No more EA support for Wii U!

[Dcubed]

Well said. EA is the industry's greatest foe, it's disgraceful to see such support for them from just about everyone in the industry; from the media to the forum dwellers themselves...

 

This action does no good to the industry at large. The stronger EA gets, the weaker the rest of the industry becomes.

Edited May 18, 2013 by Dcubed

[Serebii]

The saddest thing about this whole situation is that the likes of EA hold a lot of sway and they have the power to force the home console business into a 1-system, pre-packaged, annualised sequel approach.

If EA drop Nintendo forever, they are another step closer to such approach. One I believe they want.

 

As it stands, the SONY and MS systems may as well be turning into clones with a few similar titles to separate them. And where their own IP's exist, even that's getting a bit boring to me. For every Halo there's a Killzone. For Every Gran Tourismo, a Forza. It just becomes somewhat tit-for-tat. Indies are key here and SONY, MS and a few third parties did step up with unique experiences, but those excursions usually end up being fleeting not becoming a normality in the industry. At least Knack on the PS4 looks interesting but it's the exception, not the norm.

 

So from a creative point, the industry requires the SEGA's and Nintendo's as they offer a unique, individual experience inside a wholly unique setup. I miss the SEGA consoles as much as their games and I get the love for the Gamecube controller but is that SNES controller blueprint all this industry affords in control?

 

I've said it before but comparing the 90's football games scene to today shows how far this industry has gone backwards in some areas. All we really have now for consoles are yearly FIFA and PES games. And to a lot of people, PES is dead. Developers such as EA are seemingly more bothered about authenticity.

Is that healthy? I don't believe so. But the likes of EA have created this and now have a monopoly as they strive fore more and more authenticity across all their genres.

 

But I still think that EA ditching Nintendo to go after 'Gen 4’ is a loss for both parties. It will weaken both the EA and Wii U brands.

Very well said and illustrates the point I have been pressing here for a while. Gaming has stagnated. The big developers are just pushing out the same stuff and any exclusives typically have a counterpart on the other console.

[sumo73]

There will be EA titles coming out for the Wii U just not the ones that need the frostbite engine. The engine could be modified and hopefully EA will see the wisdom of doing this.

 

I'd be interested to know how much development time and money is needed to produce a Wii U game and how much this will compare to the Xbox 720/PS4.

 

During the Wii era, EA produced a separate division just to concentrate on making Wii games. They were quicker and cheaper to produce. From a business point of view, I hope for their sake they can get a good return on develop costs from the PS4/720 and I think at the start they won't.

[Sheikah]

Very well said and illustrates the point I have been pressing here for a while. Gaming has stagnated. The big developers are just pushing out the same stuff and any exclusives typically have a counterpart on the other console.

 

While I somewhat agree, I find the main targets of his post (Sony and MS) really weird - surely the biggest offender related to stagnated gaming is Nintendo?

 

You only need to take a look at many of their game series:

 

- Zelda main titles very closely follow the formula of Ocarina of Time, made several generations ago

- Pokemon very closely follows the formula of Red and Blue, both made many generations ago

- New Metroid games have followed the formula of Metroid Prime for a while now

- Mario Party follows a pretty strict formula

- Fire Emblem, however cool, does have a pretty strong formula that hasn't changed too drastically over the years

- Animal Crossing and Smash Bros. - again, very conserved.

 

We may as well admit now that people want to play the same sorts of games over and over - and that Nintendo are probably the biggest culprit. In terms of new IP, Sony are more likely to deliver on this front, but we're bound to see similar games, sequels and formula-following from all developers.

[Kaepora_Gaebora]

While I somewhat agree, I find the main targets of his post (Sony and MS) really weird - surely the biggest offender related to stagnated gaming is Nintendo?

