after all, this is where the comparisons are coming from, from both sides of the argument. I would look at that list you posted the other day (dunno if it was this thread or another, but it was a list of games on the Wii you considered to be in this category), and see maybe 2 games I would consider to be potentially good games that are on the horizon. On the other hand, there are far more for the PS3 and 360, which is leading to higher expectations from everyone for Nintendo. Look at how many games already released are "hardcore" on the Wii, and I'm sure you will rattle off a list 20 games strong. But I guarantee, if you set the standard for qualifying games at the likes of RE:UC and Red Steel, then I will rattle off a list 100 long for the 360. And thats the sad state of things.

[Fierce_LiNk]

Pardon me if I'm wrong but I don't see Microsoft of Sony caring about using whatever the hell this patent says. The only people it affects are those developing on the Wii....

 

 

 

But surely there is a benefit for them, as well. If they want to attract more casuals to their system, then this feature might help them.

 

And they will want to attract more people to their console. Money makes the world go around.

 

 

So you've gone from two extreme's, they have third parties their to sell games cause they have to. I'm struggling to see how any of your post addressed what I said.

 

Nintendo don't want third parties competiting with them and stealing their sales, surely patenting something like this just shows that? Common sense shows that more, but yeah, again I just feel this patent is drawing far more discussion then it deserves.

 

Nintendo are trend setters. Sure, companies will take their ideas, and they will use them in different ways. That's competition, and you try to be one step ahead of them always. Hence why they're always coming up with new patents and ideas. As a gaming company, they're always looking at ways forward.

 

Surely though you can't believe that the Wii has the same number of games catering to the "hardcore" audience as the other consoles, though? Because after all, this is where the comparisons are coming from, from both sides of the argument. I would look at that list you posted the other day (dunno if it was this thread or another, but it was a list of games on the Wii you considered to be in this category), and see maybe 2 games I would consider to be potentially good games that are on the horizon. On the other hand, there are far more for the PS3 and 360, which is leading to higher expectations from everyone for Nintendo. Look at how many games already released are "hardcore" on the Wii, and I'm sure you will rattle off a list 20 games strong. But I guarantee, if you set the standard for qualifying games at the likes of RE:UC and Red Steel, then I will rattle off a list 100 long for the 360. And thats the sad state of things.

 

If you look at the Wii compared to the other consoles, then that's probably a different story when I originally compared the Wii to the Gamecube and N64.

 

Ideally, if you just suspend your idea of a "hardcore" or "casual" game, you'll probably find yourself playing more of the lesser known games. Games like Dewy's Adventure, which hasn't even had a look in. Or de Blob. Two games I'm intending to pick up within the month.

 

As for what qualifies as a strong game, it really does depend on what you're looking for. I enjoyed RE: UC, and I'm enjoying No More Heroes and Disaster, as well as Brawl, right now. With something like Gears of War, or Halo, I really, really do not have an interest to play these. That's my preference, I out-grew games like Halo, and look for something different.

 

From a business perspective, I think the Wii is going to last. If you see WiiPlay still dominating the charts, or seeing Mario Kart still up there competing, you save your ideas for when things tend to run dry. Nintendo don't need to play catch-up. When you consider what we have seen on the system, you realise that there is still plenty of ammunition left for Nintendo themselves (not including third parties) to throw at gamers. There's more to them than just Mario, Link and Samus.

[Gizmo]

Pardon me if I'm wrong but I don't see Microsoft of Sony caring about using whatever the hell this patent says. The only people it affects are those developing on the Wii....

 

As for sounding stupid? Er, no, I don't see it.

 

So you know insiders in both MS and Sony telling you that neither of them are interested in the system?

 

So you've gone from two extreme's, they have third parties their to sell games cause they have to. I'm struggling to see how any of your post addressed what I said.

 

Nintendo don't want third parties competiting with them and stealing their sales, surely patenting something like this just shows that? Common sense shows that more, but yeah, again I just feel this patent is drawing far more discussion then it deserves.

 

I'm really just struggling to see how this constitutes to the huge megaton epic news some people made it out to be, when I struggle to see it as positive in any sense of the word.

 

What you are saying is that Nintendo patented the idea, thereby preventing third parties using it, thereby increasing Nintendo's sales?

