Nintendo: Miiverse is Wii U's 'killer app'

  • 86 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18263 posts) -
[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="c_rake"]

We don't know that for sure yet. Nintendo claims their trying to court the "core" audience once more with the Wii U, and so far, I haven't seen evidence to the contrary. Won't know for sure how long they'll stick to that until we're past the console's first year.

Besides, I bet most of those pre-order numbers come from the die-hard Nintendo fans. They're always the first in line for anything new from Nintendo. Plus, there's the fact that everyone is just hungry for anything new. It's been too long since the last proper console launch. There are plenty of people out there who are ready for a new console. Hell, that's probably why the Ouya had such a successful Kickstater.

Sony would be foolish to abandon their current approach, as each and every E3, without fail, they've marketed themselves as "the gamers' console," essentially. They introduced the Move in an attempt at drawing in some of those Wii-dollars while trying to cater to the "hardcore," but how many notable games are there that use the Move exclusively? They know their strongest audience is the "core" one. If they abandon it, they'll have nothing left.

Heirren
How can the Wii U be core-oriented if it's little more than a glorified 360? I'm not talking about graphics, I'm talking about memory and processing power. For instance: I want the next step in open world games, I want the next Elder Scrolls to include all of Tamriel, I want GTA7 to include all of the US, I want to be able to land on any planet in Mass Effect 4. Will the PS4 be able to handle that? I don't know, but I know for a fact the Wii U won't... you've seen the specs. Hardcore PC gamers like to say that "consoles are holding us back" which (though I'm a console gamer) is kinda true: if Skyrim had been a high-end PC-only exclusive it would have been bigger and more complex. That's why I hope developers of AAA games continue ignoring Nintendo the way they ignored the Wii. Besides, Nintendo's attitude speaks of no inversion whatsoever: remember when Reggie was asked why the Wii had so few great games and he answered "What are you talking about? Wii Fit sold 41 million copies!"

Because you are only seeing things from one perspective. Nintendo is seeking to re-invigorate game design, change it up. While I somewhat agree with your descriptions, that is more like going from an NES to SNES, where the genres are simply expanded upon(which for the record I think has the potential to also be new). Nintendo, on the other hand wants change. I think a lot of people will admit that game design has gotten stale for the most part, while still being enjoyable. Nintendos direction is more along the lines of going from SNES to N64, where completely new genres arise. This doesn't happen overnight, but it is an evolutionary process. Very early 3d games like Mario64 and Ocarina CHANGED the way we play games. They opened the doors for the likes of sereis' like Uncharted.

That's my problem: they substitute technical advancement with gimmicks. Motion controls brought nothing substantial to the industry and what they said about this Wii U tablet promises to have a similarly tame impact. Then there's the fact the console will lack power, meaning gamer will have to buy one of the other 2 or a power PC to stay up to date with gaming. I'm tired of having to buy Nintendo consoles for 2 must play games and leaving them to gather dust the rest of the time.
#52 Posted by Heirren (16509 posts) -
[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"] How can the Wii U be core-oriented if it's little more than a glorified 360? I'm not talking about graphics, I'm talking about memory and processing power. For instance: I want the next step in open world games, I want the next Elder Scrolls to include all of Tamriel, I want GTA7 to include all of the US, I want to be able to land on any planet in Mass Effect 4. Will the PS4 be able to handle that? I don't know, but I know for a fact the Wii U won't... you've seen the specs. Hardcore PC gamers like to say that "consoles are holding us back" which (though I'm a console gamer) is kinda true: if Skyrim had been a high-end PC-only exclusive it would have been bigger and more complex. That's why I hope developers of AAA games continue ignoring Nintendo the way they ignored the Wii. Besides, Nintendo's attitude speaks of no inversion whatsoever: remember when Reggie was asked why the Wii had so few great games and he answered "What are you talking about? Wii Fit sold 41 million copies!"

