Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
Actually, I'd attribute the Wii's success to a combination of the established Nintendo IP fanbases and its appeal to the casual market. People claim it's not a "hardcore gamer" console, but for our definition of "hardcore gamer" (i.e. established, regular gamer) the Wii has a whole bunch of established Nintendo continuation stuff. Its appeal to more casual gamers with its simple, easily accessible games and reasonably user-friendly motion controls have made it a mainstay outside of the established gamer market as well.
Nintendo's handheld dominance is probably, since the introduction of the PSP as the only handheld console to really compete with Nintendo, due to the DS and its variants containing the ability to play games easily with traditional control schemes and dual-screen innovations alike. There's a lot of creative application for a console with two screens, one of which is a touch screen, and it can really help focus an experience. For instance, a lot of DS games use one screen as sort of "narrative feedback" (what happens) with the other screen as mechanical manipulation. This means you can quickly reference what you can do mechanically without pausing the game and looking at an inventory, streamlining the experience a significant deal.
In comparison, the PSP is known for offshoots of popular series, essentially being a PlayStation in handheld format. Whereas Nintendo has stretched their own boundaries by providing new ways to play and make games with both the Wii and DS, Sony has limited themselves by ensuring that the PlayStation and PSP are convergent -- basically, they provide the same thing. While I personally prefer traditional controls for home console games and therefore use my PS3 more often than my Wii, I see no reason why I'd want my PS3 with me around and about when I could use a DS for a unique set of experiences.
Nintendo holds to the successes of their IPs with an iron grip, no doubt, but they've also been technologically and creatively innovative despite that. A huge part of that is providing game developers and designers new ways to interact with audiences, and while I personally hold the WiiMote to be a bit of shaky ground, there's no doubt that the DS has been a massive success on those grounds. With the 3DS, Nintendo-platform handheld gaming probably offers the most diversity compared to any other gaming machine.
After all, Nintendo isn't just about the first party. While a lot of popular third-party games don't see Nintendo releases and haven't since the N64 days, I feel that judging Nintendo on its lack of Call of Duty and Gears of War is a bit short-sighted, because Nintendo gives third-party development studios unique tools to work with, even if the resultant games can only be released on Nintendo consoles. And this is essentially why I believe Nintendo is still the strongest overall game company out there -- not only do they make excellent first-party games, even if they're often repeats, but they give back to the industry as a whole.
"but then they just copy-pasted it with SMG 2 and ruined it."
Eh, I regard it more as an evolution than copy-paste, but explaining will take a while, and it's pointless if you haven't played it anyway.
I think people really need to stop regarding structurally similar games as rehashes just because they're evolutions rather than revolutions, but that deserves its own thread.
Well, I do grant that when it comes to their handhelds, and the DS especially, Nintendo seems to be much more creative than with the Wii. I wouldn't dare call the Wii original though, since as I understand it Nintendo was trying to sell basically the same damn thing back in the '80s/'90s, and it didn't take. I can say that I have nothing but disdain for the massive group of new video game players whose entire palette of games to play consists of Wii Fit, Wii Sports, and various renditions of Mario. Not because I have a problem with things like Wii Fit and Wii Sports existing per se, but because their mindless consumption of that junk has caused the whole industry to shift towards them because lol profit, which causes a negative impact on the quality of the more "serious" games, IMO.
As to popular third-party games, I wouldn't fault them for not having (good) Call of Duty or Gears of War renditions, because really, who the fuck cares about those games? Call of Duty might as well be a Nintendo property anyhow, for how it's just the same damn thing every time. Rather, I'd fault them for not having truly quality games, like Bioshock, Red Dead Redemption, or Mass Effect and Dragon Age. I get that those are more "high-brow" games than what the average Wii-owner (as in, someone who owns only a Wii) would be playing, but again, that's the point: the Wii userbase doesn't give a shit about quality games, and the Wii itself is a weak platform in general when it comes to such games, but because it's a massive money-maker, the industry is shifting towards them anyways.
I'd maintain that there's a difference between "structurally similar" and "copy-pasted." The first three Spyro games were structurally similar, but each was fairly unique and all three were damn fun to play and enjoy. The fourth game and on, however, were copy-pasted, in the sense that they were trying to repeat the success of the original games by attaching gimmicks, rather than focusing on what really made the original games fun to play.
The thing is that games are about mechanics and experiences rather than traditional methods of storytelling. And you never know, these people could very well expand their gaming horizons after a while. No-one here began gaming with a good knowledge of what's out there or the industry. Hell, I started with Donkey Kong, Pokemon and Zelda, and those were everything to me for a few years. Give it time, and if they continue to enjoy gaming, they'll continue to seek out gaming experiences. There's nothing "mindless" about it, but rather it's the natural progression from non-gamer to informed gamer.
I don't know about you, but I find Dragon Age almost unplayable today because of its boring, grating first few hours. Mass Effect, while good, had a lot of its systemic clunkiness removed in the sequels for good reason. Red Dead Redemption is pretty much a great game on all grounds. BioShock told a good story, but in terms of mechanics, we had been there before many, many times, given that it was essentially a corridor shooter.