 

Or are you saying Nintendo patented the idea, that was dumb, its going to push third parties away, and is ergo a bad idea?

 

Because so far as I can tell, you're trying to say both.

 

What I'm saying is that just because Nintendo patented it doesn't mean they are going to cock block other developers from using it. They would want to encourage third parties, as seen so often on this very forum when people complain about third party support, or lack thereof. Better third party games means more console sales. More console sales means more software sales. Nintendo will not gain anything in trying to take an advantage over their third party software rivals. They will gain something in trying to take an advantage over Sony and Microsoft, their hardware rivals. Ergo, you're previous statement about the patent:

 

Is no one going to comment about how Nintendo now own the patent, so it's all completely irellevent except for the first party offerings :P.

 

is irrelevant. Which was all I was trying to say.

 

If you look at the Wii compared to the other consoles, then that's probably a different story when I originally compared the Wii to the Gamecube and N64.

 

Ideally, if you just suspend your idea of a "hardcore" or "casual" game, you'll probably find yourself playing more of the lesser known games. Games like Dewy's Adventure, which hasn't even had a look in. Or de Blob. Two games I'm intending to pick up within the month.

 

I wasn't meaning this. I absolutely adore games like this; Zack and Wiki and Elebits are two of my favourite Wii games. I was referring simply too a quality of game. People often, in defence of the system, list off a group of games that are available on the system. All I meant was that the 360 and PS3 have longer lists. Sorry if I wasn't clear, I can talk around a point with stuff like this sometimes

 

 

From a business perspective, I think the Wii is going to last. If you see WiiPlay still dominating the charts, or seeing Mario Kart still up there competing, you save your ideas for when things tend to run dry. Nintendo don't need to play catch-up. When you consider what we have seen on the system, you realise that there is still plenty of ammunition left for Nintendo themselves (not including third parties) to throw at gamers. There's more to them than just Mario, Link and Samus.

 

This is what people are complaining about: While there is more than Mario, Link, and Samus, why aren't we seeing this? Where is F-Zero, Donkey Kong and Kid Icarus?

 

There was a post on Kotaku earlier which caught my eye, and seems relevant to this last point you made:

 

The Wii isn't delivering half baked promises either. They're delivering exactly what they want to deliver. Its the fans in denial that are constantly going 'BUT LOOK WHAT IT COULD DO! LOOK WHAT GAMES ARE COMING OUT BUT WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT YET!'. Honestly. Can you 'Hardcorz' Wii'ers name a SINGLE Wii game that gets talked about constantly in the mainstream and still will generate buzz?

 

The last Wii game to do that was Brawl. And before that, Zelda. Maybe Mario Kart a little. The current ones? Madworld. And its not even out yet. If Madworld continues to get talked about long after release, I'll have been proven wrong. But once again, its a 'what if' future scenario.

 

Look, you guys can have your Wii. You can love it to death. I did too. But you're going to have to accept the fact that people going 'lolz the wii is stoopid' aren't always a bunch of jabberhead mcnuggets. Sometimes, they owned the system for a really long period of time, did everything they could with it, and decided it was just taking up space, however small, collecting dust and completely unnecessary with the gluttony of games preferred on another system.

 

While this guy takes it too extremes, many of his points ring very true with my stance on matters, particularly the last paragraph.

[jammy2211]

But surely there is a benefit for them, as well. If they want to attract more casuals to their system, then this feature might help them.

 

And they will want to attract more people to their console. Money makes the world go around.

 

Microsoft seem to want a piece of whatever Nintendo's pie they've baked, Sony I'm not so sure. At the same time I don't think they'll be using this patent to draw these people in, it's just one of many possible ways.

 

Nintendo are trend setters. Sure, companies will take their ideas, and they will use them in different ways. That's competition, and you try to be one step ahead of them always. Hence why they're always coming up with new patents and ideas. As a gaming company, they're always looking at ways forward.

That's er, great for Nintendo. Yeah. 0_o.

 

If you look at the Wii compared to the other consoles, then that's probably a different story when I originally compared the Wii to the Gamecube and N64.

