Molyneux: "Wii U is good, not great. Next gen must do much better than this

  • 197 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]...they make underpowered consoles geared towards the casual masses... ...NSMB as a launch game? Really?El_Zo1212o
That first claim is exactly why I keep hammering home titles like Assassin's Creed, Batman: Arkham and Ninja Gaiden. Was it true of the Wii? Absolutely. Is it true of the Wii U? Absolutely not. And when was the last time an original Super Mario game was a launch title on a Nintendo system? N64, I believe.

But the only reason that those ports even exist is because currently, the Wii U is comparable in terms of power. Nintendo has finally reached 2006 in terms of technology.

What happens when the true next gen tech arrives and once again Nintendo's hardware is far too archaic to run contemporary multiplatform games?

Then the Wii U really does become the Wii 2.

#52 Posted by Shame-usBlackley (18266 posts) -

interesting or game changing as the wiimote.dvader654

Sorry, but the wiimote wasn't game changing. It had about five novel uses that were recycled over and over and the rest was imprecise filler. Not to mention that it flat did not work with some genres. I don't know how you can say it was game changing, honestly. I remember hearing all these developers and publishers talk about all these great ideas they had for it and none of them ever materialized. I feel like people who pushed the alternate control scheme with the Wii were just sort of full of shlt -- they talk a big game, but when it's time to deliver something substantive, they're nowhere to be found.

If it was game changing, its absence in the market would be felt in some appreciable way, but it isn't. Publishers aren't putting out anything but the same tired cash-in ideas that they stole from Nintendo when the thing launched. No grand ideas of design are being hatched on it, it's not some bastion of creativity like it was promised to be. Despite its immense userbase, software for it never turns up in the top ten unless it's some shltty dance game. Nobody fvcking cares that the Wii is dead, dude. Sorry, but that's the truth.

#53 Posted by whiskeystrike (12068 posts) -

I've generally thought the same thing about the Wii U. Demoed Rayman Legends and that was pretty sweet but it's unreasonable to expect most multiplatform games to get that level of attention to the tablet.

Also, Watch Dogs is rumored to be on a next gen system that is not the Wii U... really hope it's true, the game looked phenomenal at E3. If not then I'll always have the PC.

#54 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6005 posts) -

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"][QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]...they make underpowered consoles geared towards the casual masses... ...NSMB as a launch game? Really?Grammaton-Cleric

That first claim is exactly why I keep hammering home titles like Assassin's Creed, Batman: Arkham and Ninja Gaiden. Was it true of the Wii? Absolutely. Is it true of the Wii U? Absolutely not. And when was the last time an original Super Mario game was a launch title on a Nintendo system? N64, I believe.

But the only reason that those ports even exist is because currently, the Wii U is comparable in terms of power. Nintendo has finally reached 2006 in terms of technology.

What happens when the true next gen tech arrives and once again Nintendo's hardware is far too archaic to run contemporary multiplatform games?

Then the Wii U really does become the Wii 2.

It isn't necessarily about getting multiplats. It's about the quality of the titles themselves. We're not looking at the same 75-25 split between shovelware and core titles- y'know, the odd Red Steel 2 and Madworld vs hundreds of Carnival Games and Hanna Montana titles. Whether or not the Wii U gets nextbox/PS4 multiplats, the launch window lineup gives me hope that we'll see a higher concentration of more serious titles on the Wii U then we saw on the Wii. That's why I say it won't be a Wii 2.
#55 Posted by yellosnolvr (19302 posts) -

I'm not very enthusiastic about Peter Molyneux

Jbul
ditto
#56 Posted by ShadowMoses900 (17081 posts) -

I don't care about Molyneux's opinion. His Fable games are overrated and are not worth a full price purchase.

The only problem I see with Wii U is that it will become a last gen system again, the Wii was a last gen system, next Xbox and PS4 come out and the Wii U becomes obsolete in tech once again.

Contrary to what some say, next gen does not start with the release of a new system in my eyes. There has to be a jump in tech, otherwise someone could release a system with the specs of a N64 and you would call it next gen as well? Didn't think so.

#57 Posted by o0squishy0o (2754 posts) -

[QUOTE="o0squishy0o"][QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

Setting aside the fact that I agree with the man entirely, those of you slandering him should consider his entire body of work before dismissing him outright; works that are substantial and undeniably influential to this medium as a whole.

A selective list of games he has worked on includes:

- Populous

- Syndicate

- Theme Park

- Dungeon Keeper

- Black and White

The worst thing I can say about a man like Molyneux is that his ambitions do not always come to fruition within the final products he delivers to the consumer. However, he is a visionary and those games listed (and others) prove his resume and subsequently his opinion should not be taken lightly.

And really, what is so fantastic about the Wii U? Currently it is an exercise in redundancy with one of the most lackluster launches in recent memory. The tablet is nothing more than an extrapolation of a current fad applied to the construct of a home console. That isn't innovation so much as the aping of a widespread consumer trend.

MarkAndExecute

Some... all of those games must be the closer side of 20 years old then 10. In a industry that is constantly moving, can you take someones ability of creating a game back then and comparing it to someone today. No, because the development is vastly different. Sure he was good by relative standards back then but his latest efforts including Fable games are horrible. You can not hold on to past achievements in gaming to say that somone is still great. The reason why people dislike him is because he has a big mouth and doesnt produce anything. How can anyone like someone who shouts their opinion on a subject matter that they are seemingly out of touch with.

That's fallacious reasoning. When you're discrediting someone's opinion based upon their track record, you arepoisoning the wells, as that is an attack on the person rather than the argument he's making. Also, its rather ironic that you would dismiss his ideas as archaic when the Wii U lacks multitouch capability as well as optical audio, bears a low-res screen, and basically uses the same Broadway design as the Wii.;)

Thankyou for linking that phrase as I have never heard of it before :P. So with that, I guess you do not believe in hypocrisy? I could say "today I love lemons" tomorrow I will say "I really hate lemons", now with not taking in my past you would assume that I hate lemons, and always have. I know its a very basic example however I feel it backs my point to a degree. I know you can not always take in someones ability to discount their opinion, for example you dont need to be a football player to give good reasoning why someone may be the best footballer, however with this he is making direct comparisons to something he is involved in, so a football player who used to be great but is now appearing to be falling behind is still giving his opinion out in a sometimes very heavy handed approach, you can't take him all that seriously. Again its not a great example because we are dealing with a situation in which the industry is constantly moving and evolving. The guy used to make apperently, great games. However the most recent games of his that I have come across has been awful. So how does it look when someone who is actively involved in the argument they are discussing are not great at it themselves. Its sort of like (brace for another poor but relevant example) would you rather listen to a teacher who knows that they are talking about who are getting great results and give awesome lessons, or a teacher who used to be highly praised but now is falling behind and appears to be slightly away with the fairies with regards to his own self importance. With regards to the Wii U having all of this "poor" stuff, its incredibly relative. Sure its screen may not be great to some tablets etc but then when have game consoles really been about out'n'out power and performance? Sony tried it this gen and failed massively. We should see Nintendo as 2 different companies, one who makes the hardware and one who makes the games. The one who makes the hardware, we take a business approach (atleast imo) to it, there is nothing really subjective about hardware, its either good or bad, after that comes sales which shows if it has been a good success or not. You cant say that the wii was a poor console because it did incredibly well, however the games I think you can say were not so good because they are far more subjective. Oh I never said his games were archaic, I would say his success is archaic though, the list you give is of games that are incredibly old. They were great when they came out but his new games are not holding up now. How you can say someone is good at what they do now just because they used to be good is beyond me. He has a good history but thats about it.
#58 Posted by o0squishy0o (2754 posts) -

[QUOTE="o0squishy0o"]

Some... all of those games must be the closer side of 20 years old then 10. In a industry that is constantly moving, can you take someones ability of creating a game back then and comparing it to someone today. No, because the development is vastly different. Sure he was good by relative standards back then but his latest efforts including Fable games are horrible. You can not hold on to past achievements in gaming to say that somone is still great. The reason why people dislike him is because he has a big mouth and doesnt produce anything. How can anyone like someone who shouts their opinion on a subject matter that they are seemingly out of touch with.