The thing is that the industry, and all industries, always gravitate towards where the money is and always have. It's only recently that Nintendo made a huge push to market themselves to non-gamers and it really paid off. If Microsoft or Sony thought they knew how without too much risk, then they would have done exactly the same thing. And now they are, in fact, with the Kinect and Move, which are sort of endearing in their desperation to get in on the action (especially the Kinect, which is essentially a more advanced if less reliable version of the old Sony EyeToy).
What it ultimately comes down to is that a game is a medium for an experience. Nintendo understand this better than any other major company out there, so they make a variety of games for a variety of audiences. Hell, Sony isn't even a developer in its own right, and when was the last time Microsoft itself made a game? Sony and Microsoft are electronics companies that make consoles; Nintendo is a company that develops and publishes its own games while also developing its own hardware. And I think this is why they're at the top today. Of the big three, they're the only company that is really dedicated to games, where gaming is their entire industry. They've been doing it since they were a playing card company before the rise of video games, whereas Sony and Microsoft have other concerns.
I don't think it's any good looking down on particular people or audiences for the games they play, at least not in general terms. Sure, the mass of military shooters is annoying and that's enabled by consumers that want hypermasculine military fantasies, but the threat to the industry right now is stagnation and loss of creativity. Whatever the solution might be, Nintendo is probably part of it, because they provide developers, first-party and third-party alike, with new tools with which to develop games and a flexibility of audience that allows those games to find a market.
We have to be more accepting of those whose tastes don't line up with our own, or those who haven't had the opportunity to experience the diversity of games we have. Gaming has to be inclusive, because that's how the industry becomes stronger.
"We have to be more accepting of those whose tastes don't line up with our own, or those who haven't had the opportunity to experience the diversity of games we have."
Or hell, people with interests beyond video games. Most of the people who only play iPhone games and Wii Sports and such have other things to do and thus aren't well invested in gaming. On that note, games would seem a lot more attractive if they didn't cost $60 CDN and 30+ hours of investment.
Also, Wii Sports Resort isn't as shallow as it seems. There's a fair bit of technique involved to get good scores, even though supposedly golf is done better by Tiger Woods PGA Tour.
My issue with it is not that I think they will all be mindless Wii Sports players forever, but rather that while they are the industry panders to them and overall quality suffers as a result.
Dragon Age is indeed a rather clunky game; I suppose at a certain point the D&D system simply doesn't perform well in a large-scale video game when compared to how it works on table-top. Mass Effect was much better in this regard, even if the first has an irritatingly and needlessly complex inventory and level-up system that is poorly organized. As for Bioshock, no, it was not original at all in terms of straight mechanics, but I think the level design more than made up for it. You'd be a liar if you said the first sequence with the plane and spider slicer wasn't one of the best (and scariest) opening video game levels of the decade.
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. God forbid we attract the so-called "casual" audience with a game that truly everyone, casual or serious, can enjoy (like, say, an old-school Crash Bandicoot game). Let's just release a gimmick to copy Nintendo!
Again, as I said, it doesn't bother me that 40-somethings who never played video games before now want to use a Wii Fit board. It bothers me that the industry decides that the profitability of this means that they can stop making really good games for who want more and instead release mindless clones of Wii Fit and Wii Sports to try and capture more and more of that market. And as you said, Microsoft and Sony are doing the same thing, but in the opposite direction, hoping to capture more of the disillusioned serious market with another mindless Russia-as-the-boogeyman Tom Clancy-esque first-person shooter. It's annoying, and the whole industry seems to have hit a rut ever since the Wii entered and the only thing that Microsoft and Sony could to do compete was to follow the leader.
I don't think you can claim truly everyone would enjoy an old-school Crash Bandicoot game.
One of the things about games like Wii Sports and them is that they are very accessible. You don't need to have any prior knowledge of anything, there's no weight of a franchise behind the title. You don't need to sink significant amounts of time into it, although you can. You don't need to have too much skill to advance in the game, but working on your skill does have significant benefits.
But mostly, they're popular because they're games which offer you some degree of actual physical activity, they are very easy to access and play, and they're pretty darned easy to play in multiplayer, too.
They're not going to create new frontiers in gaming any time soon, but they're great games for what they are; fun little diversions for people to have fun with.
^^ The thing is that you're ignoring the part publishers play in this. Publishers are the ones who greenlight games because they've got the cash, and Nintendo have the benefit of being a development company, publishing company and game console company all in one. They have responsibility to no-one but the consumer. This is a company where the people who make the shots on what games do and do not get made are often the same people with a lot of experience making games themselves. They're by no means beyond reproach, but I'm willing to be more forgiving of them for that reason alone.