 

Ideally, if you just suspend your idea of a "hardcore" or "casual" game, you'll probably find yourself playing more of the lesser known games. Games like Dewy's Adventure, which hasn't even had a look in. Or de Blob. Two games I'm intending to pick up within the month.

 

As for what qualifies as a strong game, it really does depend on what you're looking for. I enjoyed RE: UC, and I'm enjoying No More Heroes and Disaster, as well as Brawl, right now. With something like Gears of War, or Halo, I really, really do not have an interest to play these. That's my preference, I out-grew games like Halo, and look for something different.

 

From a business perspective, I think the Wii is going to last. If you see WiiPlay still dominating the charts, or seeing Mario Kart still up there competing, you save your ideas for when things tend to run dry. Nintendo don't need to play catch-up. When you consider what we have seen on the system, you realise that there is still plenty of ammunition left for Nintendo themselves (not including third parties) to throw at gamers. There's more to them than just Mario, Link and Samus.

 

The Wii will last but I just don't think it's in the way many people on here are dreaming up, albeit I think it's still an excellent prospect for the more 'hardcore' of gamers on the Wii. It's not the thread to go into that debate so I'd rather detract away from it and maybe bring it up in a more suitable thread.

[Fierce_LiNk]

 

I wasn't meaning this. I absolutely adore games like this; Zack and Wiki and Elebits are two of my favourite Wii games. I was referring simply too a quality of game. People often, in defence of the system, list off a group of games that are available on the system. All I meant was that the 360 and PS3 have longer lists. Sorry if I wasn't clear, I can talk around a point with stuff like this sometimes

 

Ahh, I think this paragraph makes a lot more sense to me now, when I think of this thread as a whole. Glad you like those two games, I recently bought Elebits/dees as a Christmas Present for Ine.

 

There's many answers to this, so I don't think I can just give one answer. My main reply would be regarding third parties. We need to see more of an effort from them. But, the two games you listed there are third parties. So, the problem therein is why aren't we seeing more efforts like this? Games that utilise the system, are fun, and do attract different sorts of people.

 

Maybe it's the stigma that third party games don't sell on Nintendo systems. Is this a stigma that still surrounds Nintendo today? Look at the reasons why some great third party efforts haven't sold, and look at why some have sold well. Personally, I think the games can sell if people make them more known - so is this an advertising issue. Wario Land: The Shake Dimension was hardly advertised at all, and I don't think it has sold in huge droves, so clearly this is an issue. Guitar Hero 3 sold well for the Wii, and that had some great advertising.

 

Another issue is that third parties are just being lazy when it comes to developing for the system. Are they actually being lazy, or is that another stigma? Again, I don't think there's a set answer in all of this.

 

 

This is what people are complaining about: While there is more than Mario, Link, and Samus, why aren't we seeing this? Where is F-Zero, Donkey Kong and Kid Icarus?

 

There was a post on Kotaku earlier which caught my eye, and seems relevant to this last point you made:

 

 

 

While this guy takes it too extremes, many of his points ring very true with my stance on matters, particularly the last paragraph.

 

Again, I don't think there's one set answer for this. But then, we've not seen a Kid Icarus game on the N64 or the Cube, or DS or GBA for that matter, and a Donkey Kong platformer (like Country) hasn't existed since...fuck knows when. Also, F ZERO GX didn't appear late into the GameCube's lifetime.

 

But, there's absolutely no harm in holding back these games for when they're needed. Traditionally, software is used to show what the hardware can do, and is used to promote the hardware. Right now, WiiPlay is STILL in the charts, and still selling rapidly, even after all this time. So, when you think of this, I'm honestly thinking that Nintendo are just riding on this at the moment. These games will come, but I don't think there's a particular rush for Nintendo to get these out.

 

Naturally though, this would probably piss off gamers. We've got a totally different perspective to what developers and publishers have, though. For us, we just want to hand over our 30 quid and get the games. For them, it's a length process of creating the game, deciding which sort to create and releasing it when the time is right. As a gamer, I want my F Zero fix.

[jammy2211]

So you know insiders in both MS and Sony telling you that neither of them are interested in the system?

 

From my experience (As a member of the gaming press) Microsoft and Sony are shying away from what Nintendo are doing with video gaming. It's a different direction that doesn't suit their company initiative, some of this is no doubt PR spin but at the same time, it makes sense.