Because you are only seeing things from one perspective. Nintendo is seeking to re-invigorate game design, change it up. While I somewhat agree with your descriptions, that is more like going from an NES to SNES, where the genres are simply expanded upon(which for the record I think has the potential to also be new). Nintendo, on the other hand wants change. I think a lot of people will admit that game design has gotten stale for the most part, while still being enjoyable. Nintendos direction is more along the lines of going from SNES to N64, where completely new genres arise. This doesn't happen overnight, but it is an evolutionary process. Very early 3d games like Mario64 and Ocarina CHANGED the way we play games. They opened the doors for the likes of sereis' like Uncharted.

That's my problem: they substitute technical advancement with gimmicks. Motion controls brought nothing substantial to the industry and what they said about this Wii U tablet promises to have a similarly tame impact. Then there's the fact the console will lack power, meaning gamer will have to buy one of the other 2 or a power PC to stay up to date with gaming. I'm tired of having to buy Nintendo consoles for 2 must play games and leaving them to gather dust the rest of the time.

Well, there's certainly risk involved, but what I said still holds true. It's up to developers to be more creative. I did say I also agreed with you, btw, which I want to reiterate. However, if you look at the fps genre, it has actually taken a number of steps BACK in comparison to some pc fps games from the early 2000s. This is due to control method. The current standard really limits flexibility.
#53 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

Well, there's certainly risk involved, but what I said still holds true. It's up to developers to be more creative. I did say I also agreed with you, btw, which I want to reiterate. However, if you look at the fps genre, it has actually taken a number of steps BACK in comparison to some pc fps games from the early 2000s. This is due to control method. The current standard really limits flexibility. Heirren

Its not hardware that make games look and play alike, its the timidity of designers and publishers and the conservatism of many gamers. A conservative team confronted with a new controller is perfectly capable of cranking out more of the same (nods towards New Super Mario Brothers Wii U). On a related note, many of the games most praised for their originality have been released on conventional hardware (nods towards Portal, Journey, Demon's Souls, LBP and Minecraft).

#54 Posted by Heirren (16509 posts) -

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

Well, there's certainly risk involved, but what I said still holds true. It's up to developers to be more creative. I did say I also agreed with you, btw, which I want to reiterate. However, if you look at the fps genre, it has actually taken a number of steps BACK in comparison to some pc fps games from the early 2000s. This is due to control method. The current standard really limits flexibility. CarnageHeart

Its not hardware that make games look and play alike, its the timidity of designers and publishers and the conservatism of many gamers. A conservative team confronted with a new controller is perfectly capable of cranking out more of the same (nods towards New Super Mario Brothers Wii U). On a related note, many of the games most praised for their originality have been released on conventional hardware (nods towards Portal, Journey, Demon's Souls, LBP and Minecraft).

I didn't deny any of that. The games you listed aren't incredibly new, though. Part of my point is that people are immediately throwing out the potential of Wiius control scheme(one I think WILL be adopted by the other two). This is very similar to the N64 pre release, where people were saying, " alright, but wtf is that stick on there?". In fact the dpad was only really put on there as a back up plan to say, "look we've still got this, too". Where I am critical of Nintendo are the launch games. NSMBU, as you pointed out, is a tried and true formula. What people need to realize is Nintendo got themselves into a tricky situation with 3rd parties. I realistically think that NSMBU was originally a wii title and the real WOW Nintendo game, although ready to be released, is yet to be unveiled in favor of gathering 3rd party support for the system knowing ful well that most consoles sell well at launch regardless of lineup. Personally I think they really needed that Mario64 or Halo, but pre orders are saying otherwise. Once the system settles in, I bet Nintendo THEN brings out the Nintendo branded system seller. I don't think the types of 3rd party games coming out at launch will be a sign of things to come. I think Nintendo has ideas in place that they strongly believe people will adopt, and 3rd parties will follow. EDIT: Apologies for the poor formatting--the iPad tends to do this.
#55 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

Because you are only seeing things from one perspective. Nintendo is seeking to re-invigorate game design, change it up. While I somewhat agree with your descriptions, that is more like going from an NES to SNES, where the genres are simply expanded upon(which for the record I think has the potential to also be new). Nintendo, on the other hand wants change. I think a lot of people will admit that game design has gotten stale for the most part, while still being enjoyable. Nintendos direction is more along the lines of going from SNES to N64, where completely new genres arise. This doesn't happen overnight, but it is an evolutionary process. Very early 3d games like Mario64 and Ocarina CHANGED the way we play games. They opened the doors for the likes of sereis' like Uncharted.