 

You only need to take a look at many of their game series:

 

- Zelda main titles very closely follow the formula of Ocarina of Time, made several generations ago

- Pokemon very closely follows the formula of Red and Blue, both made many generations ago

- New Metroid games have followed the formula of Metroid Prime for a while now

- Mario Party follows a pretty strict formula

- Fire Emblem, however cool, does have a pretty strong formula that hasn't changed too drastically over the years

- Animal Crossing and Smash Bros. - again, very conserved.

 

We may as well admit now that people want to play the same sorts of games over and over - and that Nintendo are probably the biggest culprit. In terms of new IP, Sony are more likely to deliver on this front, but we're bound to see similar games, sequels and formula-following from all developers.

 

Yeah I agree with that, and I have to say I think that the industry needs these same sort of games. It needs COD and FIFA, however much we may protest, like the film industry needs the big hollywood summer blockbusters to keep people interested and money coming in too. Let's just hope there will still be a market for smaller indie games, and a desire to make them too! (which, to be fair, there does seem to be!)

[Serebii]

While I somewhat agree, I find the main targets of his post (Sony and MS) really weird - surely the biggest offender related to stagnated gaming is Nintendo?

 

You only need to take a look at many of their game series:

 

- Zelda main titles very closely follow the formula of Ocarina of Time, made several generations ago

- Pokemon very closely follows the formula of Red and Blue, both made many generations ago

- New Metroid games have followed the formula of Metroid Prime for a while now

- Mario Party follows a pretty strict formula

- Fire Emblem, however cool, does have a pretty strong formula that hasn't changed too drastically over the years

- Animal Crossing and Smash Bros. - again, very conserved.

 

We may as well admit now that people want to play the same sorts of games over and over - and that Nintendo are probably the biggest culprit. In terms of new IP, Sony are more likely to deliver on this front, but we're bound to see similar games, sequels and formula-following from all developers.

Absolutely not. For one, most of the games you list are fewer and further between than many series on the other consoles.

 

Zelda, for example. 4 big 3D games since OoT in 1998.

Pokémon...hell no, you do NOT want to get me started

Metroid...only three games since Prime in 2002

Mario Party...ok, but those lost it

Animal Crossing, Smash Bros & Fire Emblem has pretty much been one per console and there's less than a handful of the first two.

 

Besides, what Nintendo tend to do, especially of late, is take new gameplay ideas and rather than create new IPs based on them, which would likely have middling sales, they instead put it into established franchise. I'm not saying that they're exempt from this, as look at the New Super Mario Bros series. They're great games with fantastic level design, but they haven't exactly evolved.

 

Compare the above to Assassin's Creed which has had 10 games since 2007 and only superficial changes to the gameplay

[Sheikah]

Absolutely not. For one, most of the games you list are fewer and further between than many series on the other consoles.

 

Zelda, for example. 4 big 3D games since OoT in 1998.

Pokémon...hell no, you do NOT want to get me started

Metroid...only three games since Prime in 2002

Mario Party...ok, but those lost it

Animal Crossing, Smash Bros & Fire Emblem has pretty much been one per console and there's less than a handful of the first two.

 

Besides, what Nintendo tend to do, especially of late, is take new gameplay ideas and rather than create new IPs based on them, which would likely have middling sales, they instead put it into established franchise. I'm not saying that they're exempt from this, as look at the New Super Mario Bros series. They're great games with fantastic level design, but they haven't exactly evolved.

 

Compare the above to Assassin's Creed which has had 10 games since 2007 and only superficial changes to the gameplay

 

There is no sensible discussion to be had with someone who is utterly convinced Pokemon is not one of the most (if not the most) conserved series in the history of video gaming.

[Serebii]

There is no sensible discussion to be had with someone who is utterly convinced Pokemon is not one of the most (if not the most) conserved series in the history of video gaming.

If you're looking at the surface of "Trainer starts out, gets starter Pokémon, battles gyms and evil team, catches them all", then yes.

 

However, when you look at gameplay, mechanics, extras etc. then absolutely not.

 

Arguing Pokémon with me is an argument nobody can win :p

[Daft]

That's not something to be proud of.

[M_rock]

If you're looking at the surface of "Trainer starts out, gets starter Pokémon, battles gyms and evil team, catches them all", then yes.

