Was the Wii a fluke?

[Kav]

I know I'm not contributing here, but Jamba I want to change the title as I keep reading it as "Was the Wii a flute?"

 

 

 

Mario Kart Wii redefined gaming...?

 

What was gaming before then? Maybe I misunderstood what it was...

 

Mario, not Mario Kart.... Galaxy he's talking about.

[Ashley]

I have no idea why I assumed it was Mario Kart. Long week is long.

[tapedeck]

What is the difference between a console and a toy?

Is a console something laden with cutting edge tech and can play Blurays? Or is it something that breaks easily through overheating?

 

Perhaps a toy is something that gives you hours of playtime and interaction with others through that play. A good toy is timeless too. I think Wii will be remembered fondly.

 

This whole 'Nintendo make toys' thing can be annoying though as it indicates that Nintenso make something just for children. The real children are the ones too embarrassed to play something coloured purple or wave and point a control device at a screen an have...y'know, fun. Yet they are happy to buy an expensive box to play army games and pretend they are a superstar footballer and take their gaming seriously, defending it at all costs.

 

But in the end it's the software that defines the console. Nintendo's content skews toward everyone but not that 'mature' market.

 

Trouble with the Wii was that the vast majority of 'quality' third parties were clueless more than ever when their beloved horsepower was taken away. I personally think the Wii made the industry grow up showing that there is space for alternative options outside of the Western focus of turning games into interactive movies. Even though the media strive to make this approach the de facto standard with reviews based around graphics, sound and presentation.

 

100 million consoles sold seems to indicate that, when this industry tries to do something different - it can truly shine. Instead it plods on appealing to the 16-35 male demographic. Kudos to Nintendo for really pushing away and out of that. The Wii made gaming truly social. In that regard it was more grown up and less toy-like than its counterparts.

Edited September 3, 2013 by tapedeck

[Aneres11]

@tapedeck

 

 

Great post.

No more need be said.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

What is the difference between a console and a toy?

Is a console something laden with cutting edge tech and can play Blurays? Or is it something that breaks easily through overheating?

 

Perhaps a toy is something that gives you hours of playtime and interaction with others through that play. A good toy is timeless too. I think Wii will be remembered fondly.

 

This whole 'Nintendo make toys' thing can be annoying though as it indicates that Nintenso make something just for children. The real children are the ones too embarrassed to play something coloured purple or wave and point a control device at a screen an have...y'know, fun. Yet they are happy to buy an expensive box to play army games and pretend they are a superstar footballer and take their gaming seriously, defending it at all costs.

 

But in the end it's the software that defines the console. Nintendo's content skews toward everyone but not that 'mature' market.

 

Trouble with the Wii was that the vast majority of 'quality' third parties were clueless more than ever when their beloved horsepower was taken away. I personally think the Wii made the industry grow up showing that there is space for alternative options outside of the Western focus of turning games into interactive movies. Even though the media strive to make this approach the de facto standard with reviews based around graphics, sound and presentation.

 

100 million consoles sold seems to indicate that, when this industry tries to do something different - it can truly shine. Instead it plods on appealing to the 16-35 male demographic. Kudos to Nintendo for really pushing away and out of that. The Wii made gaming truly social. In that regard it was more grown up and less toy-like than its counterparts.

 

indeed! Great post!

[Fused King]

I think that, by definition, the Wii could not have been a fluke because it housed the following game exclusively.

 

 

The mere presence of its existence makes the Wii an instant timeless classic, for it is able to run this game and make you experience something truly amazing.

[Jamba]

Where there are Nintendo games there will always be interest.:

 

Agreed although I think that interest is shrinking by the way they are treating their IPs.