Heirren

One of my pet peeves is people giving Nintendo far too much credit for innovations they didn't necessarily pioneer.

For example you mentioned the analog controller on the N64 but the Atari 5200 had that as well and it was released in 1982.

As to Ocarina of Time and Mario 64 facilitating games like Uncharted, that really isn't true either. I'd actually venture to state that Tomb Raider and RE played a much larger role in the evolutionary process as it pertains to those types of games and the true progenitor was the original Devil May Cry, a clear extrapolation of the mechanics found in those earlier titles.

In actuality, Nintendo's role as an innovator ended with the N64. It was at this point that the company began ignoring trends and began alienating third party developers with their bizarre technology choices, starting with the ridiculous decision to use cartridges on the N64 and later opting to utilize an optical media other than the standard DVD format for the Cube, which lead to certain games not being ported despite the consoles power advantage over the PS2.

And despite all the hoopla over motion control, it offered very little real innovation save waggles and sucking in the casual dollar. As a whole motion control is as much a superficial gimmick as 3D and while it might have ensnared a heap of causal consumers most of these people were not return customers.

Meanwhile the Wii was a joke in terms of processing power and the online model was perfunctory and executed abysmally.

And the Wii U isn't innovative in the least. It's merely aping tablet gaming and placing the emphasis once again on gimmicks rather than software.

That isn't evolution but rather a sales strategy with no concern over how to properly propel this medium forward. And while they are entitled to enter the market however they wish, that doesn't mean all of us will drink the cool-aid or call such maneuvers conducive to the health of gaming.

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

We don't know that for sure yet. Nintendo claims their trying to court the "core" audience once more with the Wii U, and so far, I haven't seen evidence to the contrary. Won't know for sure how long they'll stick to that until we're past the console's first year.

c_rake

I think predicating the system, once again, on the controller while making the actual console underpowered (yet again) is evidence that they have no real aim to get the core gamer's attention.

Either that or they have no idea what actually moves people like me.

#57 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6007 posts) -
[QUOTE="c_rake"]I'm certain the industry will adjust its approach toward them as they become more ingrained in the community. The same ol' gimmicky software that's being peddled now won't satisfy them forever. They're gonna demand more, just as we do.Black_Knight_00
That's exactly what I thought until I saw preorder figures for the Wii U. Believe it or not, people are going for it again. The trend has just solidified into a sustainable and immensely profitable market strategy, so what terrifies me is that Sony might also think "Why am I still sweating like a pig trying to innovate, invent new IPs and invest in a high-tech system when I can repackage the PS3, call it PS4 and have china produce 50 million balance boards?" See why I say that casuals are bringing us into the pit with them?

I've been gaming for over 20 years, and I've been paying close attention to the whole gaming space since the N64. A Nintendo system hasn't been my primary console since the SNES, I bought my Gamecube well into the 360/PS3 gen, and I've skipped the Wii entirely. But the only reason I haven't got a Wii U preordered was because my email from Gamestop came late, and by the time I got it, preorders were sold out. Wii U is showing a huge shift from the Wii's target audience. Games like Assassin's Creed 3 and Aliens: Colonial Marines as well as Nintendo's coup with Bayonetta 2 aren't significant because they're current gen multiplats, but rather because they fly in the face of Nintendo's long held family friendly image. Nintendo is showing the gaming populace that they're growing up, and the number of third party multiplats they've got at launch(and in the launch window) is showing that they are trying to shake the Mario/Zelda/Metroid stigma they've endured for the last 3 generations. It may not be a huge step hardwarewise, but for Nintendo as a company it's a quantum leap. As far as holding back gaming, frankly, I'll be glad to spend $350 to upgrade my current gen gaming experience until the Nextbox/PS4 drop down to a reasonable pricepoint(and since I fully expect them to launch between 5- and 600 dollars, it ought to be about 3 years from now, and possibly more). As ever, I still maintain that Nintendo's only real mistake regarding their new system was to brand it as a successor to the Wii rather than as a DS home console. I think the gaming populace wouldn't bear it so much hate if it weren't for those three dread-inducing letters.
#58 Posted by Metamania (11971 posts) -

