Wii U General Discussion

[Ronnie]

At the end of the day there's room for cinematic story-driven titles AND games that focus on the gameplay itself. I like both. Some people want realistic graphics and cutscenes that make their jaw drop, others want pure gamplay experiences that have you smiling like an idiot throughout.

 

I suspect the leap into HD and poor sales of the Wii U have made Nintendo reluctant to invest too much in the former this gen. Not to mention the fact that they're not about to put 2000 people to work on one game with a $100mil+ budget.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Ronnie

[Fierce_LiNk]

You and @Fierce_LiNk are getting me wrong. I'm not saying story has no place in a game. I'm saying it should come second to gameplay. Gameplay is the most important thing in a game. More than a story.

 

If more games worked like @Fierce_LiNk said in his first paragraph, then huzzah...that's a fantastic way of implementing story into gameplay, but it doesn't happen. So often we're just backseat drivers in the story and when they put focus on story over gameplay, it's detrimental and unfortunately is common in the industry.

 

The balance is changing in a lot of cases because, I would argue, that actually the "experience" of the game is now becoming the most important thing. Take a game like Journey, for example. Games are now being seen as a form of art and are evolving into different things altogether. With a book, a story is just one part of it, because (and I'm sure many would argue) that character development plays almost a bigger part. My favourite book of all time (1984 - tied with Northern Lights) isn't my favourite because the story is special, but because of the downward spiral that the character Winston experiences throughout the book. "What makes a book a book?" is very similar to "what makes a game a game?" and I'm sure the answer to both isn't as clean cut as saying "story" and "gameplay."

 

Videogames are becoming an art form in many different respects and they are changing. Electroplankton, Hohokum, Heavy Rain, Flower are just some examples that I can think of off the top of my head. As technology improves and as new creators enter the field, you'll see games changing in lots of interesting ways. I've already given you some of the games in which major outcomes can be altered through participation and I think we'll see more of this in the future, especially with hardware becoming better. It's not just about powerful graphics, but being able to do more complex things - especially in terms of how you deliver the story. Metroid Prime was very unique with how it delivered the backstory through the logs and somebody who gathered the logs would have ended up with a completely different understanding of the game compared to somebody who hadn't.

 

To me, this is what makes fascinating and it gives it some form of purpose. Yes, it's entertainment, but it's also something you can participate in and you have some control over how it plays it. What I'm excited about is how that level of control is changing, especially with how your actions can actually affect things not only on a short-term level, but on a long-term level. Imagine if (Zelda again) Link walks into a specific area of Hyrule Field and kills all of the monsters there. What if the people then come back to that area and suddenly new sidequests pop up as a result of it? What if (this is getting really complex now) that on one playthrough, you leave that area alone, and so don't meet a certain character, but you meet that character on the second area and they help you at the end of the game in a boss fight?

[dazzybee]

I find it so weird that people view econmic success as a judgement on the success of how good something is. So many comments about - gamers leaving, having mascots hasn't worked for Nintendo, losing fans, they don't make the games I want.... So bizarre. I didn't watch lilting and come out thinking - hmmmm, it didn't make much money, no ones seen this.... Like that matters. But with video games it seems to be a huge factor I trying to get a company to change the way they do things. Dint like Nintendo style? Don't play their games, just stop pissing and moaning about not liking them and how you've "moved away" a

Etc. fine. But don't use Wii u's lack of success as a judgment call on now good those games are.

 

Now success in video games has slightly different meaning with regard to 3rd party... But that's not the discussion. This discussion has been had a thousand times in this bad - I like Nintendo because.... I don't like Nintendo do anymore because... Nintendo do aren't successful because they don't understand gamers... Over and over...

 

This is Nintendo. Accept it and move on. Want to chat about how they can change it, let's go to the NX board and hypothesise what it could be. But these debates... Do people enjoy them?

 

As for the story debate, again, we've had it before, but it is at least interesting. But again, everyone's spouting their personal opinions as if they're absolute truths. Personally, I'm not big in story, I think video games writing and direction are light years behind modern standards in narrative art forms they're very often embarrassing, with a few exceptions. But that's not to say they don't have their place, and it will improve, it is improving.