 

 

All the threads created recently always seem like pointlessly retreading old ground... no offence to you @Jamba as you're a top guy but can we have a little more clarification on what the discussion in this thread should be about please, as I feel like otherwise I may have missed the point and others might do the same; I just don't want to see this turn into another identical thread so if you could further explain - perhaps only for my benefit - then that would be appreciated, thanks. : peace:

 

Okidokey! As some people are already doing, I wanted to explore and analyse:

a) What about the Wii separated it from what Nintendo have done previously?

b) Why do Nintendo's consoles generally speaking seem to be losing interest over time

c) Explore why Nintendo's inability to recreate the Wii situation is occurring (of which I think there are still a myriad of reasons)

 

I don't want this to be a Wii U bashing thread but more of a "Didn't the Wii do well?" And what can Nintendo take from their previous successes.

[tapedeck]

Are they losing interest? They sold 100 million consoles.

What separated the Wii from previous consoles was that it was more than just a gaming machine. It was a social gathering. A place where gamers and non-gamers could play together without barriers to entry.

Their inability to recreate the buzz or 'lightning in a bottle' is because they are now focusing on a 'new' gamepad device which appeals to the whole 16-35 demographic. (And is just a classic controller with a big ass screen jammed on it). Instead they should approach their software ala Pikmin and say "hey...if you like Wii remotes and gaming in that manner...here, use them"

 

And also release Wii sports 2

Edited September 3, 2013 by tapedeck

[Zechs Merquise]

@tapedeck that was literally the greatest post ever!

[Grazza]

I'm sorry, but I've never heard so much shite in my life.

 

You don't read your own posts back?

[Jamba]

Are they losing interest? They sold 100 million consoles.

What separated the Wii from previous consoles was that it was more than just a gaming machine. It was a social gathering. A place where gamers and non-gamers could play together without barriers to entry.

Their inability to recreate the buzz or 'lightning in a bottle' is because they are now focusing on a 'new' gamepad device which appeals to the whole 16-35 demographic. (And is just a classic controller with a big ass screen jammed on it). Instead they should approach their software ala Pikmin and say "hey...if you like Wii remotes and gaming in that manner...here, use them"

 

And also release Wii sports 2

 

If you look at the Wii as the exception to the rule, then yes. Apart from that I totally agree with you, it's like they are completely ignoring what victories they have gained so far.

[Sheikah]

You don't read your own posts back?

 

Was thinking the very same.

 

Best games Nintendo have ever made being on the Wii, indeed. :p

[Fused King]

Hmmmm, talking about the Wii would be talking about motion controls, really.

 

Yet I like how this tiny, little white console with its initial focus on the Wii-remote has produced such a major shift in the industry.

Honestly, terms and concepts that entered the industry because of it were probably:

 

*Casual gamers

*Motion Controls

*Kinect and the PSMove

*'Bridge Titles'

 

and most importantly

 

*What makes a 'hardcore' and what makes a 'casual' gamer

 

 

All in all, that wii (as a subsitute for 'wee' in order to make this post funny:laughing:) little remote-sized controller changed the gaming industry.

 

However I do still wonder whether or not the industry has really 'gained new customers' because of the Wii.

In other words, have there really been people who went from Wii Sports to Mario Kart Wii to Mario Galaxy to Zelda, Donkey Kong, indie games, WiiWare, Smash Bros. Muramasa, New Play Control Pikmin, Endless Ocean, etc....

 

I have my doubts, and I would argue that many a 'casual gamer' is more interested in a PS3/4 or an XBOX because it's a slick piece of a multimedia device whereas the Wii and the WiiU fail to present such a vibe to the general public.

[S.C.G]

Okidokey! As some people are already doing, I wanted to explore and analyse:

a) What about the Wii separated it from what Nintendo have done previously?

b) Why do Nintendo's consoles generally speaking seem to be losing interest over time

c) Explore why Nintendo's inability to recreate the Wii situation is occurring (of which I think there are still a myriad of reasons)

 

I don't want this to be a Wii U bashing thread but more of a "Didn't the Wii do well?" And what can Nintendo take from their previous successes.

 

Thanks for the clarification...