Grammaton-Cleric

So let's apply your philosophy to the issue at hand: Nintendo.

Nintendo was great but now they make underpowered consoles geared towards the casual masses and predicated on trendy gimmicks and technology while shamelessly recycling franchise entries. (NSMB as a launch game? Really?)

So I'll happily fling Mr. Molyneux aside if you and others will admit Nintendo's past accomplishments do not shield or absolve them from the rampant criticisms of mediocrity that have been rightfully levied at each and every one of their consoles post-SNES.

You don't think Molyneux is relevant anymore?

Fair enough but I can just as easily claim (and support) that same conclusion about Nintendo.

Thats exactly what I am saying. If you are not very good now, why can you still be considered good just because of a past history. Its like saying "sega is still a world leading games company" just because they had success with the old games consoles. I do not see why its hard to accept that what companies put out, lets say 3 years as development takes around that long between 2 games, that if their games are poor, you can not say they are poor. I wouldnt say Valve was amazing if they produced horrible games in the next 5 years. I would say that they have fallen back and need shaking up. I would say Nintendo is still relevant, but the Wii U could prove that they are soon to become irellevant. Its stupid to say "omgs the wii u is fail" when it hasnt come out yet. Alot of us thought that (again on the playstation again) that it was going to be huge, it was going to have incredible games and would wipe the floor with the xbox 360, and I was hugely dissapointed as the sales have shown. Maybe people are to emotionally attached to games systems and so it hurts them to say "you know what, this console just isnt very good", or "he just can not make good games anymore".

#59 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

It isn't necessarily about getting multiplats. It's about the quality of the titles themselves. We're not looking at the same 75-25 split between shovelware and core titles- y'know, the odd Red Steel 2 and Madworld vs hundreds of Carnival Games and Hanna Montana titles. Whether or not the Wii U gets nextbox/PS4 multiplats, the launch window lineup gives me hope that we'll see a higher concentration of more serious titles on the Wii U then we saw on the Wii. That's why I say it won't be a Wii 2.

El_Zo1212o

But those serious titles you speak of can only be facilitated by third party developers.

Nintendo will make Nintendo games and keep certain key franchises going but the rest will fall on the shoulders of outside game makers.

Once the next wave of consoles arrives, the Wii U will become a true dinosaur, lumbering around without the ability to run next gen games. That alone will alienate many of the same developers who ignored the Wii for the same reason, resulting once again in a dearth of software.

The Wii was the best-selling console of this generation and yet many of the best developers ignored it because it was essentially running tech one generation behind. The Wii U is looking to repeat the situation thus I expect the same results.

#60 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6005 posts) -

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"]

It isn't necessarily about getting multiplats. It's about the quality of the titles themselves. We're not looking at the same 75-25 split between shovelware and core titles- y'know, the odd Red Steel 2 and Madworld vs hundreds of Carnival Games and Hanna Montana titles. Whether or not the Wii U gets nextbox/PS4 multiplats, the launch window lineup gives me hope that we'll see a higher concentration of more serious titles on the Wii U then we saw on the Wii. That's why I say it won't be a Wii 2.

Grammaton-Cleric

But those serious titles you speak of can only be facilitated by third party developers.

Nintendo will make Nintendo games and keep certain key franchises going but the rest will fall on the shoulders of outside game makers.

Once the next wave of consoles arrives, the Wii U will become a true dinosaur, lumbering around without the ability to run next gen games. That alone will alienate many of the same developers who ignored the Wii for the same reason, resulting once again in a dearth of software.

The Wii was the best-selling console of this generation and yet many of the best developers ignored it because it was essentially running tech one generation behind. The Wii U is looking to repeat the situation thus I expect the same results.

[/QUOTE I disagree- the tech gap was only part of the problem. I think the reason the Wii was left to rot in the sun by the third parties was a combination of the tech gap and an input device that was so far removed from anything standard that it was just not worthwhile to bother making the graphically inferior ports for the odd few who owned a pro controller. The Wii U gamepad is a standard game controller- two sticks, 4 triggers and 4 face buttons- but with a touchscreen on it. Controlwise, it will be able to handle anything the next gen can come up with, and that will be why is isn't going to be rendered completely obsolete when the nextbox/PS4 hits. I still wonder what you think about whether or not the "true" next gen systems will be able to run a game like the one I described in the link I posted near the top of this page.
#61 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

I disagree- the tech gap was only part of the problem. I think the reason the Wii was left to rot in the sun by the third parties was a combination of the tech gap and an input device that was so far removed from anything standard that it was just not worthwhile to bother making the graphically inferior ports for the odd few who owned a pro controller. The Wii U gamepad is a standard game controller- two sticks, 4 triggers and 4 face buttons- but with a touchscreen on it. Controlwise, it will be able to handle anything the next gen can come up with, and that will be why is isn't going to be rendered completely obsolete when the nextbox/PS4 hits. I still wonder what you think about whether or not the "true" next gen systems will be able to run a game like the one I described in the link I posted near the top of this page. El_Zo1212o

Waggle didn't help to be certain but you must understand that most of the top tier developers want and expect a certain level of processing power with each new generation. It's not merely a matter of games being pretty either; processing power facilitates better frame rates, superior physics, improved draw distances, etc.

And truthfully, we have no idea what the final specs of the new consoles will be but based on the demos for games like Star Wars 1313, Watchdogs, and the Unreal 4 engine demonstration, we can speculate that once again we should enjoy a fairly big leap in graphical fidelity, even is said fidelity is more about minutia and detail than broad strokes.

I think the Wii U will enjoy a solid two years of reasonable third party support and then, as it has been with previous Nintendo systems, that support will wither as the more ambitious software starts taxing the new hardware and leaves the console behind. I don't think the Wii U will be able to offer scaled-down ports of Unreal 4 games or most next gen titles and that fact alone will greatly impede the flow of software.

I could be wrong but currently, the historical precedents are well-established and Nintendo is making many of the same questionable decisions with the Wii U as they did with its predecessor.

#62 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -
[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"]

It isn't necessarily about getting multiplats. It's about the quality of the titles themselves. We're not looking at the same 75-25 split between shovelware and core titles- y'know, the odd Red Steel 2 and Madworld vs hundreds of Carnival Games and Hanna Montana titles. Whether or not the Wii U gets nextbox/PS4 multiplats, the launch window lineup gives me hope that we'll see a higher concentration of more serious titles on the Wii U then we saw on the Wii. That's why I say it won't be a Wii 2.

El_Zo1212o

But those serious titles you speak of can only be facilitated by third party developers.

Nintendo will make Nintendo games and keep certain key franchises going but the rest will fall on the shoulders of outside game makers.

Once the next wave of consoles arrives, the Wii U will become a true dinosaur, lumbering around without the ability to run next gen games. That alone will alienate many of the same developers who ignored the Wii for the same reason, resulting once again in a dearth of software.

The Wii was the best-selling console of this generation and yet many of the best developers ignored it because it was essentially running tech one generation behind. The Wii U is looking to repeat the situation thus I expect the same results.