 

Take Sony, for example, the PS3 is just one of many avenues to show where they want their future industry to go - It's HD TV's, HD movies, HD Gaming, HD video capture, not what the Wii promotes.

 

What you are saying is that Nintendo patented the idea, thereby preventing third parties using it, thereby increasing Nintendo's sales?

 

They patented it to prevent others using it, surely?

 

Or are you saying Nintendo patented the idea, that was dumb, its going to push third parties away, and is ergo a bad idea?

 

Well if they patented it, they don't want others using it. To push third parties away? Maybe not the intention, or what'll happen, it's certainly another look at a possible consequence. I doubt it'll make any difference to be honest, just adding another perspective.

 

Because so far as I can tell, you're trying to say both.

 

I'm just adding various perspectives, I do think the idea is stupid and far over-exhaggerated from what many people 'hype' it to be. Some of my replies have been as a counter to others opinions then my own personal opinions.

 

What I'm saying is that just because Nintendo patented it doesn't mean they are going to cock block other developers from using it. They would want to encourage third parties, as seen so often on this very forum when people complain about third party support, or lack thereof. Better third party games means more console sales. More console sales means more software sales. Nintendo will not gain anything in trying to take an advantage over their third party software rivals. They will gain something in trying to take an advantage over Sony and Microsoft, their hardware rivals. Ergo, you're previous statement about the patent:

 

I guess that is where we differ. I don't think Nintendo are in any position to care about encouraging third parties. I don't think they should want to or feel a need to, they're printing money off of the Wii by themselves and can no doubt continue to do so with or without whatever the third parties put on the system.

 

Nintendo survived two generations with the third parties neglecting them and projcted the Wii to where it is now single handedly, why should they take any interest in the third parties? The people who are looking to take the markets they created away from them?

 

You keep repeating this hardware sales thing but I don't see it, I don't think there is enough evidence either way to prove or disprove either argument. Other then Nintendo's dominant sales on the system, maybe.

[Gizmo]

Microsoft seem to want a piece of whatever Nintendo's pie they've baked, Sony I'm not so sure. At the same time I don't think they'll be using this patent to draw these people in, it's just one of many possible ways.

 

Microsoft took a piece of the Nintendo pie with Avatars. Why would Nintendo doubt they would copy this? The patent makes perfect sense in that way, I don't see what you're trying to argue.

 

From my experience (As a member of the gaming press) Microsoft and Sony are shying away from what Nintendo are doing with video gaming. It's a different direction that doesn't suit their company initiative, some of this is no doubt PR spin but at the same time, it makes sense.

 

Take Sony, for example, the PS3 is just one of many avenues to show where they want their future industry to go - It's HD TV's, HD movies, HD Gaming, HD video capture, not what the Wii promotes.

 

So Microsofts moves to stuff like Avatars, and pushing of games like Lips and You're In The Movies is moving away?

 

 

They patented it to prevent others using it, surely?

 

 

 

Well if they patented it, they don't want others using it. To push third parties away? Maybe not the intention, or what'll happen, it's certainly another look at a possible consequence. I doubt it'll make any difference to be honest, just adding another perspective.

 

Yes, to prevent MS and Sony using it. It doesn't then inherently have to mean that they are preventing third parties from using it as you previously suggested.

 

 

I guess that is where we differ. I don't think Nintendo are in any position to care about encouraging third parties. I don't think they should want to or feel a need to, they're printing money off of the Wii by themselves and can no doubt continue to do so with or without whatever the third parties put on the system.

 

Nintendo survived two generations with the third parties neglecting them and projcted the Wii to where it is now single handedly, why should they take any interest in the third parties? The people who are looking to take the markets they created away from them?

 

You keep repeating this hardware sales thing but I don't see it, I don't think there is enough evidence either way to prove or disprove either argument. Other then Nintendo's dominant sales on the system, maybe.

 

So you really think there would be as many sales of the Wii if the only games on it were first party? You think the fact that the library is in the hundreds, not the tens, has nothing to do with peoples decision to buy?

