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

The best threads are those that take a life or course of their own. There is nothing wrong with threads going off topic.

S0lidSnake

Hasn't this thread passed the point where you would normally lock it? It seems to have veered far off topic.capaho

Eh. Thread's still producing good discussion, everyone's not at each other's throats -- I'd say we're doing fine.

I am criticizing it cause it is journey, read my complaints about it. It's a very simple linear game with no real redeeming qualities to me outside of how beautiful it is. I compare all games the same, I judge them on how much I enjoyed my time with it based on what I want out of games. Journey is a nice um journey but something I regretted paying $15 for almost immediately since I don't think I will ever play it again. 6 score game at best for me.dvader654

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

The best threads are those that take a life or course of their own. There is nothing wrong with threads going off topic.

capaho

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

Firstly Nintendo has not been the leader in moving games forward. Their primary goal has never been about the advancement of gaming but the financial gains from gaming. Nothing is wrong with this approach especially since its the goal of most companies.

The risk Nintendo took with the Wii was not a game related risk but a absolutely necessary risk for the financial stability of the company. They could not compete with MS or Sony directly so they took a route which would facilitate greater sales by aiming for non gamers. This direction did not advance gaming. In the end they did the usual tried and true methods which is to reuse their brand the same as did have done for the last 2 decades by releasing another iteration of Zelda and Mario. That is playing it safe. There is no real risk for Nintendo by recycling the same games since folks continue to buy. The Wii controller was not a sign of taking gaming risky but the only direction they can take without directly competing.

And lets not pretend, the playstation eye predated the Wii iteration of motion control and has become the foundation of Kinect which is independent of technologies used in the Wii.

I don't know when people would get over this false notion that innovation in gaming is being hindered by the method in which we control games. This is nothing short of a fallacy. And to reiterate, Nintendo's move to motion control was a no option for them because the alternative was to compete with MS and Sony directly in which they knew they would have failed like the Gamecube.

And to everyone down playing motion controls please tell me what is more risky for a console than changing the way we control our games? The only thing that even comes close would be changing how we see our games, including a VR helmet or something. dvader654

You are missing the point. It's not risky if they deliberately release a last gen console TWO generations in a row. It would've been risky if they had released a console with a next gen spec with a tablet or motion controls.

I am talking specifically about the wii. Now they are basically coping what they did with the wii, with a tablet replacing the motion controls. As for the wii just the fact they went with old hardware was a risk as well, who does that. I know we don't like it but you cannot lie to me and say we all saw their success coming. Most of us laughed and thought the console would crash badly, why, cause it was a huge RISK. PS3 and 360 were completely normal obvious advancements, throwing in bluray was risky for Sony but that was more about format wars than anything on the video game side. I don't about you guys but if I see a chart of gaming systems of the last twenty years they all follow a familiar pattern except the wii. It's the outlier, the one that went against all established rules. Isn't that the very definition of a risk. Now I think everyone is just getting clouded on this cause its a move most of us hate. I am not asking you to judge whether it was a good move for gaming as a whole or not. Just that is was a risk, it was thinking out of the box and it has become the most influencial console of last gen (in terms of hardware and accessories, clearly the games were not the best.)dvader654

I don't think Nintendo's motion control was a risky as you are making it out to be. They released the classic controller right along with the Wii remote. I think they made an emphasis on motion control, obviously. But, I doubt that if it didn't take off like it did, they knew they could always go back to the traditional approaches in regards to how we interact with video games.

I am talking specifically about the wii. Now they are basically coping what they did with the wii, with a tablet replacing the motion controls. As for the wii just the fact they went with old hardware was a risk as well, who does that. I know we don't like it but you cannot lie to me and say we all saw their success coming. Most of us laughed and thought the console would crash badly, why, cause it was a huge RISK. PS3 and 360 were completely normal obvious advancements, throwing in bluray was risky for Sony but that was more about format wars than anything on the video game side. I don't about you guys but if I see a chart of gaming systems of the last twenty years they all follow a familiar pattern except the wii. It's the outlier, the one that went against all established rules. Isn't that the very definition of a risk. Now I think everyone is just getting clouded on this cause its a move most of us hate. I am not asking you to judge whether it was a good move for gaming as a whole or not. Just that is was a risk, it was thinking out of the box and it has become the most influencial console of last gen (in terms of hardware and accessories, clearly the games were not the best.)dvader654

Again, you have an entirely different view of what constitutes as risk in this industry. Just the fact that they went with a different control scheme is not a risk because even if they had sold only one console they would've still made a profit.