 

However, when you look at gameplay, mechanics, extras etc. then absolutely not.

 

Arguing Pokémon with me is an argument nobody can win :p

 

I have to agree on this one. With Gen V gamefreak really stepped up their game to create a far more story centered game. They did a good job with Black/ White, but did it even better with Black2/White2. The characters feel so much more vibrant and alive. That's something that just wasn't in previous titles.

 

So yeah, the pokémon series definitely has evolved (insert evolution sound here)

 

But the Zelda series also has! I mean, it went from a classic controller setup to the best full motion control game there is out there! Skyward sword is way more cinematic than Previous titles. These are only small examples, but to me there is no way Skyward Sword and Ocarina and Time feel exactly the same. There is clearly alot of progression between them. I'll even go as far as saying there isn't a single Zelda title that "feels" like another title in the series. The Waker is absolutely different from Twillight Princess. Twillight Princess is absolutely different from Skyward Sword. Yet they still have the same feel to them and fit perfectly together as a serie. It's a perfect example on how to keep a series interesting.

Edited May 18, 2013 by M_rock

[Cube]

Very well said and illustrates the point I have been pressing here for a while. Gaming has stagnated. The big developers are just pushing out the same stuff and any exclusives typically have a counterpart on the other console.

 

Yes, just like the first PS4 game Sony announced:

 

[Sheikah]

If you're looking at the surface of "Trainer starts out, gets starter Pokémon, battles gyms and evil team, catches them all", then yes.

 

However, when you look at gameplay, mechanics, extras etc. then absolutely not.

 

Arguing Pokémon with me is an argument nobody can win :p

 

Arguing Pokemon with you is so easy because you're a fanatic. It's like expecting a highly religious person to present a balanced view of their faith; you just know it's going to be one-sided.

 

Really, it's not a bad thing to stick to a formula since people obviously crave it, but let's not pretend the series has changed much between each iteration. Neither the format, story or gameplay has changed all that much since the first game.

 

That's not something to be proud of.

 

I know. It's like a classic line you'd expect to hear from a 40 year old virgin.

[Daft]

Well there no need to be mean. It's just weird to say the industry is stagnating and then refuse to accept that Pokemon has changed relatively little since it first came out. I get that for Serebii, he knows enough about Pokemon to appreciate the intricacies of it. It leads me to think he really doesn't look hard enough at the developments of anything that isn't revolving around Nintendo (which would also lend credence to his 'only better graphics' baloney).

[Sheikah]

Yeah I was being a bit harsh there. :p But it was a bit arrogant for him to outright suggest no one other than him can be right about Pokemon.

 

If you think about it though, if you're that invested in a series you can always find intricate things that have changed, but these things don't usually hold weight for most people when deciding whether the series has evolved much.

[Serebii]

Yes, just like the first PS4 game Sony announced:

 

Did I not earlier say that Knack was one of the ones that did seem different? Though that may have been elsewhere

 

Well there no need to be mean. It's just weird to say the industry is stagnating and then refuse to accept that Pokemon has changed relatively little since it first came out. I get that for Serebii, he knows enough about Pokemon to appreciate the intricacies of it. It leads me to think he really doesn't look hard enough at the developments of anything that isn't revolving around Nintendo (which would also lend credence to his 'only better graphics' baloney).

That's not true. I have all three consoles, I follow the reveals for all three very carefully. Just because I run a Pokémon site in no way impedes my view. If Nintendo do something stupid, I call them on it. If Sony do, I call them on it. If Microsoft do, I call them on it.

 

Gaming is my hobby, not just Pokémon, and I will always follow all aspects with the same scrutiny I do for Pokémon.

Edited May 18, 2013 by Serebii
Automerged Doublepost

[Daft]

I know you think that but your view of the games industry says everything but (what you posted in the thread of the future of videogames, for starters). Having all the consoles is not an automatic badge of credibility.

[Aneres11]

Maybe we can get back to the topic rather than turning into the same old argument.