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="c_rake"]I'm certain the industry will adjust its approach toward them as they become more ingrained in the community. The same ol' gimmicky software that's being peddled now won't satisfy them forever. They're gonna demand more, just as we do.El_Zo1212o
That's exactly what I thought until I saw preorder figures for the Wii U. Believe it or not, people are going for it again. The trend has just solidified into a sustainable and immensely profitable market strategy, so what terrifies me is that Sony might also think "Why am I still sweating like a pig trying to innovate, invent new IPs and invest in a high-tech system when I can repackage the PS3, call it PS4 and have china produce 50 million balance boards?" See why I say that casuals are bringing us into the pit with them?

I've been gaming for over 20 years, and I've been paying close attention to the whole gaming space since the N64. A Nintendo system hasn't been my primary console since the SNES, I bought my Gamecube well into the 360/PS3 gen, and I've skipped the Wii entirely. But the only reason I haven't got a Wii U preordered was because my email from Gamestop came late, and by the time I got it, preorders were sold out. Wii U is showing a huge shift from the Wii's target audience. Games like Assassin's Creed 3 and Aliens: Colonial Marines as well as Nintendo's coup with Bayonetta 2 aren't significant because they're current gen multiplats, but rather because they fly in the face of Nintendo's long held family friendly image. Nintendo is showing the gaming populace that they're growing up, and the number of third party multiplats they've got at launch(and in the launch window) is showing that they are trying to shake the Mario/Zelda/Metroid stigma they've endured for the last 3 generations. It may not be a huge step hardwarewise, but for Nintendo as a company it's a quantum leap. As far as holding back gaming, frankly, I'll be glad to spend $350 to upgrade my current gen gaming experience until the Nextbox/PS4 drop down to a reasonable pricepoint(and since I fully expect them to launch between 5- and 600 dollars, it ought to be about 3 years from now, and possibly more). As ever, I still maintain that Nintendo's only real mistake regarding their new system was to brand it as a successor to the Wii rather than as a DS home console. I think the gaming populace wouldn't bear it so much hate if it weren't for those three dread-inducing letters.

Just so you know, there's always the chance that someone won't be getting the Wii U and Gamestop does have a Wii U wait list. That way, if someone is already set with their order from somewhere else, there could be that chance of them calling you and asking if you want one. I don't know if that's the route you wish to take though.

#59 Posted by c_rakestraw (14599 posts) -

How can the Wii U be core-oriented if it's little more than a glorified 360? I'm not talking about graphics, I'm talking about memory and processing power.Black_Knight_00

By offering genuinely good games? That's what the "core" wants, is it not?

I love better hardware as much as the next guy, but lower specs won't stop great games from being made. Sure the ports will suck by comparison (they always do), but if Nintendo is serious about making a bid for the "core," there should be more than enough original games for it that use the hardware effectively. Obviously they won't be able to hold a candle to the PS4 and next Xbox in terms of raw power and scale, but quality-wise? I'm sure they'll be fine.

For instance: I want the next step in open world games, I want the next Elder Scrolls to include all of Tamriel, I want GTA7 to include all of the US, I want to be able to land on any planet in Mass Effect 4. Will the PS4 be able to handle that? I don't know, but I know for a fact the Wii U won't... you've seen the specs. Hardcore PC gamers like to say that "consoles are holding us back" which (though I'm a console gamer) is kinda true: if Skyrim had been a high-end PC-only exclusive it would have been bigger and more complex. That's why I hope developers of AAA games continue ignoring Nintendo the way they ignored the Wii. Black_Knight_00

More and more developers have been asking for newer, much more powerful hardware in the last year, so I doubt they'll suddenly look toward Nintendo's strategy. Sony and Microsoft know that they can appeal most to those wanting the high-end graphics and processing power out of their consoles.