Yes we all thought the Wii was going to flop, and it didn't. So what? I guess you can point to us and say we were wrong. Ok. Now what? The fact remains that it was not a risky move in financial terms. The fact remains that Nintendo for the past ten years has been releasing cheap handhelds and consoles, knowing regardless of how poorly they perform, Nintendo will still make money off of it. It's like the Florida Marlins a few years ago... the owner didn't bother buying good players. He didn't care about filling stadiums. He didn't care about winning titles. He knew that he could put out a $20 million team every year, lose a 100 games every year and still make profit because he had a bunch of loyal fans who would sit through their team losing game after game and still make profit off of those suckers. Much like Nintendo and its suckers. No offense of course.

And yes, there were years where he got lucky. His $20 million team made the playoffs and even won the world series, but you wouldn't call that owner a risk taker. He's the worst kind of owner. He cares about profits and nothing else. Say what you will about Steinbrenner, but he cared about wining titles as much as he cared about the profits. The same goes for Sony and MS (at least in the beginning of this gen). They invested heavily in online infrastructure. That's a risk. They invested heavily in new IPs. That's a risk. Knowing that they will never recoup putting $20 million in what looked like a Tomb Raider ripoff was a risk. A $2 million Wii Sports mini game collection wasn't because it would've been profitable at 100K copies sold.

You can't just throw around that word 'risk' anytime someone did something different. You have to take into account the financial situation that made it risky. Even if the Wii had failed like the Gamecube and sold 20 milloin units, they could still go to their investors and say hey, look we still made more profit than Sony and MS combined. That is not risky.

Again, you have an entirely different view of what constitutes as risk in this industry. Just the fact that they went with a different control scheme is not a risk because even if they had sold only one console they would've still made a profit. S0lidSnake

I disagree. They could've sold none and made no profit. I do believe it was risky for Nintendo to release the Wii, taking such a huge step away from what gaming was defined up to that point. As has been said, releasing more powerful hardware is the norm. What Nintendo did was everything but. Just because their financial penalty would have been less than Sony/MS doesn't make it any less of a risk.

I will say that Nintendo is for the masses. I think most of the people on here, who have the latest and greatest gadgets, TVs, and toys, are not the masses. I believe in 2006, when the Wii launched, only something like 30% of the American population had HDTVs. And Nintendo chose to save money by not manufacturing a console that 70% of the people would not get the most out of. I think its the same mentality for the WiiU.

The thing is, I don't think they implemented motion control because they were looking to innovate but rather it was a response to having been trounced the previous two generations. Grammaton-Cleric

Nintendo has always tried to innovate with their controllers. I think the motion control was on-par with their practices. Ever since the NES, the controller is something Nintendo keeps secret as long as possible. It's that much of a big deal to them. The NES made the d-pad the norm. The SNES introduced shoulder buttons. The N64, rumble. And, ok, the Gamecube didn't do anything new with the controller.

Point is, I dont think Nintendo came up with the Wii motion control as a reaction to getting beat by Sony/MS. What they did do, however, was jump out of the high-end hardware specs war. Nintendo decided that competing at that level was not worth it to them, when the majority of people don't have high-end equipment. So they capitalized by selling something to the majority (the masses, casuals, whatever) and benefited greatly.

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

Again, you have an entirely different view of what constitutes as risk in this industry. Just the fact that they went with a different control scheme is not a risk because even if they had sold only one console they would've still made a profit. Grieverr

I disagree. They could've sold none and made no profit. I do believe it was risky for Nintendo to release the Wii, taking such a huge step away from what gaming was defined up to that point. As has been said, releasing more powerful hardware is the norm. What Nintendo did was everything but. Just because their financial penalty would have been less than Sony/MS doesn't make it any less of a risk.

I will say that Nintendo is for the masses. I think most of the people on here, who have the latest and greatest gadgets, TVs, and toys, are not the masses. I believe in 2006, when the Wii launched, only something like 30% of the American population had HDTVs. And Nintendo chose to save money by not manufacturing a console that 70% of the people would not get the most out of. I think its the same mentality for the WiiU.