 

a) When the Wii was created Nintendo were clearly moving into not only an innovative area - as is standard for them - but also unproven territory, motion control had never been properly tapped into for use in gaming so this was an exciting time for the company and a rather unnerving one for us as gamers; until we all tried it of course... it was at that point that the difference was clear as this was not just a console made exclusively for existing 'gamers' but it was a console that would broaden the definition of the word as because the playing field was now effectively levelled 'anyone' could be classed as a gamer just by picking up the controller and 'having a go' but it wasn't just that as anyone could do that with Nintendo's previous consoles if they had bothered, with the Wii people actually wanted to try it who had previously had no experience of games... that was a ground-breaking moment.

 

b) People get older, the majority become more cynical towards gaming so they find it 'easier' to just jump on the 'this company is for kids' band-wagon, especially if they have kids themselves... 'oh that's a great console for the kids... but I like to play on my Xbox because the only game I play is COD' ...the reason they will only play this one game is because they resign themselves to the fact that they don't have much time, so they buy a console for one game, if the other console - Nintendo's - doesn't have that particular game or that game presented in the way they expect - the Wii famously got 'gimped' versions of multi-format games - then they aren't going to even consider it; this has only really been an issue since the Wii I feel as all Nintendo consoles before seemed to have a decent level of interest throughout their life-cycles.

 

c) As aforementioned, the Wii was genuinely new but with the Wii U it seems to the general public that it isn't as 'new' as the Wii but this is partly a marketing issue - yes Nintendo is to blame, blah blah etc whatever... this isn't a thread about having a go at the console - essentially they can't gain that same feeling again, at least not in exactly the same way but honestly I've seen first-hand that if you put someone in front of the Wii U who genuinely didn't know that the console even existed and just show them what it can do, in a short space of time they are usually pretty amazed by it all... but because most people are barely aware of the console this amazement isn't reflected in sales.

 

Yes the Wii did very well, there are various franchises that Nintendo can take from that era and carry them over to the Wii U such as Wii Fit U, Wii Party U etc which we have yet to see, but they also have an opportunity now to prove themselves to their original target audience - us - and they are actually doing this... slowly but surely, we've already had a good handful of exclusives games, The Wonderful 101 is a fantastic example of an original IP, we get a HD remake of one of the greatest Nintendo games of all time very soon in Wind Waker HD plus there is much more yet to come which is going to be too amazing to properly fathom right now.

 

Nintendo has the console and the games on the horizon, it just needs to make them shine brightly so that everyone will hopefully get a chance to bask in their glorious sunlight...

 

 

... complete with HD lens-flare of course.

[Kav]

You don't read your own posts back?

 

Was thinking the very same.

 

Best games Nintendo have ever made being on the Wii, indeed. :p

 

He doesn't say the best. He says some of the best and I agree, they've made some fantastic games on the system. Especially the two Galaxy games, they're amongst the best games made by anyone, let alone just Nintendo!

[Sheikah]

To say that though is a bit of a joke. Most of the games Nintendo made for Wii are nowhere near the level of originality and quality of games like Ocarina of Time, Mario 64, Super Metroid, Metroid Prime, Majora's Mask, Super Mario World and Super Smash Brothers/Melee. When these games were first made for their respective consoles, they were ground-breaking.

 

The Wii was a massive disappointment for me. You've rightly mentioned Galaxy, but most of their other big games for the system were either formulaic sequels or had nowhere near the impact that the above games did. If you look at game popularity contests, it's mostly the games I've just mentioned that top the lists, so I know I'm not alone in thinking this.

[Kav]

It's not a bit of a joke though. Some. Not all. I can also agree that a lot that they made aren't up to that level at all, but some definitely are.

 

People agree and disagree dependant on opinions of course, but NSMB Wii was great, Skyward Sword was great (for me it was better than MM, WW and TP) and even though its not content heavy, Wii Sports was absolutely amazing, such fun to play... and it's the amount of fun and enjoyment games give you that's most important!