------

 

I agree with tapedeck. Great post tbh.

So am I correct in saying that EA will no longer be developing for the Wii u at all or is it just that their key franchises are not coming to the Wii u that are basically there every year on the ps360?

Because when EA did actually develop for the Wii exclusively they had some good results. There was some good use of the wiimote and they played to the consoles strengths quite well as they couldn't just port their usual stuff onto the Wii - which was probably a good thing really!

It'd be a shame to not see their presence at all on the Wii U

[madeinbeats]

Maybe we can get back to the topic rather than turning into the same old argument.

------

 

I agree with tapedeck. Great post tbh.

So am I correct in saying that EA will no longer be developing for the Wii u at all or is it just that their key franchises are not coming to the Wii u that are basically there every year on the ps360?

Because when EA did actually develop for the Wii exclusively they had some good results. There was some good use of the wiimote and they played to the consoles strengths quite well as they couldn't just port their usual stuff onto the Wii - which was probably a good thing really!

It'd be a shame to not see their presence at all on the Wii U

 

Their official statement is 'at the moment'.

 

I was reminded by a post today of when Ubisoft stated that their Wii U ports cost them less than 1 million (euros ?) to make, which makes me wonder just how strapped for cash are EA, or who the hell is in charge of making planning and programming their engines?

 

@Serebii , your knowledge of Pokèmon is nothing to feel ashamed of - I find people on football forums who can recall every detail about strange men who wear shorts far creepier

 

@tapedeck @Dcubed. I've been holding back saying this, but, the last few days it does almost seem like EA have been trying to give Nintendo a public wedgie and egging people on to point and laugh... but I'm just thinking aloud, I don't necessarily believe this... I think the BobSummerwill thing was just a pure gaffe of unbelievable serendipitus timing.

 

I think Nintendo is the one company that has got it in them to deliver to EA a sucker punch of Floyd Mayweather precision and prove they can go on without EA and achieve great success in the industry.

 

I could ramble on but I'll just say I think Nintendo will be around long after EA has folded. Full stop.

Edited May 18, 2013 by madeinbeats

[khilafah]

Maybe we can get back to the topic rather than turning into the same old argument.

------

 

I agree with tapedeck. Great post tbh.

So am I correct in saying that EA will no longer be developing for the Wii u at all or is it just that their key franchises are not coming to the Wii u that are basically there every year on the ps360?

Because when EA did actually develop for the Wii exclusively they had some good results. There was some good use of the wiimote and they played to the consoles strengths quite well as they couldn't just port their usual stuff onto the Wii - which was probably a good thing really!

It'd be a shame to not see their presence at all on the Wii U

 

EA have said that they have zero games in development for Wii U.

 

Nothing is coming from them.

[Ville]

It's pretty funny, somehow Nintendo are quite inventive on the hardware department, but they can also be stupidly conservative what comes to software. Maybe Sony and Microsoft are more like copies of each other, but there's no denying that there are some great games for their systems as well. I was never interested in the Halos or the Gears of Wars games, but still bought a 360 a year and a half ago for some of the other exclusives, like the Naruto and Rare games. Turns out I've already owned as many 360 titles now as I have Wii ones, and I'm still planning to get more. I mean the games that are hyped and showcased the most are just the tip of the iceberg, as there are so many other interesting titles out there, and this will no doubt be the case with the PS4 and 720 as well.

 

EA and other developers dropping out is just the repeat of the same mistake Nintendo keeps making again and again: they don't care about the width of their game catalogue. Yes, I want to play the certain Nintendo exclusives, but what comes to multiplatform games Sony's and Microsoft's consoles are the way to go now, and probably so in the future as well.

[Londragon]

Yes, just like the first PS4 game Sony announced:

 

 

Doesn't 'look' any different than a beautiful looking Tank!Tank!Tank!, with a smattering of Wonderful 101 thrown in for good measure, but I'm only basing my judgement off that one picture.