 

Personally, I do think gaming is a different art form, and it isn't a narrative focused one. It's about gameplay inspiring emotion for me, as recent examples I'd say pikmin affects me far more than any narrative has in recent years. And with splatoon, it isn't a story, but the world creation in the lore, the characters, how splatfests play out, how urchin underpass is going under construction, these moments of immersion through gameplay and game structure is leagues ahead of the acting/writing/story in say grand theft auto, which is sub b movie quality.

Edited July 30, 2015 by dazzybee

[Mr-Paul]

these moments of Emerson

 

I don't remember this guy in Splatoon...

 

[Sheikah]

I find it so weird that people view econmic success as a judgement on the success of how good something is. So many comments about - gamers leaving, having mascots hasn't worked for Nintendo, losing fans, they don't make the games I want.... So bizarre. I didn't watch lilting and come out thinking - hmmmm, it didn't make much money, no ones seen this.... Like that matters. But with video games it seems to be a huge factor I trying to get a company to change the way they do things. Dint like Nintendo style? Don't play their games, just stop pissing and moaning about not liking them and how you've "moved away" a

Etc. fine. But don't use Wii u's lack of success as a judgment call on now good those games are.

 

Economic success is clearly linked to making something that a lot of people like. That's not to say that good things will automatically be successful, as they may not have mass appeal, but it's not exactly 'weird' that people are pointing to lack of commercial success in this way. For instance, one of the ways Nintendo could broaden their appeal is by bolstering their online offering in games as well as improving third party relations, which in turn would make their console more successful.

 

Put it this way - if Nintendo never had considerable commercial success with their home consoles you might say there's no point to be had here as nothing has changed. But the fact is, they did have such success in the past. This change in fortunes raises questions that are impossible to ignore, and it's not wrong to point this out. Why aren't Nintendo selling many home consoles, like they used to? As you can probably figure out - commercial success isn't isolated from pleasing customers. And making great games that people want is what pleases them, ultimately.

 

I have seen very poor arguments made regarding this matter such as "GTA/COD sell well but are shit", as a means to show that success and great games don't really mix. But that kind of argument completely misses the point. Those games sell well because they appeal. Making appealing and relevant games is part of what makes them great. People are obviously getting a lot of enjoyment from these games, hence buying them and putting a lot of time into them. So even if you disagree on a personal level, the fact remains that there is an aspect of Nintendo's games that can be improved because they are not nearly as appealing to the modern audience as you may think. That's not to say they cannot be great games in their own way, but having a console with mostly just Nintendo games that appeal to specific groups of people will have the effect of both low sales and a mixed reception. It's not really a stretch to make the sales comparison in this situation.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Sheikah

[Ronnie]

I find it so weird that people view econmic success as a judgement on the success of how good something is. So many comments about - gamers leaving, having mascots hasn't worked for Nintendo, losing fans, they don't make the games I want.... So bizarre. I didn't watch lilting and come out thinking - hmmmm, it didn't make much money, no ones seen this.... Like that matters. But with video games it seems to be a huge factor I trying to get a company to change the way they do things. Dint like Nintendo style? Don't play their games, just stop pissing and moaning about not liking them and how you've "moved away" a

Etc. fine. But don't use Wii u's lack of success as a judgment call on now good those games are.

 

Now success in video games has slightly different meaning with regard to 3rd party... But that's not the discussion. This discussion has been had a thousand times in this bad - I like Nintendo because.... I don't like Nintendo do anymore because... Nintendo do aren't successful because they don't understand gamers... Over and over...

 

This is Nintendo. Accept it and move on. Want to chat about how they can change it, let's go to the NX board and hypothesise what it could be. But these debates... Do people enjoy them?

 

As for the story debate, again, we've had it before, but it is at least interesting. But again, everyone's spouting their personal opinions as if they're absolute truths. Personally, I'm not big in story, I think video games writing and direction are light years behind modern standards in narrative art forms they're very often embarrassing, with a few exceptions. But that's not to say they don't have their place, and it will improve, it is improving.

 

Personally, I do think gaming is a different art form, and it isn't a narrative focused one. It's about gameplay inspiring emotion for me, as recent examples I'd say pikmin affects me far more than any narrative has in recent years. And with splatoon, it isn't a story, but the world creation in the lore, the characters, how splatfests play out, how urchin underpass is going under construction, these moments of immersion through gameplay and game structure is leagues ahead of the acting/writing/story in say grand theft auto, which is sub b movie quality.