 

 

There's many answers to this, so I don't think I can just give one answer. My main reply would be regarding third parties. We need to see more of an effort from them. But, the two games you listed there are third parties. So, the problem therein is why aren't we seeing more efforts like this? Games that utilise the system, are fun, and do attract different sorts of people.

 

Maybe it's the stigma that third party games don't sell on Nintendo systems. Is this a stigma that still surrounds Nintendo today? Look at the reasons why some great third party efforts haven't sold, and look at why some have sold well. Personally, I think the games can sell if people make them more known - so is this an advertising issue. Wario Land: The Shake Dimension was hardly advertised at all, and I don't think it has sold in huge droves, so clearly this is an issue. Guitar Hero 3 sold well for the Wii, and that had some great advertising.

 

Another issue is that third parties are just being lazy when it comes to developing for the system. Are they actually being lazy, or is that another stigma? Again, I don't think there's a set answer in all of this.

 

I think the problem comes down to market size and what kind of game developers want to make. Who goes into the industry to program for Barbie Horse Adventure? Nobody. They go in to make Bioshock, or Fallout. Because, as evidenced by CoD:W@W, the market for those games is not there on the Wii compared to the combined might of PS3 and 360, the Wii simply doesn't get them. The extra work needed to port something to Wii just isn't worth it, which is a damn shame.

 

Again, I don't think there's one set answer for this. But then, we've not seen a Kid Icarus game on the N64 or the Cube, or DS or GBA for that matter, and a Donkey Kong platformer (like Country) hasn't existed since...fuck knows when. Also, F ZERO GX didn't appear late into the GameCube's lifetime.

 

Yep, this is all true. But look at Nintendo's big Christmas game: Wii Music. While Microsoft have a proper "hardcore" title in Fable II and Sony have an excellent bridge title in LittleBigPlanet. Meanwhile, both consoles get Fallout 3 and Dead Space.

 

But, there's absolutely no harm in holding back these games for when they're needed. Traditionally, software is used to show what the hardware can do, and is used to promote the hardware. Right now, WiiPlay is STILL in the charts, and still selling rapidly, even after all this time. So, when you think of this, I'm honestly thinking that Nintendo are just riding on this at the moment. These games will come, but I don't think there's a particular rush for Nintendo to get these out.

 

Naturally though, this would probably piss off gamers. We've got a totally different perspective to what developers and publishers have, though. For us, we just want to hand over our 30 quid and get the games. For them, it's a length process of creating the game, deciding which sort to create and releasing it when the time is right. As a gamer, I want my F Zero fix.

 

I would argue Wii Play is only still in the charts because its packaged with a WiiMote. The game on its own merits, even if it was selling for the £5 extra that it costs individually, wouldn't be up there.

 

And yes, there must be a new F-Zero. Must be. How amazing would F-Zero be with Excite Truck handling? Very.

 

(Also, I notice you are a fellow Excite Truck fan. High five for that alone!)

 

 

 

 

Aaanyway, much as I'm loving the discussion the three of us are having I must now sleep.

[jammy2211]

Microsoft took a piece of the Nintendo pie with Avatars. Why would Nintendo doubt they would copy this? The patent makes perfect sense in that way, I don't see what you're trying to argue.

 

 

I don't follow Microsoft enough to really comment but Avatars seemed like a logical progression for Xbox live, you could claim they were ripping off The Sims as much as Mii's, or whatever.

 

So Microsofts moves to stuff like Avatars, and pushing of games like Lips and You're In The Movies is moving away?

 

I see them as part of the Microsoft console plan all along. The PS1 and PS2 sales method was always based around bringing in the core, and then expanding from there with your Eye Toys and Singstars and Buzz's, Lips and In The Movies were just expanding on the model the previous PlayStations introduced once it hit a mass market price.

 

Yes, to prevent MS and Sony using it. It doesn't then inherently have to mean that they are preventing third parties from using it as you previously suggested.

To be honest we're giving this patent too much credit now anyway. I don't see Nintendo patenting something with the intention of letting the majority of developers and publishers in the world using it though.

 

 

So you really think there would be as many sales of the Wii if the only games on it were first party? You think the fact that the library is in the hundreds, not the tens, has nothing to do with peoples decision to buy?