[Clownferret]

Bit of a vicious circle really... EA keep releasing substandard ports to the Wii assuming everybody who owns a Wii is under 6 or over 96 which means nobody buys their games, then they blame poor sales for the reason they release shoddy ports.

 

Whilst this is no doubt damaging to the Wii U, from a personal view, FIFA has until the last couple of years, always been a worse game than PES and got away with it because of the license. I loved Tiger Woods on the Wii with motion plus as it was SO realistic (miles better than the PS3 & 360 versions and proved beyond doubt that gameplay will always be more important than graphics) but EA still managed to ruin this by turning off the servers after a year and making online 2 player only later in the series, which was farcical beyond comprehension.

In many ways EA mirrors the stereotypical Sony/Xbox fan who will always place graphics over everything else.

 

I am certain that the "poor" Wii U sales (which are on par with PS3/360 over the same period) are a signal of the current state of the industry as a whole and not just Nintendo. I wonder what EA will do if after 6 months PS4 and Nextbox sales are also deemed to be too low. Nintendo are vastly wealthier than EA and should go for the jugular here and remove all EA games from DS/3DS which must be a big revenue earner.

 

And finally let's not forget that FIFA 13 and Sims did not even work, so until EA are capable of releasing a proper, working game for Wii U then it's not a loss. They have been voted the worst company in America for a reason.

[Zechs Merquise]

It's ridiculous. The idea that the ps4 and 720 won't offer anything new other than better graphics is laughable. Do people really think developers are that shallow that the best they can come up with on next gen hardware is nice graphics.

 

Yes, I do believe developers are that shallow. Let me illustrate my point...

 

There have been several FPS titles that have blown my mind. When I first played Doom and Wolfenstein on my SNES I was blown away. After that I played various other FPS games.

 

Not until Goldeneye was I hit with that same feeling again. The whole game seemed fresh, objectives, realistic enemies, real guns, real locations and a choice of how to play the missions - stealth or all out attack.

 

I didn't feel that kind of feeling again until Halo on the XBOX. When I stormed the beach with marines behind me and scores of enemies infront I felt I was experiencing something fresh and exciting.

 

Again, it wasn't until Modern Warfare did I feel that way about FPS titles.

 

However as we move into the next generation I'm not so sure that developers will be out there looking to take risks and mix things up. There seems to be a formula in games now - especially in FPS titles. Due to the increasingly huge budgets needed to churn out games it seems some developers are scared of breaking the formulas.

 

It's like every FPS is now based on an increasingly stale formula which includes a turret section, an on rails section, placing a charge on a door and blowing it up, escaping in a jeep, locking onto a helicopter. These things surround a general slog through a level which amounts to watching enemies pop out of cover, killing them and then ducking down to restore your health.

 

Now when I saw the footage for the new Killzone game - both the presentation and the in game footage demonstrated on some chat show, it was exactly the formula stated above - just in pretty new graphics!

 

So what would I like to see? How about a huge open world Killzone? The city is under seige, hundreds of small battles rage around the city. You can choose what you do - do you cut off enemy reinforcements by destroying the bridge, do you recapture your communication posts allowing friendly reinforcements to be contacted, do you bring down enemy communication lines, do you rescue a trapped convoy of civilians cuaght in a crossfire? But whatever you do it has a consequence - if you cut off enemy reinforcements, more of the civilians die in the crossfire. If you save the civilians more of your defences are overrun as the bridge is still up and enemy reinforcements can continue to flood the city. There are no right answers, no wrong answers - it's a war.

 

Now that is just an example. It would be a different style of game. But I fear to implement something like that, somewhere there would need to be a hit in graphics to free up processing power to allow for an open world sand box FPS of that scale.

 

You see everytime I've been blown away by an FPS it has been new exciting gameplay that blew me away - not just an improvement in graphics.

 

At the moment there seems to be more focus on how things will look, than how they will play. I am not saying there won't be any fresh experiences - of course there will. However because of COD and the way it has changed the industry it seems that big games follow more and more of a predetermined structure that developers are scared to deviate from because of the huge sums of money invovled in development and marketing.