They were profitable from Day 1. They wouldn't have seen ANY financial penalty whatsoever.

The decision to not launch a HD console was a shortsighted move, and came back to bite them in the ass. It was a bone headed decision that left them trailing the sales of both the 360 and PS3 as soon as 2010, barely four years into this gen. There is no way in hell anyone can praise nintendo for release a SD console. They could've asked any analyst and they would've told them that the market for HDTVs was going to explode in the next couple of years. Sony and MS knew that. Nintendo apparently didnt get the memo and now they were outsold 3:1 by Microsoft's SEVEN year old console this November. I'd say the masses have moved on to better things.

Yeah they took no chances with the hardware but the switch to motion controls could have been disasterous.dvader654

Indeed.

It was risky in the sense that if the controller failed, the console did too. A console is nothing without an agreeable controller, and all attempts at motion control in the past had been nothing short of disastrous. If it turned out that no one at all cared for it, or if it too was a complete mess, the Wii wouldn't have been nearly as successful. It wouldn't have been a huge loss, of course, because they were profiting from day-one, but still.

[QUOTE="dvader654"]I am talking specifically about the wii. Now they are basically coping what they did with the wii, with a tablet replacing the motion controls. As for the wii just the fact they went with old hardware was a risk as well, who does that. I know we don't like it but you cannot lie to me and say we all saw their success coming. Most of us laughed and thought the console would crash badly, why, cause it was a huge RISK. PS3 and 360 were completely normal obvious advancements, throwing in bluray was risky for Sony but that was more about format wars than anything on the video game side. I don't about you guys but if I see a chart of gaming systems of the last twenty years they all follow a familiar pattern except the wii. It's the outlier, the one that went against all established rules. Isn't that the very definition of a risk. Now I think everyone is just getting clouded on this cause its a move most of us hate. I am not asking you to judge whether it was a good move for gaming as a whole or not. Just that is was a risk, it was thinking out of the box and it has become the most influencial console of last gen (in terms of hardware and accessories, clearly the games were not the best.)S0lidSnake

Again, you have an entirely different view of what constitutes as risk in this industry. Just the fact that they went with a different control scheme is not a risk because even if they had sold only one console they would've still made a profit.

Yes we all thought the Wii was going to flop, and it didn't. So what? I guess you can point to us and say we were wrong. Ok. Now what? The fact remains that it was not a risky move in financial terms. The fact remains that Nintendo for the past ten years has been releasing cheap handhelds and consoles, knowing regardless of how poorly they perform, Nintendo will still make money off of it. It's like the Florida Marlins a few years ago... the owner didn't bother buying good players. He didn't care about filling stadiums. He didn't care about winning titles. He knew that he could put out a $20 million team every year, lose a 100 games every year and still make profit because he had a bunch of loyal fans who would sit through their team losing game after game and still make profit off of those suckers. Much like Nintendo and its suckers. No offense of course.

And yes, there were years where he got lucky. His $20 million team made the playoffs and even won the world series, but you wouldn't call that owner a risk taker. He's the worst kind of owner. He cares about profits and nothing else. Say what you will about Steinbrenner, but he cared about wining titles as much as he cared about the profits. The same goes for Sony and MS (at least in the beginning of this gen). They invested heavily in online infrastructure. That's a risk. They invested heavily in new IPs. That's a risk. Knowing that they will never recoup putting $20 million in what looked like a Tomb Raider ripoff was a risk. A $2 million Wii Sports mini game collection wasn't because it would've been profitable at 100K copies sold.

You can't just throw around that word 'risk' anytime someone did something different. You have to take into account the financial situation that made it risky. Even if the Wii had failed like the Gamecube and sold 20 milloin units, they could still go to their investors and say hey, look we still made more profit than Sony and MS combined. That is not risky.