 

You're justing taking what I said to a hyperbole.

 

I don't think anything third parties do is having any affect on sales, while if it wasn't there then the whole variety and wider picture may affect sales, but that's nothing to do with the patent. Just another tangent and another debate for another thread.

 

Third parties aren't leading hardware sales in the way NIntendo are with software like WIi Sports and Wii Fit.

 

I think the problem comes down to market size and what kind of game developers want to make. Who goes into the industry to program for Barbie Horse Adventure? Nobody. They go in to make Bioshock, or Fallout. Because, as evidenced by CoD:W@W, the market for those games is not there on the Wii compared to the combined might of PS3 and 360, the Wii simply doesn't get them. The extra work needed to port something to Wii just isn't worth it, which is a damn shame.

Porting a Bioshock or Fallout to the Wii isn't just not worth it, in most cases, it's impossible. The Wii has got a market for some form of hardcore market, the problem is it doesn't make sense that the guys who make MGS or Resident Evil or Final Fantasy put their next major effort on the Wii, cause the market is simply far bigger elsewhere.

 

You do address an interesting point on not wanting to make games like barbie though, which to me brings home a key point that alot of Wii developement should be focused around new studio's opened up specifically for Wii developement. What EA are doing with MySims and Ubisoft with Rayman RR, two of the most successful Wii Franchises.

 

Aaanyway, much as I'm loving the discussion the three of us are having I must now sleep.

 

I must be off to sleep soon, and with my imminent return to uni tommorow, I'll probably never get to finish this debate. Tis a shame, oh well.

[david.dakota]

people going 'lolz the wii is stoopid' aren't always a bunch of jabberhead mcnuggets

 

When did that happen?

 

I've not really kept up with this thread, so forgive me if this has been said before. This really seems like its putting the player in control of what type of gamer they are- core or otherwise. This ip really no different to having EASY, MEDIUM and HARD settings which has been a mainstay in gaming ever since i can remember. So, what is this debate really about?

 

Perhaps the hardcore just can't trust themselves to not hit the 'hint' or 'skip' icon.

 

people going 'lolz the wii is stoopid' aren't always a bunch of jabberhead mcnuggets

 

When did that happen?

 

I've not really kept up with this thread, so forgive me if this has been said before. This really seems like its putting the player in control of what type of gamer they are- core or otherwise. This ip really no different to having EASY, MEDIUM and HARD settings which has been a mainstay in gaming ever since i can remember. So, what is this debate really about?

 

Perhaps the hardcore just can't trust themselves to not hit the 'hint' or 'skip' icon.

[darksnowman]

a Donkey Kong platformer (like Country) hasn't existed since...fuck knows when.

 

The last one was out in 1996.

 

: peace:

[mcj metroid]

The last one was out in 1996.

 

: peace:

 

i cannot understand this..

 

Why don't they make one more non-spinoff donkey kong.. has this anything to do with the fact that miyamoto hated the games>

 

lol sorry kinda off-topic

[Emasher]

At the moment I don't have time to comment on every single post since the last time I posted in here, so I'll just post my opinions on different things.

 

@Linear VS Non Linear. Regardless of how many developers move into non-linear, there will always be linear games, this isn't going to change that. Linear games have their place, certain genre's will be changed enough that they could even be considered different genres when they become non-linear, so I think we're going to see both linear and non-linear games no matter what.

 

@Third Parties Using This

 

Third parties, remember, will generally do whatever they think they need to to make a profit. If Nintendo decide to license this out to Wii developers, and this service catches on in Nintendo games, just like the Mii, 3rd parties are going to want to use it. In another thread there was recently a debate about developers releasing hardcore games on the Wii because there was a bigger audience for hardcore games on the 360. While, if something like this is successful, developers will be able to use it to sell their hardcore games to this massive casual market, this is bigger than the hardcore/mainstream market on the 360.

 

@This Meaning Nothing To The Hardcore Gamer

 

Obviously it does. Basically what this is, is a way to get casuals to buy hardcore games. If Nintendo are trying to get the casual gamers to buy hardcore games obviously they still are wanting to develop hardcore games like I an many other people on here have been trying to say for months. If Nintendo only cared about the casual market like some people on here would claim, than why do they even bother to release hardcore games at all. If the casual are happy with 2 EAD 2 games a year (The Wii Prefix Games), why not just release those? Why not have every team other theirs make games like that?