[Londragon]

Yes, I do believe developers are that shallow. Let me illustrate my point...

 

There have been several FPS titles that have blown my mind. When I first played Doom and Wolfenstein on my SNES I was blown away. After that I played various other FPS games.

 

Not until Goldeneye was I hit with that same feeling again. The whole game seemed fresh, objectives, realistic enemies, real guns, real locations and a choice of how to play the missions - stealth or all out attack.

 

I didn't feel that kind of feeling again until Halo on the XBOX. When I stormed the beach with marines behind me and scores of enemies infront I felt I was experiencing something fresh and exciting.

 

Again, it wasn't until Modern Warfare did I feel that way about FPS titles.

 

However as we move into the next generation I'm not so sure that developers will be out there looking to take risks and mix things up. There seems to be a formula in games now - especially in FPS titles. Due to the increasingly huge budgets needed to churn out games it seems some developers are scared of breaking the formulas.

 

It's like every FPS is now based on an increasingly stale formula which includes a turret section, an on rails section, placing a charge on a door and blowing it up, escaping in a jeep, locking onto a helicopter. These things surround a general slog through a level which amounts to watching enemies pop out of cover, killing them and then ducking down to restore your health.

 

Now when I saw the footage for the new Killzone game - both the presentation and the in game footage demonstrated on some chat show, it was exactly the formula stated above - just in pretty new graphics!

 

So what would I like to see? How about a huge open world Killzone? The city is under seige, hundreds of small battles rage around the city. You can choose what you do - do you cut off enemy reinforcements by destroying the bridge, do you recapture your communication posts allowing friendly reinforcements to be contacted, do you bring down enemy communication lines, do you rescue a trapped convoy of civilians cuaght in a crossfire? But whatever you do it has a consequence - if you cut off enemy reinforcements, more of the civilians die in the crossfire. If you save the civilians more of your defences are overrun as the bridge is still up and enemy reinforcements can continue to flood the city. There are no right answers, no wrong answers - it's a war.

 

Now that is just an example. It would be a different style of game. But I fear to implement something like that, somewhere there would need to be a hit in graphics to free up processing power to allow for an open world sand box FPS of that scale.

 

You see everytime I've been blown away by an FPS it has been new exciting gameplay that blew me away - not just an improvement in graphics.

 

At the moment there seems to be more focus on how things will look, than how they will play. I am not saying there won't be any fresh experiences - of course there will. However because of COD and the way it has changed the industry it seems that big games follow more and more of a predetermined structure that developers are scared to deviate from because of the huge sums of money invovled in development and marketing.

 

I pretty much agree. The problem is that the 'casual' gamer buying these FPS' left, right and centre only sees graphics. Just like buying a book because of its cover, if it looks good it must be good. Taking this problem further in that the 'casual' FPS gamer doesn't play any other games (apart from FIFA, maybe a 3rd person shooter) so they are blissfully ignorant of the significantly better gameplay in other 'hardcore' titles. It's the Michael Bayification of the Gaming World. Boom, bang-a, bang, boom, visual explosive shooting porn with little emphasis on the use of intellect, empathy, sympathy, intelligence to enact a solution to a problem. Problem, boom, man drops dead, what problem?

 

There are no right answers, no wrong answers - it's a war.

Exactly what needs to change in such games, intelligent design for intelligent gamers and gaming. If Christopher Nolan can do it for movies why can't someone do it for gaming, but then again I happen to think Nintendo do do it on a regular basis. I just wish sometimes they'd do it in a more mature setting with life changing choices implemented into the fabric of a game.

[Rummy]

Personally, I think the PS4 and Xbox 3 are going to sell just fine. Talking to gamers I know, everyone's waiting for them. As long as they're not too far north of £300, they'll sell.

 

The problem with the Wii U is that Nintendo never asked themselves why people would want one. None of the main aspects - power, controller, games, price - matches up with the others to make a winning strategy.