I disagree- the tech gap was only part of the problem. I think the reason the Wii was left to rot in the sun by the third parties was a combination of the tech gap and an input device that was so far removed from anything standard that it was just not worthwhile to bother making the graphically inferior ports for the odd few who owned a pro controller. The Wii U gamepad is a standard game controller- two sticks, 4 triggers and 4 face buttons- but with a touchscreen on it. Controlwise, it will be able to handle anything the next gen can come up with, and that will be why is isn't going to be rendered completely obsolete when the nextbox/PS4 hits. I still wonder what you think about whether or not the "true" next gen systems will be able to run a game like the one I described in the link I posted near the top of this page.

Poor sales of games outside of a tiny handful of franchises on Nintendo consoles have a lot to do with their poor third party support. Its worth keeping in mind 3rd party support for the technologically inferior Wii with its unconventional controller didn't look much different than third party support for the technologically competitive Gamecube with its conventional controller.
#63 Posted by Shinobishyguy (22375 posts) -

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"] I disagree- the tech gap was only part of the problem. I think the reason the Wii was left to rot in the sun by the third parties was a combination of the tech gap and an input device that was so far removed from anything standard that it was just not worthwhile to bother making the graphically inferior ports for the odd few who owned a pro controller. The Wii U gamepad is a standard game controller- two sticks, 4 triggers and 4 face buttons- but with a touchscreen on it. Controlwise, it will be able to handle anything the next gen can come up with, and that will be why is isn't going to be rendered completely obsolete when the nextbox/PS4 hits. I still wonder what you think about whether or not the "true" next gen systems will be able to run a game like the one I described in the link I posted near the top of this page. Grammaton-Cleric
Waggle didn't help to be certain but you must understand that most of the top tier developers want and expect a certain level of processing power with each new generation. It's not merely a matter of games being pretty either; processing power facilitates better frame rates, superior physics, improved draw distances, etc.And truthfully, we have no idea what the final specs of the new consoles will be but based on the demos for games like Star Wars 1313, Watchdogs, and the Unreal 4 engine demonstration, we can speculate that once again we should enjoy a fairly big leap in graphical fidelity, even is said fidelity is more about minutia and detail than broad strokes.I think the Wii U will enjoy a solid two years of reasonable third party support and then, as it has been with previous Nintendo systems, that support will wither as the more ambitious software starts taxing the new hardware and leaves the console behind. I don't think the Wii U will be able to offer scaled-down ports of Unreal 4 games or most next gen titles and that fact alone will greatly impede the flow of software.I could be wrong but currently, the historical precedents are well-established and Nintendo is making many of the same questionable decisions with the Wii U as they did with its predecessor.

Isn't unreal 4 very scalable? I remember hearing that even mobile phones and ipads can run it in some way or another.

#64 Posted by UpInFlames (13279 posts) -

Third parties have been avoiding Nintendo machines post-SNES, regardless of the tech, control schemes or whatever. It's simply because the only ones who can make any money on the damn thing is Nintendo. That's all the consumer base ever buys. Is this really not common knowledge by now? Whoever expects third party support on the Wii U is just way off the mark.

#65 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

Isn't unreal 4 very scalable? I remember hearing that even mobile phones and ipads can run it in some way or another.

Shinobishyguy

I think you may be referring to Unreal Engine 3.

But even assuming it can be scaled, that would be some gimped port.

We'll see.

#66 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

[QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"]

Isn't unreal 4 very scalable? I remember hearing that even mobile phones and ipads can run it in some way or another.

Grammaton-Cleric

I think you may be referring to Unreal Engine 3.

But even assuming it can be scaled, that would be some gimped port.

We'll see.

UE4 is VERY scalable. Apparently it's designed with DX11 GPUs in mind with over 1 Tera flops of GPU processing power. My PC GPU from 2010 has 1.5 Tflops so therecommend requirements arent all that.

That said, since the Wii U GPU is only around 0.5 TFlops, Epic implied that it will only get gimped ports with most of the DX11 features disabled.

#67 Posted by donalbane (16182 posts) -
I can't remember the last time I was less excited about a new console. I just don't see the benefit of playing games on a console filled with last-gen innards. I got the Wii and regreted it, so I may not ever get a Wii U. MAYBE if they have a must-play exclusive. Pikmin just isn't doing it for me.
#68 Posted by MarkAndExecute (96 posts) -

[QUOTE="MarkAndExecute"]

[QUOTE="o0squishy0o"] Some... all of those games must be the closer side of 20 years old then 10. In a industry that is constantly moving, can you take someones ability of creating a game back then and comparing it to someone today. No, because the development is vastly different. Sure he was good by relative standards back then but his latest efforts including Fable games are horrible. You can not hold on to past achievements in gaming to say that somone is still great. The reason why people dislike him is because he has a big mouth and doesnt produce anything. How can anyone like someone who shouts their opinion on a subject matter that they are seemingly out of touch with. o0squishy0o

That's fallacious reasoning. When you're discrediting someone's opinion based upon their track record, you arepoisoning the wells, as that is an attack on the person rather than the argument he's making. Also, its rather ironic that you would dismiss his ideas as archaic when the Wii U lacks multitouch capability as well as optical audio, bears a low-res screen, and basically uses the same Broadway design as the Wii.;)

Thankyou for linking that phrase as I have never heard of it before :P. So with that, I guess you do not believe in hypocrisy? I could say "today I love lemons" tomorrow I will say "I really hate lemons", now with not taking in my past you would assume that I hate lemons, and always have. I know its a very basic example however I feel it backs my point to a degree. I know you can not always take in someones ability to discount their opinion, for example you dont need to be a football player to give good reasoning why someone may be the best footballer, however with this he is making direct comparisons to something he is involved in, so a football player who used to be great but is now appearing to be falling behind is still giving his opinion out in a sometimes very heavy handed approach, you can't take him all that seriously. Again its not a great example because we are dealing with a situation in which the industry is constantly moving and evolving. The guy used to make apperently, great games. However the most recent games of his that I have come across has been awful. So how does it look when someone who is actively involved in the argument they are discussing are not great at it themselves. Its sort of like (brace for another poor but relevant example) would you rather listen to a teacher who knows that they are talking about who are getting great results and give awesome lessons, or a teacher who used to be highly praised but now is falling behind and appears to be slightly away with the fairies with regards to his own self importance. With regards to the Wii U having all of this "poor" stuff, its incredibly relative. Sure its screen may not be great to some tablets etc but then when have game consoles really been about out'n'out power and performance? Sony tried it this gen and failed massively. We should see Nintendo as 2 different companies, one who makes the hardware and one who makes the games. The one who makes the hardware, we take a business approach (atleast imo) to it, there is nothing really subjective about hardware, its either good or bad, after that comes sales which shows if it has been a good success or not. You cant say that the wii was a poor console because it did incredibly well, however the games I think you can say were not so good because they are far more subjective. Oh I never said his games were archaic, I would say his success is archaic though, the list you give is of games that are incredibly old. They were great when they came out but his new games are not holding up now. How you can say someone is good at what they do now just because they used to be good is beyond me. He has a good history but thats about it.

Well let me ask you a question then, can you design a better game than Molyneux? What makes you think you're any more credible to make an opinion about his work anymore than he can with regards to Nintendo?

Also, your argument makes no sense. First off, his critique is on the Wii U's tech itself, and you're saying his opinion should be discounted because he's not great at it....great at what? Is this about who can make better hardware or who can make better games? Because he's certainly not criticizing Nintendo's expertise in designing games. Basically you're bungling an argument into something that its not. Secondly, I know its much easier to slander the person rather than try to think of any good merits the Wii U might have, but quite frankly that's pretty weak and it reeks of intellectual cowardice.