 

Fantastic post.

[Retro_Link]

Urgh @Fierce_LiNk, you've just made me long for the Nintendo stories of old with the likes of Ocarina of Time and Metroid Prime.

 

Glory days man... Glory days...

[Rummy]

But again, everyone's spouting their personal opinions as if they're absolute truths.

 

And with splatoon, it isn't a story, but the world creation in the lore, the characters, how splatfests play out, how urchin underpass is going under construction, these moments of immersion through gameplay and game structure is leagues ahead of the acting/writing/story in say grand theft auto, which is sub b movie quality.

 

Careful with the hypocrisy there dazzy. I wouldn't say anyone's presented their personal opinion as fact any more than your closing statement in that quote above. If it was someone else you might call it trolling.

 

As for the economic success - it's relevant because barley anyone is making these consoles and games just for the love of it alone - they're out to make money. Yes, you can have a great game that sells terribly but it can also be argued that you can have terrible games that sell well.

 

However the overall general economic success of these things are relevant - if you have a console that is flying off the shelves and being snapped up by everyone with great attach rates you're then going to be getting more revenues in with which you can further develop your products. To pretend economic success is irrelevant in what is essentially business is absolute folly if you ask me.

[Hero-of-Time]

As for the story debate, again, we've had it before, but it is at least interesting. But again, everyone's spouting their personal opinions as if they're absolute truths. Personally, I'm not big in story, I think video games writing and direction are light years behind modern standards in narrative art forms they're very often embarrassing, with a few exceptions. But that's not to say they don't have their place, and it will improve, it is improving.

 

Personally, I do think gaming is a different art form, and it isn't a narrative focused one. It's about gameplay inspiring emotion for me, as recent examples I'd say pikmin affects me far more than any narrative has in recent years. And with splatoon, it isn't a story, but the world creation in the lore, the characters, how splatfests play out, how urchin underpass is going under construction, these moments of immersion through gameplay and game structure is leagues ahead of the acting/writing/story in say grand theft auto, which is sub b movie quality.

 

Thing is, you have a very high standard when it comes to narrative due to your profession. The majority of people are quite happy with the run of the mill stories that most games have. It's why summer blockbuster films do well. I imagine, like me, most people just want to be entertained and are happy and watch/play something without having to overthink things and just take it on face value. That's not to say your point is any less valid, it's just that you have a unique perspective regarding the subject.

 

For me, story driven games are becoming more and more important to my enjoyment of the medium. While Nintendo games are amazing from a gameplay standpoint, I do find them to be throw away experiences these days. I enjoy them, finish them and then that's it. Done.

 

On the other side you have something like Gears of War/Halo/Uncharted. Games where worlds and characters are built up and you get invested in this worlds that has been created. They then go further by expanding these worlds in comics or novels. Gears and Halo done this amazingly well. I mean, the inclusion of Blue Team in a Halo game has myself and fans going nuts. We are excited to see how Chief is going to react, and how they are finally going to get reunited with him. This has nothing to do with the gameplay of the game, this excitement is all story driven.

 

Off the top of my head I don't think a Nintendo game has ever made me cry. Games such as Final Fantasy X, Crisis Core, MGS3, FFVIII, KH all have had me in tears due to the emotional attachment I had for the characters. Being drawn into these worlds and going through everything that these characters go through is a fantastic feeling.

 

There's certainly room for both types of games, and they should be just for the sake of variety, but I find that these days, it's the story driven games that leave me with a lasting effect.

[Zechs Merquise]

I think a good story can be important in a game - but when a game is all about story and focuses on that above all else I think the developers have lost track of what they are doing.

 

What makes games different from books and movies is they are interactive, which in itself can lead to interesting plots that the player can actually have a hand in developing. However it is that interactivity and the way the player interacts that should be the focus of any game - ie the game play.

 

When developers focus too heavily on story, the game play can be neglected and for me that is why I play a game, to have fun, to be challenged and to interact. It's why I often prefer retro-games where game play is often tighter and clearly the focus of the experience.

 

But when people talk about the plots of games and talk about how moving they are and how games have come so far - yet then reference games like MGS it makes me shake my head in disbelief.