So Pedro nintendo's move to motion control which you claim was their only obvious move was predicted by absolutely nobody. Before Nintendo announced the revolution as it was called there is not one person that thought anyone would do anything like that. It is pure revisionist history. They pulled a move no one predicted and everyone thought would fail and eventually sent the other companies scrambling to create their own motion controls. Down play it all you want, the fact is now all three console companies have motion control devices and it is because of Nintendo.dvader654

And to everyone down playing motion controls please tell me what is more risky for a console than changing the way we control our games? The only thing that even comes close would be changing how we see our games, including a VR helmet or something. dvader654

Lets be real for a moment. Nintendo has not been on top the last two gens and they were stillprofitable. Nintendo fans would buy their console regardless of the changes they made. Nintendo has been pumping out the same strategy for the last two decades. Each system they introduces a new controller. NES, SNES, N64, GC, Wii and WiiU all have different controllers. Yes we didn't know what their new controller was going to be like prior to the announcement but we all should know that it was going to be different just cause. The same can be said about their games, Mario and Zelda. They release the same batch of games for every system, no suprises there. The Wii U is possibly their riskiest venture because they are actually losing money on the console and its not gimmicky enough. The same cannot be said about their previous gens. So, while you may have looked as their move as risky I don't because just like the N64 and GC, Nintendo fans are going to buy their system regardless. Their is very little room for actual failure. The Wii-U is going to play out like the last three systems, pumping out the same old games with little to absolutely no new IP from Nintendo.

At lets not pretend as if Nintendo invented motion controls. They were the most successful but the Playstation Eye predated the Wii and MS stole more from that technology than they did from the Wii. Sony copied Nintendo with Playstation Move.

Yup. SOTC had a phenomenal soundtrack. Where was the grammy then? What about MGS3, MGS4, Deus Ex, Mass Effect, Assassin's Mother f*cking Creed 2?

Like vader said, it's only nominated because it looks artsy. I personally love the game, but didnt even think much of the soundtrack and Im a big sountrack guy.

Yup. SOTC had a phenomenal soundtrack. Where was the grammy then? What about MGS3, MGS4, Deus Ex, Mass Effect, Assassin's Mother f*cking Creed 2?

Like vader said, it's only nominated because it looks artsy. I personally love the game, but didnt even think much of the soundtrack and Im a big sountrack guy.

S0lidSnake

Yup. SOTC had a phenomenal soundtrack. Where was the grammy then? What about MGS3, MGS4, Deus Ex, Mass Effect, Assassin's Mother f*cking Creed 2?S0lidSnake

Or Demon's Souls (now there's a game with some criminally under-appreciated music; stuff was beautifully haunting). Or Bastion.

The music in Journey is more than just a background, it's an active part of an unspoken narrative, it's a key the game uses to dig out deep emotions from you. The very fact the gameplay has such a simple structure is exactly to help you commune with both visuals and sound in a unique way to achieve complete immersion. And that's why it's nominated for a grammy and MGS isn't.Black_Knight_00

It's the vehicle of the narrative, in other words. Without the music, all Journey would be is a trek through a pretty landscape. Music is a large part of what made it memorable.

What? "Journey will be competing against the likes of Dark Knight Rises, Hugo, Tintin, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and The Artist in the Best Score Soundtrack for the Visual Media category." Doesnt say any of that there. Does Dark Knight Rises have music that digs deep emotions from you which is more than just in the background... no its just a great soundtrack. That is what Journey is nominated for, best soundtrack, it does not have the best soundtrack of any game this year. It got chosen for whatever reason, maybe the composer has good connections. I bet you not one of the grammy dudes played the game.dvader654

You expect them to explain that when its competing against a bunch of movies, a passive medium by design? If it were a mix of everything, sure -- but here? Not a chance, unfortunately.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"] The music in Journey is more than just a background, it's an active part of an unspoken narrative, it's a key the game uses to dig out deep emotions from you. The very fact the gameplay has such a simple structure is exactly to help you commune with both visuals and sound in a unique way to achieve complete immersion. And that's why it's nominated for a grammy and MGS isn't.c_rake

It's the vehicle of the narrative, in other words. Without the music, all Journey would be is a trek through a pretty landscape. Music is a large part of what made it memorable.

Exactly. I guess symbolism and wordless cross-sensorial narrative are not everyone's cup of tea.Black_Knight_00

It's a polarizing subject, to be fair; always has and always will be.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"] Exactly. I guess symbolism and wordless cross-sensorial narrative are not everyone's cup of tea.c_rake

It's a polarizing subject, to be fair; always has and always will be.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

The thing is, I don't think they implemented motion control because they were looking to innovate but rather it was a response to having been trounced the previous two generations. Grieverr

Nintendo has always tried to innovate with their controllers. I think the motion control was on-par with their practices. Ever since the NES, the controller is something Nintendo keeps secret as long as possible. It's that much of a big deal to them. The NES made the d-pad the norm. The SNES introduced shoulder buttons. The N64, rumble. And, ok, the Gamecube didn't do anything new with the controller.