As for Sony failing miserably, well I don't see how selling over 70 million PS3s/PSPs constitutes as a failure. Sure, they may not have sold as much overall compared to Nintendo but at least they've established a niche where they can coexist with their competition and still be able to deliver compelling content. On the contrary, I would argue that Nintendo failed, specifically with regards to the Wii, in trying to convert the non-gamer/casual crowd into gamers and establishing motion control as the industry standard. I mean, what good is selling a bunch of systems when the majority of your target demographic hardly buys anything outside of Wii Sports and a handful of Nintendo games? Not to mention its been 6 years since the Wii got released and we still haven't seen a 3rd party developer make something inventive or creative out of the motion control.

#69 Posted by MirkoS77 (7018 posts) -
I think I'm about done with Nintendo. They seem so stuck in the past. Every Nintendo I've bought since the N64 has been for games I could count on one hand. Not worth it anymore. Hell, why do they need better hardware when they insist on making the same games over and over with minimal improvements anyway? Nintendo never seems to be truly moving forward. Only introducing gimmicks that third parties never really utilize to its fullest and only Nintendo does.
#70 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -

Third parties have been avoiding Nintendo machines post-SNES, regardless of the tech, control schemes or whatever. It's simply because the only ones who can make any money on the damn thing is Nintendo. That's all the consumer base ever buys. Is this really not common knowledge by now? Whoever expects third party support on the Wii U is just way off the mark.

UpInFlames
Nintendo snubbed third-party developers intentionally in order to protect their own Wii titles from competition. It doesn't bode well for the Wii U if they're still locked into that mindset. Considering that the Wii U is region locked, as opposed to letting game developers decide if they want to lock their games or not, I'd say that Nintendo is still governed by typical short-sighted Japanese management philosophy. I suppose they'll be following Sharp, Panasonic and Sony over the cliff, all the while wondering why the ground wasn't following their feet.
#71 Posted by juradai (2783 posts) -

I agree with Molyneux. The WiiU is good but not great, which makes me wonder why they created it in the first place. Say what you will about the Wii, it at least had some degree of separation from previous traditional console offerings that made it worth a purchase even only as a secondary household unit. With the WiiU, I'm left scratching my head as to what this console offers that the others don't. Sure, the tablet is interesting but I'm not impressed.

Nintendo is using hardware to replace software in order to immerse the user, again. I think that's where my confusion comes in to play. Such an innovative game company that has created solid classics that will live on for centuries and they continue to rely on physical peripherals to enhance the experience of the user and expect other developers to develop on that, again.It doesn't seem that it's about the games but about the tablet.Nintendo has set up a platform that forces developers to design their projects with an emphasis on the peripherals. I don't buy consoles to play with the peripherals I buy them to play the games.

Now don't get me wrong, I like the WiiU. I just don't like it enough to spend $299-$349 for it. In fact, I just don't see enough of a leap in technology and ,more importantly, games to justify a purchase until it hits the $199 range. By that time, the next generation of Sony and Microsoft's consoles will be out. For a company that had declared they wanted to get back the "hardocre" demographic they surely decided to scale back on the features that make us froth at the mouth and added features that we are, at best, indifferent about.

I'm an enthusiast of this medium for the games only and while the WiiU does offer something slightly different I only know that it will end up collecting dust after a month waiting on the next "hardcore-non-casual" game title just like my Wii.



By the way, Grasshopper Manufacture, if you are reading this please stop developing games on Nintendo's home consoles. It's a waste of time. Truth be told... I'm the only one that buys them.

#72 Posted by RandoIph (2041 posts) -

I'm not very enthusiastic about Peter Molyneux

Jbul
I'm sure he is a good guy, but as a game designer, he has been sh*tting one digital abortion after another lately. He's all talk no walk, just like David Jaffee, who hasn't been involved in the creation of a noteworthy game since the first God of War, a game which Corey Balrog proceeded to make look like sh*t in comparison with every subsequent game.
#73 Posted by RandoIph (2041 posts) -
I'd say that Nintendo is still governed by typical short-sighted Japanese management philosophy. I suppose they'll be following Sharp, Panasonic and Sony over the cliff, all the while wondering why the ground wasn't following their feet.capaho
I'm sure I read the same criticisms and predictions when the DS came out, and the Wii, as well as the 3DS. Meanwhile, Nintendo just keeps winning.
#74 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

[QUOTE="capaho"]I'd say that Nintendo is still governed by typical short-sighted Japanese management philosophy. I suppose they'll be following Sharp, Panasonic and Sony over the cliff, all the while wondering why the ground wasn't following their feet.RandoIph
I'm sure I read the same criticisms and predictions when the DS came out, and the Wii, as well as the 3DS. Meanwhile, Nintendo just keeps winning.

Winning?

With handhelds definitely but they've been mostly thrashed in regards to consoles.

The Wii was the first time since the original NES that Nintendo enjoyed a clear majority of the market share and regardless, the Wii got trounced the last two years of its lifecycle.

And without the ultra-casual consumer to lap up their wares this time around, I have a feeling the Wii U is going to be more akin to the Gamecube than the Wii in terms of market share.

#75 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18204 posts) -

[QUOTE="RandoIph"][QUOTE="capaho"]I'd say that Nintendo is still governed by typical short-sighted Japanese management philosophy. I suppose they'll be following Sharp, Panasonic and Sony over the cliff, all the while wondering why the ground wasn't following their feet.Grammaton-Cleric

I'm sure I read the same criticisms and predictions when the DS came out, and the Wii, as well as the 3DS. Meanwhile, Nintendo just keeps winning.

Winning?

With handhelds definitely but they've been mostly thrashed in regards to consoles.

The Wii was the first time since the original NES that Nintendo enjoyed a clear majority of the market share and regardless, the Wii got trounced the last two years of its lifecycle.

And without the ultra-casual consumer to lap up their wares this time around, I have a feeling the Wii U is going to be more akin to the Gamecube than the Wii in terms of market share.

I can't stand when people use sales as absolute meter of quality. There's such a thing as intrinsic value of things, meaning some things are objectively good or bad despite the number of people who like them.

For instance, Jersey Shore is bad, despite 9 million people watching it and Psychonauts is a masterpiece even if no one played it. Likewise, Wii Fit sold 40 million copies but it's still pretty much an extremely simple app, not even a game. And the Wii sold a hundred million units, but it doesn't automatically make it good.

Sales =/= quality

#76 Posted by RandoIph (2041 posts) -
Winning?Grammaton-Cleric
Being market leader equates to winning from what I can tell. People have been hoping and probably even praying for them to fail and become third party for years upon years now, as far back as N64. It didn't happen then, it's not gonna happen now. They'll have a great line up of games, they'll make a lot of money, and they'll be just fine.
#77 Posted by RandoIph (2041 posts) -

Third parties have been avoiding Nintendo machines post-SNES, regardless of the tech, control schemes or whatever. It's simply because the only ones who can make any money on the damn thing is Nintendo. That's all the consumer base ever buys. Is this really not common knowledge by now? Whoever expects third party support on the Wii U is just way off the mark.

UpInFlames
As a Wii U owner I'm one of those people who will buy none or very few third party games. (Thank Assassin's Creed 3 for that) Because most every third party game released so far is a buggy glitchy mess that freezes up constantly and needs constant updating. Nintendo ships complete games, not sixty dollar beta tests, so it's no small wonder the third party games aren't able to compete. Gamers who play primarily on PS3 and 360 are used to that, Nintendo gamers, not so much, no. So yeah, I agree, third party support will die a quick death on the platform.
#78 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -

I'm sure I read the same criticisms and predictions when the DS came out, and the Wii, as well as the 3DS. Meanwhile, Nintendo just keeps winning.

RandoIph

At the end of the third quarter in 2008, Nintendo's peak sales year, they made107.3 billion yen in profits from423.4 billion yen in total sales. At the end of the third quarter of this year, Nintendo hada net loss of 17.2 billion yen on total sales of84.8 billion yen. I'd hardly calling that winning. Much has been written about Nintendo's losses over the past few years as the sales of Wiis and Wii games dropped off a cliff.