 

When you watch a great film like The Departed, Goodfellas, The Shawshank Redemption, Fight Club or The Dark Knight the plots are truly magnificent. Then you play a game like MGS if that is truly the cutting edge of game plots then gaming has a LONG way to go before it is on a par with movie quality narrative.

 

Ultimately, whilst plot is important, I think plots in computer games should be approached slightly differently to plots in movies and are best when the focus of the plot is how you affect its outcome - for example the choices and the plots forks in Deus Ex Human Revolution or Fallout 3. Games like that tie the plot to the game play and to the player - and that is what game are about, player choice and interactivity.

 

Once developers lose sight of that interactivity, I think they have lost sight of the fact they are making games.

[Serebii]

I think a good story can be important in a game - but when a game is all about story and focuses on that above all else I think the developers have lost track of what they are doing.

 

What makes games different from books and movies is they are interactive, which in itself can lead to interesting plots that the player can actually have a hand in developing. However it is that interactivity and the way the player interacts that should be the focus of any game - ie the game play.

 

When developers focus too heavily on story, the game play can be neglected and for me that is why I play a game, to have fun, to be challenged and to interact. It's why I often prefer retro-games where game play is often tighter and clearly the focus of the experience.

 

But when people talk about the plots of games and talk about how moving they are and how games have come so far - yet then reference games like MGS it makes me shake my head in disbelief.

 

When you watch a great film like The Departed, Goodfellas, The Shawshank Redemption, Fight Club or The Dark Knight the plots are truly magnificent. Then you play a game like MGS if that is truly the cutting edge of game plots then gaming has a LONG way to go before it is on a par with movie quality narrative.

 

Ultimately, whilst plot is important, I think plots in computer games should be approached slightly differently to plots in movies and are best when the focus of the plot is how you affect its outcome - for example the choices and the plots forks in Deus Ex Human Revolution or Fallout 3. Games like that tie the plot to the game play and to the player - and that is what game are about, player choice and interactivity.

 

Once developers lose sight of that interactivity, I think they have lost sight of the fact they are making games.

 

 

This is practically what I have been saying, but people have been misinterpreting what I have saying to be "hurr story bad. gameplay only".

[Sheikah]

I think a good story can be important in a game - but when a game is all about story and focuses on that above all else I think the developers have lost track of what they are doing.

 

I think, to quote Flink, there are a few dinosaurs in this topic. People that believe games should be nothing more than they always have been traditionally.

 

To say this, Zechs...I wonder, have you never played Phoenix Wright, Gone Home, 999, Virtue's Last Reward, Ghost Trick, The Walking Dead? These are all games that have thrived from being 90-95%+ story. To say that these games have lost track seems very odd to me, as the focus on the story that sucked you in is exactly what made these games. Just as there are games that are near enough 100% gameplay with next to no story. I don't see why we should be saying one or the other of these 2 types of games have 'lost track'. And if it's what the developers set out to make, which it almost certainly is, then I'm not sure how you can say they lost track at all.

[Zechs Merquise]

I think, to quote Flink, there are a few dinosaurs in this topic. People that believe games should be nothing more than they always have been traditionally.

 

To say this, Zechs...I wonder, have you never played Phoenix Wright, Gone Home, 999, Virtue's Last Reward, Ghost Trick, The Walking Dead? These are all games that have thrived from being 90-95%+ story. To say that these games have lost track seems very odd to me, as the focus on the story that sucked you in is exactly what made these games. Just as there are games that are near enough 100% gameplay with next to no story. I don't see why we should be saying one or the other of these 2 types of games have 'lost track'. And if it's what the developers set out to make, which it almost certainly is, then I'm not sure how you can say they lost track at all.

 

You are insufferable. Just because someone has a different opinion to you doesn't make them a dinosaur. I never said that games shouldn't have a story, just that the stories need to be more interactive and not be at the expensive of the game play.

 

I have played The Walking Dead - it was pretty average at best in my opinion. The story was OK, but the game play was virtually non-existent. I gave up on it as it wasn't engaging to play and the plot certainly wasn't of the level that could have kept me playing, it was pretty boring in fact.

 

Contrast a game like The Walking Dead and a game like Mass Effect 3, both have stories, but one has serious game play backing it up which kept me engaged and led to me being happy to play the game through twice.