 

@ This Not Working For Non-Zelda Games

 

It doesn't have to work exactly the same way for other games. In an FPS type game it might show you where the best place to take cover and what the right weapon to use would be. In an RPG it might tell you where you need to go next or who you need to talk to. In a platformer, you might have an option to add extra platforms or something to make it easier.

[dazzybee]

Okay I skimmed the thread and Jammy, something you say make sense, but a lot I find my self going "WHAT is this guy going on about!!!"

 

Re: This new system.

 

You simply DON'T know anything about casual/new gamers do you? To say that the being helped or skipping levels/section defeats the point of the game and they won't enjoy it is the BIGGEST load of crap I've heard.

 

I'll give you an example. My mum. Hasn't played a game since Chuckie Egg on the Spectrum, played a bit of Monkey Ball Bowling but generally is completely inhibited by control pads. The Wii she can play and enjoys, same witht he DS and actually bought one. For Christmas she got professor Layton and fell in love with it. For the puzzles she couldn't do, she would call me up nd I'd help her with it, and sometimes tell her the answer. She loved this. If I didn't she would have stopped playing. But when things got too hard, and thu sfrustrating, I simply told her. Did he make it any less fun? No.

 

It's not as black and white as you (and other negatives) say, it's not a case of the game helping/telling or it doesn't. It helps/tells WHEN YOU WANT IT TO!!!!

 

Here's the really relevent bit. My mum wanted a game similar to Layton. She loved the story mixed with puzzles. I felt Pheanoix Wright and Hotel Dusk were probably TOO hard; and weirdly I suggested Zelda. So she bought it and likes it, not a big fan of the figting, but likes the story and the puzzles. Guess what. When she gets stuck, I help her past it, I have a couple of sections and told her others. This means my mum continues playing; if I didn't help, she would stop.

 

So this idea is PERFECT for these people.

 

Please, very simply, tell me how it is bad in any way? Do we have to use it? No. You may not realise this but A LOT of people get very frustrated at the easiest of games, this syetm is for them, not us, them.

 

For me what this means is this

 

1. A game can be as hard as it needs to be, not made easy at all. This is good for us.

 

2. We can replay our favourite bits whenever we want. Great idea. thank you Along in the Dark!!!

 

It can only be a good thing!!!

 

GIZMO: Re: 360/PS3 has better games.

 

Will you please realise this is completely subjective. "You say 20 Wii games are good and I'll say 100 PS3 games". Weird, considering I own all three machines, have a handful of 360 games, about 10 PS3 games and over 50 Wii games. Hmmmm.........

[Goron_3]

About the whole which system has better games..well I remember over summer Kotaku posted an article on how many games had an average of 80% or more on metacritic and the Wii had under 40, PS3 was around 65 and the 360 was somewhere in the 80's/pushing on towards 90. Bare in mind this was before games like Lego Batman, Fable II, FCII, Gears and Fallout all came out. The xmas line-up for the 360 this year was nothing short of amazing.

[dazzybee]

About the whole which system has better games..well I remember over summer Kotaku posted an article on how many games had an average of 80% or more on metacritic and the Wii had under 40, PS3 was around 65 and the 360 was somewhere in the 80's/pushing on towards 90. Bare in mind this was before games like Lego Batman, Fable II, FCII, Gears and Fallout all came out. The xmas line-up for the 360 this year was nothing short of amazing.

 

Huh, and pretty much the same as PS3. And I'd rather have LBP than Gears 2!!

 

And again, completely subjective. The way games reviewers review certain Wii games, this stat doesn't surprise me and also proves nothing.

 

The Wii is so different to anything previous that the industry, particular the media, simply don't know how to approach it!!

[Gizmo]

Dazzy I love how whenever presented with a fact, like the one Goron just presented, you always come up with some abstract reason why it's inaccurate. "No, thats not right, as the people who do this professionally don't know what they are doing!"

[Emasher]

Dazzy I love how whenever presented with a fact, like the one Goron just presented, you always come up with some abstract reason why it's inaccurate. "No, thats not right, as the people who do this professionally don't know what they are doing!"