The fundamental problem with the Japanese management style, and the reason why most of Japan's major corporations are bleeding money, is that the thinking and planning are very insular. Business decisions are governed by tradition and opinion and a belief that people will always buy their products because of the brand name alone. The Wii U is region locked at a time when region codes and region locked games are increasingly unpopular and the game lineup for the Wii U is already starting to look a lot like the game lineup for the Wii. How long will it be before Wii U sales drop off a cliff?

#79 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -

I can't stand when people use sales as absolute meter of quality. There's such a thing as intrinsic value of things, meaning some things are objectively good or bad despite the number of people who like them.

For instance, Jersey Shore is bad, despite 9 million people watching it and Psychonauts is a masterpiece even if no one played it. Likewise, Wii Fit sold 40 million copies but it's still pretty much an extremely simple app, not even a game. And the Wii sold a hundred million units, but it doesn't automatically make it good.

Sales =/= quality

Black_Knight_00

I agree that sales doesn't necessarily equal quality, but no company can pay its bills with intrinsic value. My point was simply that Japanese managers have a time-honored tradition of ignoring changes in consumer habits and plow forward with what the entrenched groupthink offers as a good idea. Virtually all of the major Japanese companies are in the red over their failure to recognize and respond to changing consumer habits. Sharp, the most notable example, is on the verge of bankruptcy as a result. They are currently looking for investors who will poor cash into the company without receiving any management control over the company, something potential investors have been unwilling to do thus far.

The real question for Nintendo is, will the Wii U be its next big hit or will it be the next Game Cube?

#80 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18204 posts) -

I agree that sales doesn't necessarily equal quality, but no company can pay its bills with intrinsic value. My point was simply that Japanese managers have a time-honored tradition of ignoring changes in consumer habits and plow forward with what the entrenched groupthink offers as a good idea. Virtually all of the major Japanese companies are in the red over their failure to recognize and respond to changing consumer habits. Sharp, the most notable example, is on the verge of bankruptcy as a result. They are currently looking for investors who will poor cash into the company without receiving any management control over the company, something potential investors have been unwilling to do thus far.

The real question for Nintendo is, will the Wii U be its next big hit or will it be the next Game Cube?

capaho

Ah, but here's the good part: since I do not work in the gaming industry I can afford not to give a sh*t about their budgets, graphs and revenues. I am perfectly entitled to care about artistic merits first and even ignore sales entirely if I so choose. In other words, a white collar number-humper like Reggie may think Wii Fit is the second coming of christ because it sold like crazy to fat soccermoms all over the world, but to me it has zero artistic value, it's not even a game. An indie game like Cave Story contributed more to the gaming industry than all the hundreds of millions of sold Wii and Kinect games combined.

#81 Posted by Solori (462 posts) -

As for the substance of Molyneauxs statement competition isnt just consoles [its] all the technology I actally think Nintendo agrees with Molyneaux here (I mean the part about other tech, obviously not the part about Wii U being a disappointment). Based on the tech used in Wii/WiiU and the focus of the Wiis game library (causal/non-gamers) its abundantly clear that Nintendo is not very interested in competing with the other consoles. In other words, Nintendo has been attempting to do what Molyneaux is saying must be done -- it is taking a wider competitive outlook than just the consoles and trying to compete in the non-gaming world. I'll quote Grammaton here because I like his turn of phrase:

The tablet is nothing more than an extrapolation of a current fad applied to the construct of a home console. That isn't innovation so much as the aping of a widespread consumer trend.Grammaton-Cleric

That does seems to be the point of the tablet controller= to get into serious competition with the Itunes/GooglePlaymarket. And if WiiU is able to cash in on this market like the Wii was, Nintendo will be once again rolling in money. Does that mean that it will be winning? Probably yes, in a Charlie Sheen "winning" kind of way. You cant deny that Nintendo is once again in a position to make a lot of money if it can position the WiiU as the hot toy of 2012, like it did with the Wii back in the day. Which is, Yay for Nintendo. But since Im not the target market,its not exactly yay for me.

And I think that is the point at which Molyneaux and Nintendo would start to disagree. Molyneaux is envisioning the need for something that will seriously impress gamers so that console gaming will stay relevant in a world where there is so much other tech out there competing for the attention of gamers. Nintendo's focus is on the opposite spectrum. Read any Nintendo press release and you will see phrases like simple design/user friendly/for everybody. That's Nintendos focus= keeping their console relevant by ensuring that it is friendly to the masses. Given this mindset, they are definitely not going to produce anything that will seriously impress gamers, because that would scare off their target market. Bottom line, Molyneaux is wrong when he says that Nintendo is not being competitive with other tech. Its just that Nintendo is not competing with other tech in the way that Molyneaux would like. (And to be fair to Molyneaux, he does point out that it is quite possible that, given time, the WiiU will take off like the Wii. So he wasnt exactly saying that the WiiU was dead in the water like some people in this thread seem to be attacking him for)

#82 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -

Ah, but here's the good part: since I do not work in the gaming industry I can afford not to give a sh*t about their budgets, graphs and revenues. I am perfectly entitled to care about artistic merits first and even ignore sales entirely if I so choose. In other words, a white collar number-humper like Reggie may think Wii Fit is the second coming of christ because it sold like crazy to fat soccermoms all over the world, but to me it has zero artistic value, it's not even a game. An indie game like Cave Story contributed more to the gaming industry than all the hundreds of millions of sold Wii and Kinect games combined.

Black_Knight_00

As a consumer, I wouldn't expect you to care about the budgets, graphs and revenues of the game makers. All you should care about is what you described, the quality and appeal of a game as it relates to your preferences and expectations. Every game and console maker is going to have their point men out there on PR to convince you that their products are heaven on earth. If a gaming company's budgets, graphs and revenues fall off a cliff it's because they aren't producing what gamers want, and they have only themselves to blame for that.

#83 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6005 posts) -
The Wii U is region locked at a time when region codes and region locked games are increasingly unpopular ...capaho
There you go throwing that around again. I ignored it the first time, but now I have to comment- you are away that region locking has been going on since(as far as I'm personally aware) at least the Playstation days, right? Regarding home consoles at least, region locking is the rule, not the exception.
#84 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -

There you go throwing that around again. I ignored it the first time, but now I have to comment- you are away that region locking has been going on since(as far as I'm personally aware) at least the Playstation days, right? Regarding home consoles at least, region locking is the rule, not the exception.El_Zo1212o

You should have ignored it this time, too.

The Xbox 360 and the PS 3 are region coded, but they are not region locked. Microsoft and Sony leave it up to the game developers as to whether or not they want to lock their games. We buy a lot of import games in my bilingual household, so I know what I'm talking about. Some Xbox 360 games are region locked but many aren't. I have yet to encounter a PS 3 game that is region locked. Between unlocked 360 games, import versions that play on our 360, and the PS 3, everyone here can play the games they want in their native language.

However, the Wii and the Wii U consoles themselves are region locked, so import games are out of the question. The inability to play import games on the Wii is a major reason why it has been sitting on a shelf in a closet for the past two years and why we have no plans to buy a Wii U.

#85 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18204 posts) -

As a consumer, I wouldn't expect you to care about the budgets, graphs and revenues of the game makers. All you should care about is what you described, the quality and appeal of a game as it relates to your preferences and expectations. Every game and console maker is going to have their point men out there on PR to convince you that their products are heaven on earth. If a gaming company's budgets, graphs and revenues fall off a cliff it's because they aren't producing what gamers want, and they have only themselves to blame for that.

capaho

Precisely, and a fact is apparent: Nintendo is very interested in selling videogames, but not very interested in contributing to the artistic side of them. And guess what, playing safe works. It works so well in fact, that Nintendo is swimming in gold, unlike Sony, whose artsier, more experimental approach has returned far less money, despite Journey alone being a million times more significant for the artistic medium than anything Nintendo has done in the last 10 years.