 

In regards to an impact games have had, sure it'll be difficult for them to have the impact of certain titles. OOT, first 3D Zelda. Mario 64, first 3D Mario... its going to be hard for any games to have the same impact as them!

[Sheikah]

The reason it'll be hard for a new Zelda to have the same impact as OoT is because they are following a tight formula that OoT laid down. That's what Nintendo are doing with most of their franchises these days. So long as they try to deliver roughly the same package, they're not going to be any more impressive. Dungeons and gameplay elements largely play out the same throughout the Zelda games, so why is a new game going to blow people out of the water any more?

 

It's why people remember Resident Evil 4 as a really good game - it was a new concept; they reinvented the series and people really liked it. The same with Metroid Prime - a new concept / delivery that people really liked (not that people didn't like the old format, heh).

 

The thing about Nintendo is that they're not really trying to do that any more. They're content. They have their tightly defined standards and their sequels conform to them.

[Rummy]

For me, personally, I didn't geel Galaxy as much as it seems the masses did - but I can't deny it was a great success.

The Zeldas did disappoint me, compared to others in the series, but they had some good moments.

Brawl I think is the best interation in the Smash series so far, knocked the predecessors right out of the arena for me, something I honestly thought completely impossible. I genuinely expected to be let down by it somehow, but really it never happened. SSB4 has A LOT to achieve.

As for Metroid, I never got round to playing Corruption but I heard many good things from those who did - I wish I could find time to get on it and see how I feel compared to Prime.

 

Then there's two mentions I feel I must make - Xenoblade Chronicles is personally one of the best games I've ever played. I can't quite place why, it seems to succeed on a number of fronts for me and I loved it. I do have yet to finish its main story admittedly, and maybe I will one day, but I can only imagine it just gets better than it already was. Another gem, again unfinished, has to be Little @Fused King's Story - the amount of praise he lauds on it is absolutely deserved - and it's a title I imagine I wouldn't have seen anywhere else back then. I could see it being a PS title now, but back then it felt so apt for Wii. Such a shame they went out of business really

[tapedeck]

[...]

The thing about Nintendo is that they're not really trying to do that any more. They're content. They have their tightly defined standards and their sequels conform to them.

 

Nintendoland and third party deals bringing Lego City and Bayonetta 2 and the W101 say hi.

 

The Wii was a revolution for Nintendo as much as the industry as Ninty were not only pioneering a new control method, they were subsequently releasing titles as they learnt what motion control could and couldn't do. To reflect on just how well Nintendo did, just look at alternative consoles motion control games where you will see a real difference in execution.

 

Furthermore, Nintendo also made huge strides in digital content and their online presence via the Virtual Console and the various channels they released (Everybody Votes etc.)

 

I think they made larger steps and took bigger risks as a company than during the N64 and the Gamecube years.

[Sheikah]

Some of these games being mentioned aren't being made by Nintendo, which was my original point about specifically Nintendo being content. And really, you can't compare their new things like Nintendoland to the quality of games they used to invent.

 

Regarding sequels, they're going to be more polished than their predecessors so from an objective standpoint you could say they're 'better'. But from the perspective of people who have played the previous games in the series, they're just reusing the same strict formulas which we've seen time and time again. It's hard to be wowed when you've seen if all before.

[tapedeck]

And really, you can't compare their new things like Nintendoland to the quality of games they used to invent.

 

Care to explain? Not sure what you mean by this.

 

Regarding sequels, they're going to be more polished than their predecessors so from an objective standpoint you could say they're 'better'. But from the perspective of people who have played the previous games in the series, they're just reusing the same strict formulas which we've seen time and time again. It's hard to be wowed when you've seen if all before.

 

By this logic nothing would improve.

Most of the things we call innovations today are taken from previous ideas.

If we held everything up against its predecessors we'd never appreciate anything! It's like saying "It's music but it's not The Beatles so it's not as good!"