[Sheikah]

You are insufferable. Just because someone has a different opinion to you doesn't make them a dinosaur. I never said that games shouldn't have a story, just that the stories need to be more interactive and not be at the expensive of the game play.

 

I have played The Walking Dead - it was pretty average at best in my opinion. The story was OK, but the game play was virtually non-existent. I gave up on it as it wasn't engaging to play and the plot certainly wasn't of the level that could have kept me playing, it was pretty boring in fact.

 

Contrast a game like The Walking Dead and a game like Mass Effect 3, both have stories, but one has serious game play backing it up which kept me engaged and led to me being happy to play the game through twice.

 

It's not that you have a different opinion to me that makes your views seem archaic, it's the opinion itself. My apologies if I didn't make that clear.

 

And I'm sorry, but you clearly just said that games that focus on story above all else are indicative of the developers having long track of what they are doing. Which is, frankly, nonsense.

 

I listed a bunch of games where the story was practically 90-95% of the game. In 999 you only have about 2 instances per play through on average to make a choice that impacts the outcome. The rest is mostly watching a story unfold before your eyes. And that game is easily one of my favourite DS games, and was well loved by many.

 

Clearly the developers set out to make that game, so I've no idea how you can say that the developers lost track of what they were doing.

[somme]

I've just started playing The Walking Dead, having previously gone through Game of Thrones and can say that I've found it quite engrossing, so there's obviously a market for both.

 

I agree with Sheikah when he says that if a developer sets out to make a story driven game like TWD then they haven't lost their way or focus as developers.

 

There's a place in gaming for both story driven and non story driven. It's just unfortunate you can't find the story driven games on WiiU.

[Serebii]

If not wanting gameplay to take a backseat to a story makes me a dinosaur, then fine. I'd rather be a dinosaur and if the industry continues to go story first gameplay later, then it's an industry I don't want to be a part of.

 

It's why I love Nintendo. They put gameplay first, before they even put characters into a game they have the mechanics down. Granted, the stories of Nintendo titles aren't always top notch, but it's an enjoyable ride. I'd much rather play a game with fantastic gameplay and middling to no story than a game with a fantastic story but middling to poor gameplay.

 

Story has a place in video games, I'm not disputing this, and when it's done right it can be phenomenal, as with Mass Effect and a good few others, but the issue is that most aren't doing it right, the story takes over too much and isn't interactive. You're just playing the uninteresting bits while everything that is cool or left is left to cutscenes. That doesn't make a good game, and unfortunately that's the bulk of the industry. There's too much focus on "telling a story" that it is damaging gameplay and damaging the industry.

 

We have had developers saying that gameplay comes second. How can you accept that for this medium? Interactive stories are great, when the interactivity is up to scratch.

[dazzybee]

@Sheikah I'm just saying commercial success doesn't mean anything and shouldn't be used as a judgement call on how good games are or a company is, it shouldn't be used to justify your opinion of a game or company. In the same way that when the wii was incredibly successful we were;t all saying - you know what, nintendo should make more wii fits and sports and brain training an dnintendoghs and making gimmicky low powered machines because it's so successful. No, we were, and I bet you were th biggest loudest voice in this, were saying I don't care how successful this is, it's not what I want, I want "proper" games or whatever.

 

Success on both counts isn't a good argument either way. But you, and others, use it as ammunition to "prove your point", which is just a bit strange and utterly pointless.

 

And you say it determines whether something is wanted by a lot of people, again, why is this important? Is Mario Kart better than Pikmkin 3? Should Nintendo make more mario karts and not more pikmin, because it shows that it's what more people want?! Do you see how stupid this line of reasoning is?!

 

And @Rummy that isn't my opinion, that is stone cold objective fact

[Zechs Merquise]

And I'm sorry, but you clearly just said that games that focus on story above all else are indicative of the developers having long track of what they are doing. Which is, frankly, nonsense.

 

Well, I don't think it is nonsense.

 

I don't play games to sit watching a story unfold and to click a button every 20 minutes in order to make a choice.

 

That isn't what gaming is about for me and I think it in many ways goes against the whole medium. I do enjoy stories in games - Xenoblade, The Last Story, Deus Ex and Mass Effect 3 to name a hand full. But that story has to be accompanied by something, or is it really a game?