Unfair, isn't it. Aren't we gamers a bunch of cretins?

#86 Posted by syztem (7703 posts) -

[QUOTE="capaho"]

As a consumer, I wouldn't expect you to care about the budgets, graphs and revenues of the game makers. All you should care about is what you described, the quality and appeal of a game as it relates to your preferences and expectations. Every game and console maker is going to have their point men out there on PR to convince you that their products are heaven on earth. If a gaming company's budgets, graphs and revenues fall off a cliff it's because they aren't producing what gamers want, and they have only themselves to blame for that.

Black_Knight_00

Precisely, and a fact is apparent: Nintendo is very interested in selling videogames, but not very interested in contributing to the artistic side of them. And guess what, playing safe works. It works so well in fact, that Nintendo is swimming in gold, unlike Sony, whose artsier, more experimental approach has returned far less money, despite Journey alone being a million times more significant for the artistic medium than anything Nintendo has done in the last 10 years.

Unfair, isn't it. Aren't we gamers a bunch of cretins?

Journey was done by an independent studio who was signed to a three game contract six years before release, and three years before existence. Sony doesn't deserve any artistic or experimental credit.

#87 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]

[QUOTE="capaho"]

As a consumer, I wouldn't expect you to care about the budgets, graphs and revenues of the game makers. All you should care about is what you described, the quality and appeal of a game as it relates to your preferences and expectations. Every game and console maker is going to have their point men out there on PR to convince you that their products are heaven on earth. If a gaming company's budgets, graphs and revenues fall off a cliff it's because they aren't producing what gamers want, and they have only themselves to blame for that.

syztem

Precisely, and a fact is apparent: Nintendo is very interested in selling videogames, but not very interested in contributing to the artistic side of them. And guess what, playing safe works. It works so well in fact, that Nintendo is swimming in gold, unlike Sony, whose artsier, more experimental approach has returned far less money, despite Journey alone being a million times more significant for the artistic medium than anything Nintendo has done in the last 10 years.

Unfair, isn't it. Aren't we gamers a bunch of cretins?

Journey was done by an independent studio who was signed to a three game contract six years before release, and three years before existence. Sony doesn't deserve any artistic or experimental credit.

A publisher who has the wisdom to get (mostly) out of the way and let creators do their thing is a rare beast. By most accounts, Sony is one of those rare beasts. Nintendo on the other hand is famous for micromanaging developers. That's fine and good if the developer is incompetent (nods towards Silicon Knights) but problematic if the developer is talented and wants to innovate. DMA designs tried to make a free roaming 3D game for Nintendo, but Nintendo fought them all the way and eventually parted ways with them, because the free roaming, unconventional, bloody game was at odds with the style of Shigeru Miyamoto (DMA Designs of course went on to become Rockstar North of GTA fame).

Miyamoto is talented, but forcing all games Nintendo funds to conform to his vision is problematic. I think Hayao Miyazaki is the best direction of animation alive, but that doesn't mean I want him telling Guillermo del Toro (who I also have a ton of respect for) what to do.

As for talent Sony has spotted and given a chance, besides thatgamecompany, there is (among others) Team Ico, Media Molecule (LBP2 is my favorite game of all time), Polyphony Digital (I remember early reviews of GT saying 'Great game but Sony is bound to lose money on it because no one likes racing sims') and Level 5 (who became really huge on Nintendo handhelds, but got their first shot from Sony). Of course, risks don't always pay off commercially so cranking out sequels to a handful of franchises is a less risky commercial strategy, but as a consumer I care more about quality and variety than profitability.

#88 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -

Precisely, and a fact is apparent: Nintendo is very interested in selling videogames, but not very interested in contributing to the artistic side of them. And guess what, playing safe works. It works so well in fact, that Nintendo is swimming in gold, unlike Sony, whose artsier, more experimental approach has returned far less money, despite Journey alone being a million times more significant for the artistic medium than anything Nintendo has done in the last 10 years.

Unfair, isn't it. Aren't we gamers a bunch of cretins?

Black_Knight_00

It's hard to figure what Nintendiot is very interested in. When you look at their stock game franchises neither artistic nor imaginitive come to mind. I could care less about Mario or Sonic. I can only imagine that their target market is families with young children. If the Wii U follows the same path as the Wii, games with adult appeal will be few and far between.

I would say that, in general, we gamers are not a bunch of cretins. The game makers, on the other hand...

#89 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]Winning?RandoIph
Being market leader equates to winning from what I can tell. People have been hoping and probably even praying for them to fail and become third party for years upon years now, as far back as N64. It didn't happen then, it's not gonna happen now. They'll have a great line up of games, they'll make a lot of money, and they'll be just fine.

Your quote was very selective and you clearly are unwilling to address the larger issue, which is that Nintendo has lost the vast majority of the console races.

And I don't doubt that Nintendo will continue to survive; they make excellent handhelds and they have also managed to continuously release grossly outdated consoles and yet still charge premium prices for these systems.

The issue however was one of market share and I'm predicting that Nintendo will not have the majority this time around.

#90 Posted by dvader654 (44752 posts) -

[QUOTE="capaho"]

As a consumer, I wouldn't expect you to care about the budgets, graphs and revenues of the game makers. All you should care about is what you described, the quality and appeal of a game as it relates to your preferences and expectations. Every game and console maker is going to have their point men out there on PR to convince you that their products are heaven on earth. If a gaming company's budgets, graphs and revenues fall off a cliff it's because they aren't producing what gamers want, and they have only themselves to blame for that.

Black_Knight_00

Precisely, and a fact is apparent: Nintendo is very interested in selling videogames, but not very interested in contributing to the artistic side of them. And guess what, playing safe works. It works so well in fact, that Nintendo is swimming in gold, unlike Sony, whose artsier, more experimental approach has returned far less money, despite Journey alone being a million times more significant for the artistic medium than anything Nintendo has done in the last 10 years.

Unfair, isn't it. Aren't we gamers a bunch of cretins?

What? First off all companies want to sell games that is all their number 1 priority. Nintendo has always been a leader in moving games forward. What are you even talking about, graphics only? Artsy games? how does journey move anything forward, it's a simple 3 hour game where you do almost nothing... Oh but it's pretty, yay. I had more fun playing wii sports than that crap game. I don't understand your reasoning, playing it safe, Nintendo took the most risk of ANY game company. They completely went against the established controls to try something totally different. Yes they took the cheap way out and made the wii the same power as a last gen console but that in itself was a huge risk. So much so that everyone thought Nintendo would fail miserably and they didn't. Playing it safe is making the exact same kind of consoles every generation, of simply following the normal flow of progress. Playing it safe is scrambling to create your own motion controls after Nintendo had success with them. The problem I see is that most people can't distinguish from what they want out of games from the overall impact. There are those that don't like motion controls so they totally dismiss what Nintendo did as some betrayal of the core gamer. Regardless of how you feel about the direction Nintendo went in they took the most risk last gen and got the most reward.
#91 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]

[QUOTE="capaho"]

As a consumer, I wouldn't expect you to care about the budgets, graphs and revenues of the game makers. All you should care about is what you described, the quality and appeal of a game as it relates to your preferences and expectations. Every game and console maker is going to have their point men out there on PR to convince you that their products are heaven on earth. If a gaming company's budgets, graphs and revenues fall off a cliff it's because they aren't producing what gamers want, and they have only themselves to blame for that.

dvader654

Precisely, and a fact is apparent: Nintendo is very interested in selling videogames, but not very interested in contributing to the artistic side of them. And guess what, playing safe works. It works so well in fact, that Nintendo is swimming in gold, unlike Sony, whose artsier, more experimental approach has returned far less money, despite Journey alone being a million times more significant for the artistic medium than anything Nintendo has done in the last 10 years.