I don't think Nintendo will be able to keep lagging behind on the specs for much longer. Eventually that crutch -- the "casuals" -- isn't going to be as strong a market. I'd bet that, by the end of this coming cycle, Nintendo will have to catch up to stay competitive. Smart phones and tablets are increasingly becoming viable gaming platforms, and they're only getting more powerful by the minute. I wouldn't be surprised if these "casuals" start to use those as their primary game device. Nintendo's probably trying to appeal to the "core" right now because of that; try and stave off the inevitable for a while longer.

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

[QUOTE="Pedro"]

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]I feel like SMG2 surpasses any and all PS3/360 exclusives in quality.

Bigboi500

Good for you but like many others we don't agree with your assertion.

Yet, many do agree. Yay for opinions.

Subjectivity is a fine little blanket to hide under when the monsters of common sense coming stomping in but at some point I would question the taste and knowledge of anyone who would make such as assessment.

Both Galaxy games are fantastic; I own them. You could even make the argument that they represent the apex of the genre but to claim these two games trump the entirety of the PS3/XB360 exclusive library is clearly biased rhetoric.

There is objectivity to be had even when discussing a medium where subjectivity weighs in heavily and I try to apply both in equal amounts because otherwise there is no point in having a discussion at all. I could claim that Superman 64 is the best game ever made and hide behind the flimsy shield of subjective opinion but people would rightly dismiss said opinion as grossly misinformed.

To claim that the Galaxy games are the apex of this generation is difficult to fathom from an objective standpoint considering the massive strides, technological achievements and the expansion within both genres and subgenres that have occurred over the last six years.

To be fair, I think these games are among the best of the generation but to claim they somehow marginalize or negate the much larger and diverse exclusives on the competing consoles seems ridiculously hyperbolic.

#61 Posted by c_rakestraw (14599 posts) -

I think predicating the system, once again, on the controller while making the actual console underpowered (yet again) is evidence that they have no real aim to get the core gamer's attention.

Either that or they have no idea what actually moves people like me.

Grammaton-Cleric

They're splitting themselves in two. They're trying to appeal to the "core" by offering a traditional controller layout, but also trying to keep the "casuals" on board with the tablet itself. It's a weird ploy, but it might just work enough for them. Just enough to keep them afloat, but not enough to justify keeping up with their current strategy come time for their next console. I doubt the "casual" market will be as lucrative on the home console front by that time.

#62 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6007 posts) -

They're trying to appeal to the "core" by offering a traditional controller layout, but also trying to keep the "casuals" on board with the tablet itself.

c_rake
NO! How do people not get this? Look at the bottom half of the 3DS and compare it to the Gamepad- the difference? One stick and two shoulder buttons- creating a traditional console control scheme. People point at the Gamepad and say "Gimmick!" and "Tablet knockoff!" When the first DS came out, tablets were limited to E-Ink book readers, and $5,000 wrist-mounted Windows PCs.
#63 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6007 posts) -

I think predicating the system, once again, on the controller while making the actual console underpowered (yet again) is evidence that they have no real aim to get the core gamer's attention.

Grammaton-Cleric
Earlier, you praised Nintendo handhelds. The DS was(speaking in terms of hardware) a generation behind the PSP, and it roundly trounced the PSP in terms of both sales and(by all the accounts I've heard) library. Why should this be accepted for a handheld, but rejected outright for a home console?
#64 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18263 posts) -

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]How can the Wii U be core-oriented if it's little more than a glorified 360? I'm not talking about graphics, I'm talking about memory and processing power.c_rake

By offering genuinely good games? That's what the "core" wants, is it not?