Point is, I dont think Nintendo came up with the Wii motion control as a reaction to getting beat by Sony/MS. What they did do, however, was jump out of the high-end hardware specs war. Nintendo decided that competing at that level was not worth it to them, when the majority of people don't have high-end equipment. So they capitalized by selling something to the majority (the masses, casuals, whatever) and benefited greatly.

I understand what you are getting at here but there is a big difference between making unique controllers each and every generation versus predicating your entire console on a divergent input device.

Waggle was a Hail Mary because Nintendo didn't want to follow MS and Sony down the more expensive and risky path of next gen tech so they opted for a weaker system based on a unique interface in hopes of appealing to a broader demographic. Clearly it worked (until the fad calmed) but it was also a very short-sighted strategy in regards to creating a sustainable user base because, as you know, fads don't last and casuals don't keep shelling out money for this hobby in the same manner that you and I do.

I'll happily concede that motion controls were a risky proposition back in 2006. Like I've stated before, Nintendo took a chance because they were incapable and unwilling to continue going head-to-head with MS and Sony.

That understood, motion gaming was a fad, nothing more. Like 3D, it is a frivolous and largely vapid addition that rarely yields any significant dividends and it most certainly has not facilitated any meaningful change in the way we play games.

Those very select handful of titles that did benefit from motion controls are the equivalent of a film like Hugo in 3D; the exception that proves the rule.

And clearly, Nintendo agrees because they've effectively made motion control an optional peripheral on their new console, which is precisely what it should have been all along.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="dvader654"] I still wondering who these people are that now see gaming reputation change? Who played Journey? Probably under a million people, no one in the general public knows what it is. Journey made a few people go ohh and ahh but it did nothing to make this medium more respectable.dvader654

Nominated for a grammy, which is music. Journey has fine music but there have been game music far better that should be recognized. Again I see Journey getting special treatment for being artsy.

As for Bayonetta that sounds more like shame than anything else. Yes Bayonetta is beyond stupid in terms of story and the way it is but its gameplay is incredible. Now to a normal person they wont give a crap about gameplay, which is why they want to few video games through the lens of other forms of media. That is what I am against. The artform of the game is the gameplay, not how it looks, how it sounds, how good the story is. All those elements need to come together to make an excellent game but the one thing that makes games different from everything else is that we get to control them, that is what should be appreciated.

One thing I will give Journey is best graphics. I dont think any game even comes close.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="c_rake"]

It's the vehicle of the narrative, in other words. Without the music, all Journey would be is a trek through a pretty landscape. Music is a large part of what made it memorable.dvader654

So because Journey has very little gameplay now the music is extra special? So other games that use music to enhance a true emotional moment in the story, or to enhance an action sequence. So because other games have too much gameplay that music isn't important? It's a video game, it needs a soundtrack, all games get a soundtrack Journey is not doing anything special here. Hell a game like Sound Shapes where the music is actually part of the gameplay deserves far more praise for its use of music in a game.

Ok. To me there is a difference between best use of music in a game and best soundtrack. The way you describe it is how the music of journey effects the experience rather than listening to the soundtrack completely removed from the game (which is what I am assuming the Grammy committee did). I am splitting hairs here cause Journey both has a great score regardless of what happens on screen and it does an incredible job of making the music fit the experience, so it is absolutely a worthy of awards but I don't think Journey is doing anything special or different here. Plenty of games use music in much the same way, plenty of games have incredible scores, Journey shouldn't be singled out just cause it is "artsy".dvader654

So because Journey has very little gameplay now the music is extra special? So other games that use music to enhance a true emotional moment in the story, or to enhance an action sequence. So because other games have too much gameplay that music isn't important? It's a video game, it needs a soundtrack, all games get a soundtrack Journey is not doing anything special here. Hell a game like Sound Shapes where the music is actually part of the gameplay deserves far more praise for its use of music in a game.

dvader654

The way you describe it is how the music of journey effects the experience rather than listening to the soundtrack completely removed from the game (which is what I am assuming the Grammy committee did)...dvader654