Unfair, isn't it. Aren't we gamers a bunch of cretins?

What? First off all companies want to sell games that is all their number 1 priority. Nintendo has always been a leader in moving games forward. What are you even talking about, graphics only? Artsy games? how does journey move anything forward, it's a simple 3 hour game where you do almost nothing... Oh but it's pretty, yay. I had more fun playing wii sports than that crap game. I don't understand your reasoning, playing it safe, Nintendo took the most risk of ANY game company. They completely went against the established controls to try something totally different. Yes they took the cheap way out and made the wii the same power as a last gen console but that in itself was a huge risk. So much so that everyone thought Nintendo would fail miserably and they didn't. Playing it safe is making the exact same kind of consoles every generation, of simply following the normal flow of progress. Playing it safe is scrambling to create your own motion controls after Nintendo had success with them. The problem I see is that most people can't distinguish from what they want out of games from the overall impact. There are those that don't like motion controls so they totally dismiss what Nintendo did as some betrayal of the core gamer. Regardless of how you feel about the direction Nintendo went in they took the most risk last gen and got the most reward.

Its worth bearing in mind that the Gamecube sold less than 22,000,000 systems in its lifetime. Judging by those low numbers and what sold on the system is clear that the Gamecube was bought almost exclusively by diehard Nintendo fans who consider Mario, Zelda and Metroid must-plays. Those guys weren't going to go anywhere no matter what hardware Mario, Zelda and Metroid ran on. So while it wasn't clear that the Wii was going to catch on with casuals, the Wii wasn't a risk for Nintendo.

Also, if you consider giving people a new interface to play Mario and Zelda games Nintendo built using formulas it constructed in generations past, fine and good, but I disagree. From where I stand innovation isn't the same old formulas with a new controller, but trying out new concepts. A guy who wrote a book one had to hold sideways to read wouldn't be praised as an innovative writer if the book just told the same old story.

#92 Posted by c_rakestraw (14579 posts) -

how does journey move anything forward, it's a simple 3 hour game where you do almost nothing... Oh but it's pretty, yay. dvader654

Bullsh*t. You do plenty in Journey: you explore, you platform, you sneak, you race, you play. For a game so minimalist in design, there's plenty going on, lots to read into and interpret. Some have liken it to a retelling of The Heo's Journey, while others still talk about themes of life and death, or religion, or what have you. You're looking at it too superficially.

If nothing else, it's a game that's gotten the attention of people outside of the industry, whether its accolades for its design or helping others understand the allure of video games in the first place (that sense of wonder and exploration). Hell, it's up for a f*cking Grammy Award right alongside big blockbuster movies. That's insane! Do you see big-name games getting such adoration? No. Excluding Nintendo games like Wii Sports and Nintendo Land, do you see them helping people understand the allure and love of games we all share? No. How is it pushing the industry forward? The better question is how isn't it pushing the medium forward?

#93 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"] how does journey move anything forward, it's a simple 3 hour game where you do almost nothing... Oh but it's pretty, yay. c_rake

Bullsh*t. You do plenty in Journey: you explore, you platform, you sneak, you race, you play. For a game so minimalist in design, there's plenty going on, lots to read into and interpret. Some have liken it to a retelling of The Heo's Journey, while others still talk about themes of life and death, or religion, or what have you. You're looking at it too superficially.

If nothing else, it's a game that's gotten the attention of people outside of the industry, whether its accolades for its design or helping others understand the allure of video games in the first place (that sense of wonder and exploration). Hell, it's up for a f*cking Grammy Award right alongside big blockbuster movies. That's insane! Do you see big-name games getting such adoration? No. Excluding Nintendo games like Wii Sports and Nintendo Land, do you see them helping people understand the allure and love of games we all share? No. How is it pushing the industry forward? The better question is how isn't it pushing the medium forward?

As much as I like Journey, it's an experience, not a game. The only gamey thing about it is the fact that you control the player. For a gameplay focused gamer like vader, there is NOTHING in the game that would appeal to him.

#94 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

Its worth bearing in mind that the Gamecube sold less than 22,000,000 systems in its lifetime. Judging by those low numbers and what sold on the system is clear that the Gamecube was bought almost exclusively by diehard Nintendo fans who consider Mario, Zelda and Metroid must-plays. Those guys weren't going to go anywhere no matter what hardware Mario, Zelda and Metroid ran on. So while it wasn't clear that the Wii was going to catch on with casuals, the Wii wasn't a risk for Nintendo.

CarnageHeart

Good point. While I agree with vader that Nintendo innovates more than the other two, the fact that they sold the GC and Wii at a profit at launch proves that the risks they take aren't real risks. A risk would've been releasing something as powerful as a PS360 with the motion controller. How is it a risk if they releasing a console so cheap, so out of date just so it's profitable for day 1?

Even the Wii U is profitable if you buy one Nintendo game with the console. So there you go, it's not risky for Nintendo to release this console with a tablet because they are making a profit on day 1.

#95 Posted by D3s7rUc71oN (5180 posts) -

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]

[QUOTE="capaho"]

As a consumer, I wouldn't expect you to care about the budgets, graphs and revenues of the game makers. All you should care about is what you described, the quality and appeal of a game as it relates to your preferences and expectations. Every game and console maker is going to have their point men out there on PR to convince you that their products are heaven on earth. If a gaming company's budgets, graphs and revenues fall off a cliff it's because they aren't producing what gamers want, and they have only themselves to blame for that.

dvader654

Precisely, and a fact is apparent: Nintendo is very interested in selling videogames, but not very interested in contributing to the artistic side of them. And guess what, playing safe works. It works so well in fact, that Nintendo is swimming in gold, unlike Sony, whose artsier, more experimental approach has returned far less money, despite Journey alone being a million times more significant for the artistic medium than anything Nintendo has done in the last 10 years.

Unfair, isn't it. Aren't we gamers a bunch of cretins?

What? First off all companies want to sell games that is all their number 1 priority. Nintendo has always been a leader in moving games forward. What are you even talking about, graphics only? Artsy games? how does journey move anything forward, it's a simple 3 hour game where you do almost nothing... Oh but it's pretty, yay. I had more fun playing wii sports than that crap game. I don't understand your reasoning, playing it safe, Nintendo took the most risk of ANY game company. They completely went against the established controls to try something totally different. Yes they took the cheap way out and made the wii the same power as a last gen console but that in itself was a huge risk. So much so that everyone thought Nintendo would fail miserably and they didn't. Playing it safe is making the exact same kind of consoles every generation, of simply following the normal flow of progress. Playing it safe is scrambling to create your own motion controls after Nintendo had success with them. The problem I see is that most people can't distinguish from what they want out of games from the overall impact. There are those that don't like motion controls so they totally dismiss what Nintendo did as some betrayal of the core gamer. Regardless of how you feel about the direction Nintendo went in they took the most risk last gen and got the most reward.

I have a problem with this statement, so using a different controller scheme and using 5 year old hardware was a bigger risk than what Sony did with the PS3? Wasn't Nintendo profitable on each Wii unit they sold since LAUNCH? I got nothing against Nintendo, but this crap that "they're the one to take risks, innovate " is pure sh*t . How's the online on Nintendo btw? MS spent 2 billion for Xbox Live when they entered the console race, now that's what I call risk specially when you just entered the console race.