 

I think what he's trying to say is that games on the PS360, while reviewers might like them more than Wii games, its just someone's opinion. Reviewers will almost always review to their preferences. If a reviewer prefers shooter games and such, they're going to tend to give shooter games a higher rating because personally they enjoyed the game more. I don realize not all reviews are like this, but you have to admit, quite a few are.

[Gizmo]

Hence why metacritic average is a more accurate way of weighing up the figures. Sorry, but if someone is reviewing games for a living they are more intelligent and know more about the medium than to give a game a lower score because it's "not their thing".

[Nolan]

I think a comparison for Wii games is XBLA games. Back when MS was talking about games rated 65% or lower being considered for deletion. I didn't look into personally but I remember someone making a big deal out of the majority of the games being at or below that number despite being XBLA hits and loved by most everyone except apparently the reviewers.

 

Or something like that, it was a while ago and I don't fully remember. It's a combination of opinions and psychological bias. One may not mean to compare an XBLA game to a large big budget game, but they may do it anyways and it will affect the score. The same can easily be said for Wii games, multi-plat and otherwise.

 

Edit:

@ Gizmo, just because someone is reviewing games for a living does not mean they know more about the medium. Look at Gametrailers as a perfect example. The reviewers there are just horrid. There is one guy who came right out and said that he hates PC gaming, and I think he reviews PC games on occasion. If he blatantly says he hates it I highly doubt he'd keep that from affecting his scoring. They also like marking games down for being too difficult ala STALKER.

[Goron_3]

I think what he's trying to say is that games on the PS360, while reviewers might like them more than Wii games, its just someone's opinion. Reviewers will almost always review to their preferences. If a reviewer prefers shooter games and such, they're going to tend to give shooter games a higher rating because personally they enjoyed the game more. I don realize not all reviews are like this, but you have to admit, quite a few are.

 

Erm that might be true but remember the people who normally review Wii games are on the wii parts of the site (look at Matt C from IGN). I mean, rarely will you see him give a wii game 9/10 and then other sites give it 4/10 or something.

 

I hate it when people see facts and then come up for some reason why they can't be trusted lol.

[Emasher]

Erm that might be true but remember the people who normally review Wii games are on the wii parts of the site (look at Matt C from IGN). I mean, rarely will you see him give a wii game 9/10 and then other sites give it 4/10 or something.

 

I hate it when people see facts and then come up for some reason why they can't be trusted lol.

 

If find most reviews of Wii games just to be way off though. I've seen reviews that say a game is awful, but then I go out and buy it and love it. A good example of this would be ToS:DotNW. I read quite a few reviews for it and most said it was an awful game you should stay away from. I bough it and their review may have been accurate for the first little bit of the game, but after you get about half an hour in it turns into a great RPG. Its like the reviewers played through the tutorials and just wrote their review based on that. I'm not denying that the game has its flaws, but its still a great game.

 

Review scores can help you when deciding to purchase a game to get a good idea of what to expect, but a console shouldn't be judged entirely based on review scores.

[dazzybee]

Dazzy I love how whenever presented with a fact, like the one Goron just presented, you always come up with some abstract reason why it's inaccurate. "No, thats not right, as the people who do this professionally don't know what they are doing!"

 

It's not just about opinion and I don't think some wii software is the usual "games" that these "experts" are so good at reviewing. I'm sorry but Wii Music was pretty much universally panned, the godly metacritic has it at a terrible score. But it's not like anything else out there, its not a game, these genius reviewers don't quite know how to approach reviewing it. But I think the game is amazing, much better than the "better" games on 360/PS3 in my opinion. Same with Wii Fit, and Brain Training....they are AMAZING examples of what they're supposed to do, yet metacritic will tell you differently. Because this is all so new, traditional games media don't quite know what to do with it and review based on game criteria, which a lot of this stuff doesn't follow.

 

That's what I meant.

[david.dakota]

Agree with Dazzy on this. The traditional gaming press is still stuck with a traditional, arguably archaic, view of what makes a good game. This suits the vast majority of PS3 and 360 games- but unfairly skews some quality Wii and DS titles.