On the other hand, dedicated publishers are huge fans of copypasting games because they want imitations on what works, so they can ride the wave of profits and invest the money gained to make more profits again. This is really the root of the issue; publishers are not willing to expand their horizons. Consumers contribute to this, but most consumers will buy what's advertised and while they bear some of the responsibility for that, we can't expect people without much investment in gaming as an art to do a whole lot of research on the matter. Publishers, on the other hand, have the money and power to make better, more varied games and give them the advertising support they need to become successful. Series like Call of Duty have become a feedback loop, where they gain initial popularity naturally, but then their industry dominance ensures that they're repeated, advertised, bought again by the mainstream audience and so on and so forth. A publisher has the power to break this chain, but they don't because they're not interested in making good games -- they're interested in cash.
The nature of AAA gaming is that publishers control pretty much every project that needs a large budget. What the publisher says goes, and that means only games they perceive to be profitable will get greenlit. Other projects will be denied or otherwise altered until it's acceptable to them. This, moreso than consumers, is what I see to be the root of the problem. Publishers aren't gamers, and they don't understand the value of new mechanics or creative ideas. They see it as an equation. Give them an idea, and you'll probably be asked, "Why? Military shooters are really successful. Can you make a military shooter?" and they won't understand why you don't want to make one.
This is the unfortunate compromise of high-profile, mass consumed art under a capitalist system. And sure, consumers could do their part by buying different games or whatever, but consumers can be trusted to buy what they reliably know gives them the experience they're after. Most people have a limited amount of money to spend, and they don't want to spend it on stuff they won't or might not enjoy. A publisher, on the other hand, might have a huge potential hit on their hands and deny the project because it doesn't fit the projections of a game from another genre. Essentially, publishers can count the beans, but they don't really understand games or what makes a game a hit. Demon's Souls was rejected by Sony, for instance, so it had to find another publisher -- and then it became a hit, and its sequel was even more successful.
Publishers are supposed to be industry professionals, but they're doing more damage than good at the moment. Consumers can't be expected to hold professional knowledge or opinions, because a game consumer could be a long-time gamer, a casual, a first-time gamer or a parent buying a game for their child. The responsibility for change can't lie entirely there, but if publishers changed the way they did things, it could make a whole world of difference to the industry as a whole. If nothing else, a greater variance in AAA titles would mean that consumers would naturally gravitate towards buying a greater diversity of games.
"They're not going to create new frontiers in gaming any time soon, but they're great games for what they are; fun little diversions for people to have fun with."
And really, isn't that the point of video games in general? I always thought fun was the fundamental goal of video games, though maybe that's just a dated attitude.
More or less. I'd rather define it as the overall "experience", but "fun" is certainly a legitimate experience. If a game succeeds at being solid fun, well, that's a solid experience as well -- case closed.
Wow, and I could have sworn that games that weren't Wii Sports clones had come out since the Wii was released. Guess I was mistaken.
Confirmation bias is a powerful force. Why do people care about games they wouldn't give a second glance at anyway?
I always thought so, but apparently not.
Great, now I want to go back and play the old PS1 Crash Bandicoot games.
We named our dog Crash after them.
My only criticism of the "games are supposed to be fun" perspective (and ergo why I'd rather use the similar-but-slightly-different "games are supposed to be engaging experiences" one) is that some games are actually built on not being fun. Horror games spring to mind, because they're meant to make you feel uneasy and pressured. Not very fun, but certainly very strong experiences.
Something like Wii Sports and Silent Hill might be equally engaging, interesting and valid experiences, but one is those things because it's fun and the other is those things because of its intensity and atmosphere. Just for one example.
Some people do find horror fun though.
Others don't, but still play horror games because they're such interesting experiences, though. I'd be one example of that. I would certainly agree that fun is the driving factor in the majority of games, mind, just not absolutely always.
I like Charizard.
Fun is pretty ambiguous and in this case, experience would be more accurate. I just dislike it when people act so dismissive of any kind of game, especially since one of the joys of video gaming is the variety.
True that.
Little late to the party but:
You're acting like this is a new thing. This sort of phenomenon has been going on since licensed games have existed. Video games have always tried to appeal to the mainstream like this, whether it was through licensed games of popular movies, Madden , or whatever. And it's always produced lots of shovelware. The only difference this generation is that it managed to stick, and even that's partly because of cultural attitudes towards gaming have changed in general.
I think that's a pretty damn important difference, you know.
As to the role of publishers, I concede that point Madass, they are important fucks too. And yes, I'm probably falling victim to confirmation bias here, so, as I've said my piece on the matter, I'll stop derailing the thread.
One question I always had about Pokemon was why they had a whole type for Dragon pokemon, but there doesn't seem to be that many of that type. I mean, granted, I haven't been keeping up on the new pokemon at all, but those that I know don't seem to contain very many.
Because they're supposed to be special and important.
Now I'm reminded of how great it was back in the day when Dragon was obviously a powerful attacking type, but was balanced out by the moves not being very good. Someone at Game Freak obviously forgot about the importance of that kind of balance.
Honestly, the forced coolness of Dragons annoys me a lot.
Edit: I can haz be Ninja'd?
???
Swablu into Altaria
Trapinch into Flygon
Although I think he should be dragon/bug
Flygon should be Flying/Dragon because of its name. Not that I know what Flygon is, but if it is a different typing or there is a typing that should be a better fit for it or whatever it should get a better name or something... >.>