I imagine where would we be if MS didn't enter the console race, I'd bet PSN wouldn't exist most likely. Risk isn't following what's selling / become popular at a particular time period (tablet)

Lastly I don't see Nintendo making new exclusive IP's unlike Sony trying with Resistance, LBP, Infamous, Heavy Rain, Uncharted etc .

#96 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="c_rake"]

[QUOTE="dvader654"] how does journey move anything forward, it's a simple 3 hour game where you do almost nothing... Oh but it's pretty, yay. S0lidSnake

Bullsh*t. You do plenty in Journey: you explore, you platform, you sneak, you race, you play. For a game so minimalist in design, there's plenty going on, lots to read into and interpret. Some have liken it to a retelling of The Heo's Journey, while others still talk about themes of life and death, or religion, or what have you. You're looking at it too superficially.

If nothing else, it's a game that's gotten the attention of people outside of the industry, whether its accolades for its design or helping others understand the allure of video games in the first place (that sense of wonder and exploration). Hell, it's up for a f*cking Grammy Award right alongside big blockbuster movies. That's insane! Do you see big-name games getting such adoration? No. Excluding Nintendo games like Wii Sports and Nintendo Land, do you see them helping people understand the allure and love of games we all share? No. How is it pushing the industry forward? The better question is how isn't it pushing the medium forward?

As much as I like Journey, it's an experience, not a game. The only gamey thing about it is the fact that you control the player. For a gameplay focused gamer like vader, there is NOTHING in the game that would appeal to him.

I disagree. I remember some reviewers dismissing Carnage Heart (a game in which one researched, programmed and built mechs) as 'not a game'. As for Journey, controlling a character and seeking to avoid danger as one makes one way a distant goal is about as 'gamey' as it gets. The fact that Journey did many things differently (having multiplayer but not being able to directly communicate with people was a stroke of genius) doesn't make it less of a game.

#97 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

What? First off all companies want to sell games that is all their number 1 priority. Nintendo has always been a leader in moving games forward. What are you even talking about, graphics only? Artsy games? how does journey move anything forward, it's a simple 3 hour game where you do almost nothing... Oh but it's pretty, yay. I had more fun playing wii sports than that crap game. I don't understand your reasoning, playing it safe, Nintendo took the most risk of ANY game company. They completely went against the established controls to try something totally different. Yes they took the cheap way out and made the wii the same power as a last gen console but that in itself was a huge risk. So much so that everyone thought Nintendo would fail miserably and they didn't. Playing it safe is making the exact same kind of consoles every generation, of simply following the normal flow of progress. Playing it safe is scrambling to create your own motion controls after Nintendo had success with them. The problem I see is that most people can't distinguish from what they want out of games from the overall impact. There are those that don't like motion controls so they totally dismiss what Nintendo did as some betrayal of the core gamer. Regardless of how you feel about the direction Nintendo went in they took the most risk last gen and got the most reward.

dvader654

While the games they put out are certainly good, they are no longer leading this medium in terms of innovation. They actually put out relatively safe games, most of which are merely extensions or continuations of long-running franchises, often with only small adjustments to pre-existing paradigms.

That isn't meant as an insult because some of their software, even if not bubbling with innovation, exhibits a great deal of evolutionary craft which clearly manifests in an incredibly polished gaming experience.

But when I look at the full spectrum of software released this generation, Nintendo's contributions to the advancement of this medium have been paltry compared to any number of other developers and studios.

As to motion controls, they were a failure outside of sales. Motion controls did not facilitate any real innovation and rather were used (mostly) superficially and largely perfunctory, even by Nintendo.

Objectively, we know this to be true because even Nintendo is largely abandoning waggle with the Wii U; they know it was a fad.

#98 Posted by c_rakestraw (14579 posts) -

As to motion controls, they were a failure outside of sales. Motion controls did not facilitate any real innovation and rather were used (mostly) superficially and largely perfunctory, even by Nintendo.Grammaton-Cleric

That still baffles me.

Nintendo introduces motion controls, claiming all sorts of innovative promise (which motion-plus had the potential to deliver on had it been used more), and then they go off and use motion in small, mostly meaningless ways. In Mario Galaxy, one of the premiere games for the system, all you did was shake and point the remote. Even they couldn't come up with some clever way to implement motion control. I mean, they were smart to keep it to minimum (could you imagine if jumping was executed by flicking the remote upward? That would be horrible). I just find it odd in retrospect that even they weren't able to make the absolute most of the controller during the Wii's life-span. Skyward Sword was probably the closest they got.

#99 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18204 posts) -
[QUOTE="dvader654"]What? First off all companies want to sell games that is all their number 1 priority. Nintendo has always been a leader in moving games forward. What are you even talking about, graphics only? Artsy games? how does journey move anything forward, it's a simple 3 hour game where you do almost nothing... Oh but it's pretty, yay. I had more fun playing wii sports than that crap game. I don't understand your reasoning, playing it safe, Nintendo took the most risk of ANY game company. They completely went against the established controls to try something totally different. Yes they took the cheap way out and made the wii the same power as a last gen console but that in itself was a huge risk. So much so that everyone thought Nintendo would fail miserably and they didn't. Playing it safe is making the exact same kind of consoles every generation, of simply following the normal flow of progress. Playing it safe is scrambling to create your own motion controls after Nintendo had success with them. The problem I see is that most people can't distinguish from what they want out of games from the overall impact. There are those that don't like motion controls so they totally dismiss what Nintendo did as some betrayal of the core gamer. Regardless of how you feel about the direction Nintendo went in they took the most risk last gen and got the most reward.

The fallacy in your counter argument is you seem to forget I wasn't discussing technological progress, but rather artistic merits. Journey has just been nominated for a Grammy Award for its soundtrack (something that has probably made c_rake particulrly ecstatic). The soundtrack of a tiny downloadable game is competing for an academy award with million dollar Hollywood productions such as the latest Batman. That's a huge leap towards the recognition as art form we want gaming to receive. I'll restate my point: Nintendo is very good at trying new things, but their only purpose (as you correctly underlined) is to sell, whereas Sony has taken chances, instead of offering 20 safe Mario games a year (or 200 safe zombie-themed game a year like Microsoft), they opted for an offering of experimental games such as Flower and Datura which they knew would only appeal to a tiny niche of public, but knowing those are the titles that contribute to reaching the art form status we hope our favorite media to achieve. This has predictably bitten them in the ass, since sales would have been more lucrative if they had made something of wider, more immediate appeal.
#100 Posted by dvader654 (44752 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"] how does journey move anything forward, it's a simple 3 hour game where you do almost nothing... Oh but it's pretty, yay. c_rake

Bullsh*t. You do plenty in Journey: you explore, you platform, you sneak, you race, you play. For a game so minimalist in design, there's plenty going on, lots to read into and interpret. Some have liken it to a retelling of The Heo's Journey, while others still talk about themes of life and death, or religion, or what have you. You're looking at it too superficially.

If nothing else, it's a game that's gotten the attention of people outside of the industry, whether its accolades for its design or helping others understand the allure of video games in the first place (that sense of wonder and exploration). Hell, it's up for a f*cking Grammy Award right alongside big blockbuster movies. That's insane! Do you see big-name games getting such adoration? No. Excluding Nintendo games like Wii Sports and Nintendo Land, do you see them helping people understand the allure and love of games we all share? No. How is it pushing the industry forward? The better question is how isn't it pushing the medium forward?

Hell yes, those Nintendo games help people understand gaming infinitely more than journey ever will. Wii sports was one of the first games in YEARS that I can show to anyone, parents, sisters, cousins, people of all ages and they get it instantly. Everyone loved it. Same with Nintendo land though not to the same extent. You think if I show them journey they would care at all. They will go wow that is pretty and after a minute move on. The wii introduced more people to gaming than the other two consoles combined.