As I said in my Mario Galaxy 2 review for N-E, When Nintendo made that game it was something special in its own right, blowing away perceptions of what a sequel really is:

 

 

Negatives? We struggled to even stop smiling long enough to think critically. Sure there are re-used assets, but the manner in which they are re-used is like recycling a plastic bottle to make a jumbo jet. Make no mistake, this is the greatest platformer of our time, the greatest Wii title ever created and the greatest journey through space since NASA decided to put man on the moon. It is perhaps in this definition then that, ultimately, SMG2 proves to be one small step for gaming yet one giant leap for platformers. Astounding.

[Sheikah]

By this logic nothing would improve.

Most of the things we call innovations today are taken from previous ideas.

If we held everything up against its predecessors we'd never appreciate anything! It's like saying "It's music but it's not The Beatles so it's not as good!"

As I said in my Mario Galaxy 2 review for N-E, When Nintendo made that game it was something special in its own right, blowing away perceptions of what a sequel really is:

 

 

 

There is a big difference between taking inspiration from other ideas to make something still relatively fresh and condensing gameplay down to a formula, and releasing sequel after sequel using said formula.

 

I mean, how can the next Zelda ever truly be regarded as the best Zelda if it follows the same cookie cutter formula? If you have to travel through dungeons collecting small keys, then the boss key, then defeat the boss, then get heart container, then repeat 6 or 7 more times, all the while grabbing the master sword, the bow, the boomerang, etc - it's hardly going to enthrall people. It's safe territory that guarantees them cash, because people will enjoy it, but we've seen and done it all before.

 

What made Smash Bros, Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Resident Evil 4 and Donkey Kong Country so cherished was that they brought us really cool gameplay in a way we hadn't seen before. Sure, it gets harder to do as time passes, but do we really just accept sequel after sequel using the same concept? Shake it up more! Screw little keys and big keys! We have done this all before!

 

I doubt many of you feel the same way, but I'm bored of their conservatism.

[Rummy]

I'm probably with Sheikah it mostly feeling unwowing these days. Tbh, I don't know if that's a facet of aging/growing older, or the less obvious graphical/technical jumps between generations.

 

However as was mentioned, OoT = FIRST 3D zelda. SM64 = FIRST 3D Mario - it was a massive jump to something that felt a bit more real and personal, a 3D game...just like our world! The third dimension! We can only experience that 'once' per universe/series essentially. I don't think it's entirely fair to use those as benchmarks(as I feel the 3D jump helps cement them as classics a lot too). However, we kinda can use titles such as MM, WW etc to then slag TP or SS.

 

I dunno. Maybe we were simply spoilt by being able to 'be there' for the 3D jump, maybe we experienced things that will just simply never be replicated.

 

 

Re: Galaxy 2 which I presume is what you're talking about Tapedeck - I played it a very small bit and then essentially gave up. It totally didn't wow me, it was Galaxy(which mildly wow'd me at first, then made me groan sometimes), but done again. It was stuff I'd seen before. Nothing was revolutionised in its game play or appearance. My saddest experience, and in fact biggest criticism, of all Marios since SM64 is the absolute linearity of them. You can't be trusted to try and do, or discover, things by yourself. That's not even a graphical or dimensional jump issue, it's just...such a waste. All this technology that should lead to a free-er game, a more liberating experience, and it just locks us down a pre-set path. It's just disappointing.

[Happenstance]

This is exactly why I have gotten bored of Nintendo. I have mentioned this before but because their focus tends to be on gameplay rather than story and their gameplay doesnt change all that much, I just feel like I am playing the same games over and over again.

 

I'll always keep an eye on Nintendo stuff to see whats coming and if it would ever interest me enough to get another Wii U but I really doubt it. At least at the moment there has pretty much been nothing shown thats coming out this or next year thats made me regret selling my Wii U.

 

Its obviously not the same for everyone, especially on here where there are obviously still a lot of people who love each new Nintendo experience they have.