 

For example, if it had been £300 with a GameCube pad, it could have been extremely close to what the PS4 will offer. I'm talking about £300's worth of processing power, minus the cost of the GameCube pad (Nintendo's best-ever controller, in my opinion). You may say that wouldn't have worked, but gamers would have to have taken notice of that. It still wouldn't have sold with just New Super Mario Bros and various ports, but of course that's another area where the strategy was wrong - software.

 

Nintendo misunderstood the type of software (and processing power) they needed to sell an expensive piece of hardware. They also misunderstood how excited and eager anyone would be for NSMB and Nintendo Land. That sort of thing can sell, but only if the price is right. The Wii was a trend. Wii Sports was a trend. There is not an audience waiting to enjoy any "innovation" Nintendo can come up with. There is an audience, however, eager to see how they can develop their better franchises, especially if the overall package is correct (ie. hardware and controller).

 

I still think Wii U can be a good console just with Nintendo's own games, but darn, they've got an uphill struggle.

 

This is an excellent post!

 

I wasn't really in 'the loop' for the launch period of Wii and GameCube, so I don't know if this is just typical teething problems, but as far as I can tell, this really seems like one of the worst console starts I've seen.

 

So much early doom and gloom, maybe moreso than the 3DS. I just hope Nintendo can pull it off themselves, they managed to make the N64 work with little third party support (and saying that, did EA produce games for it? If they did, I can't remember any!) so hopefully the same will happen with Wii U!

 

Yeah but they were very heavily propped by 2nd party Rareware - of all the N64 blockbusters they're mostly either Nintendo, or Rare(Blast Corps, DKR, DK64, BanjoKazooie, GOLDENEYE!, Perfect Dark...maybe others I've forgotten). Rare kept that baby afloat. Nintendo need something like that for Wii U(in addition to their own stuff, which imo has gotten crapper, so better quality needed too). They don't have that now, but they need it.

 

While I somewhat agree, I find the main targets of his post (Sony and MS) really weird - surely the biggest offender related to stagnated gaming is Nintendo?

 

You only need to take a look at many of their game series:

 

- Zelda main titles very closely follow the formula of Ocarina of Time, made several generations ago

- Pokemon very closely follows the formula of Red and Blue, both made many generations ago

- New Metroid games have followed the formula of Metroid Prime for a while now

- Mario Party follows a pretty strict formula

- Fire Emblem, however cool, does have a pretty strong formula that hasn't changed too drastically over the years

- Animal Crossing and Smash Bros. - again, very conserved.

 

We may as well admit now that people want to play the same sorts of games over and over - and that Nintendo are probably the biggest culprit. In terms of new IP, Sony are more likely to deliver on this front, but we're bound to see similar games, sequels and formula-following from all developers.

 

I think you've missed the point of his post. EA are cross platform and industry wide, Nintendo aren't. Sure, they haven't mixed up enough with a lot of their franchises - but that doesn't do much damage to the rest of the industry, just themselves. Those games are also still Nintendo unique(generally quite unique) - his point is that with Sony and MS they churn our clones of each others titles(where they aren't already getting crossplatform titles) - something Nintendo aren't as guilty of in this instance, they're one of the few to still try to offer something unique. It's just a shame they're doing a shit job overall though. I think he's claiming that twth EA's approach, they perpetuate the stagnation and genericness.

 

As an aside - gaming when I was growing up used to be(as I just mentioned elsewhere) about Mario vs Sonic, about calling things like the Fony Gaystation etc; fanboyism as bad as it can be existed because of unique experiences - these days there's less surface reason to have a 360 over a PS3 or vice versa. I think for gaming to become a good industry again, there needs to be more exclusive and unique experiences and thus competition between the consoles. The irony, of course, it that EA's decision not to support the Wii U does help that(ie buying consoles to get the EA games).

 

It's also harder and harder to make more unique experiences as time goes on, everything unique can only be done once - I think there's some fatigue there too.

Edited May 19, 2013 by Rummy