 

That is why I love Nintendo and enjoy retro gaming so much. Recently I've been mastering Blue Shadow on the NES. What a game that is, perfect controls, no cheap deaths and great tight and focused game play. The story might not be anything, but give me a game like that any day over some interactive movie with a plot that is laughable compared to that of a top class film.

[Sheikah]

@Sheikah I'm just saying commercial success doesn't mean anything

 

I know you said more but if that is truly what you believe then I can say nothing more than that you are wrong and further talks on this probably aren't going to go anywhere if you're completely convinced on that.

 

Nobody is going to make such simple links as 'commercial success automatically means best game/console ever' like you are doing. That said, there are clear patterns that can be observed based on success and widespread adoption of media (which ultimately boils down to making games that captivate and engage with the modern audience). It's not wrong to look at those in closer detail and make those links.

[Zechs Merquise]

@Sheikah I'm just saying commercial success doesn't mean anything and shouldn't be used as a judgement call on how good games are or a company is, it shouldn't be used to justify your opinion of a game or company. In the same way that when the wii was incredibly successful we were;t all saying - you know what, nintendo should make more wii fits and sports and brain training an dnintendoghs and making gimmicky low powered machines because it's so successful. No, we were, and I bet you were th biggest loudest voice in this, were saying I don't care how successful this is, it's not what I want, I want "proper" games or whatever.

 

Success on both counts isn't a good argument either way. But you, and others, use it as ammunition to "prove your point", which is just a bit strange and utterly pointless.

 

And you say it determines whether something is wanted by a lot of people, again, why is this important? Is Mario Kart better than Pikmkin 3? Should Nintendo make more mario karts and not more pikmin, because it shows that it's what more people want?! Do you see how stupid this line of reasoning is?!

 

And @Rummy that isn't my opinion, that is stone cold objective fact

 

I didn't want to even get into this, but last generation I clearly stated there were two main barometers of success - critical acclaim and commercial performance.

 

The same person who is now saying that commercial performance is important argued until he was blue in the face that commercial performance wasn't important and all that mattered was that 'real gamers' enjoyed the game. Fuck me, it's funny how people change their tune.

[Sheikah]

Well, I don't think it is nonsense.

 

I don't play games to sit watching a story unfold and to click a button every 20 minutes in order to make a choice.

 

That isn't what gaming is about for me and I think it in many ways goes against the whole medium. I do enjoy stories in games - Xenoblade, The Last Story, Deus Ex and Mass Effect 3 to name a hand full. But that story has to be accompanied by something, or is it really a game?

 

That is why I love Nintendo and enjoy retro gaming so much. Recently I've been mastering Blue Shadow on the NES. What a game that is, perfect controls, no cheap deaths and great tight and focused game play. The story might not be anything, but give me a game like that any day over some interactive movie with a plot that is laughable compared to that of a top class film.

Well that's fine if you don't want to play these games. But your original comment was that the developers had lost track of what they were doing by making these games. Which is indeed nonsense.

[Serebii]

Well that's fine if you don't want to play these games. But your original comment was that the developers had lost track of what they were doing by making these games. Which is indeed nonsense.

Is it nonsense, though?

[Sheikah]

Is it nonsense, though?

Yeah? He's basically saying that the developers didn't set out to make the games they made, instead losing track of what they wanted to make, resulting in the final product.

 

The guy who set out to make 999 wanted to make a visual novel. He'd made visual novels before. It's no mistake!

 

I didn't want to even get into this, but last generation I clearly stated there were two main barometers of success - critical acclaim and commercial performance.

 

The same person who is now saying that commercial performance is important argued until he was blue in the face that commercial performance wasn't important and all that mattered was that 'real gamers' enjoyed the game. Fuck me, it's funny how people change their tune.

 

I never argued that at all. Feel free to try and prove that though!

[Serebii]

Yeah? He's basically saying that the developers didn't set out to make the games they made, instead losing track of what they wanted to make, resulting in the final product.

 

The guy who set out to make 999 wanted to make a visual novel. He'd made visual novels before. It's no mistake!

 

 

 

I never argued that at all. Feel free to try and prove that though!

So you're picking and choosing a small niche product and not talking about the massive mass produced ones in order to attempt to make your point?

[Sheikah]

So you're picking and choosing a small niche product and not talking about the massive mass produced ones in order to attempt to make your point?

Nope. I'm pure and simply pointing out bullshit. It's what I do.