I love better hardware as much as the next guy, but lower specs won't stop great games from being made. Sure the ports will suck by comparison (they always do), but if Nintendo is serious about making a bid for the "core," there should be more than enough original games for it that use the hardware effectively. Obviously they won't be able to hold a candle to the PS4 and next Xbox in terms of raw power and scale, but quality-wise? I'm sure they'll be fine.

For instance: I want the next step in open world games, I want the next Elder Scrolls to include all of Tamriel, I want GTA7 to include all of the US, I want to be able to land on any planet in Mass Effect 4. Will the PS4 be able to handle that? I don't know, but I know for a fact the Wii U won't... you've seen the specs. Hardcore PC gamers like to say that "consoles are holding us back" which (though I'm a console gamer) is kinda true: if Skyrim had been a high-end PC-only exclusive it would have been bigger and more complex. That's why I hope developers of AAA games continue ignoring Nintendo the way they ignored the Wii. Black_Knight_00

More and more developers have been asking for newer, much more powerful hardware in the last year, so I doubt they'll suddenly look toward Nintendo's strategy. Sony and Microsoft know that they can appeal most to those wanting the high-end graphics and processing power out of their consoles.

I don't think Nintendo will be able to keep lagging behind on the specs for much longer. Eventually that crutch -- the "casuals" -- isn't going to be as strong a market. I'd bet that, by the end of this coming cycle, Nintendo will have to catch up to stay competitive. Smart phones and tablets are increasingly becoming viable gaming platforms, and they're only getting more powerful by the minute. I wouldn't be surprised if these "casuals" start to use those as their primary game device. Nintendo's probably trying to appeal to the "core" right now because of that; try and stave off the inevitable for a while longer.

Good points, and I guess the definition of "good game" varies from gamer to gamer. I suppose the Wii U will be able to sell extremely well to people who don't care about larger gaming worlds and increased depth and are content with a new JRPG or a new hack & slash. I know I am more demanding than that. As far as smartphones are concerned, that's also my point of view: casuals will soon use them as a primary gaming platform, abandoning the gimmicks that have been cluttering 'our' gaming industry in the last few years. That will be the time for Nintendo to try and wh*re themselves out to us once again, only it may be too late to retrieve the many former nintendo people (like me) who have already found a new 'home' Also, what if the casual exodus happens two years from now? Nintendo would be stuck with an underpowered system that core gamers don't want and casuals have no longer need for. Sort of an ominous scenario for them. They should have invested now in better hardware and put the competition in an awkward spot.
#65 Posted by c_rakestraw (14599 posts) -

As far as smartphones are concerned, that's also my point of view: casuals will soon use them as a primary gaming platform, abandoning the gimmicks that have been cluttering 'our' gaming industry in the last few years. That will be the time for Nintendo to try and wh*re themselves out to us once again, only it may be too late to retrieve the many former nintendo people (like me) who have already found a new 'home'

Also, what if the casual exodus happens two years from now? Nintendo would be stuck with an underpowered system that core gamers don't want and casuals have no longer need for. Sort of an ominous scenario for them. They should have invested now in better hardware and put the competition in an awkward spot.

Black_Knight_00

I agree. They should have prepared themselves better. I think they're just too blind or arrogant to see potential failure, though. I mean, Reggie and Iwata have already gone on record multiple times to discount mobile gaming as any sort of threat to their own hand-helds. "People still want a dedicated game platform," they say. There's definitely some truth to that, but to act as though smart phones and tablets aren't competitors is just plain ignorance. Same thought process probably applies to the Wii U as well.

It'll be interesting to see how they'll react if and when their consoles begin flagging once more.

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

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

I think predicating the system, once again, on the controller while making the actual console underpowered (yet again) is evidence that they have no real aim to get the core gamer's attention.

El_Zo1212o

Earlier, you praised Nintendo handhelds. The DS was(speaking in terms of hardware) a generation behind the PSP, and it roundly trounced the PSP in terms of both sales and(by all the accounts I've heard) library. Why should this be accepted for a handheld, but rejected outright for a home console?

A fair question.

Home consoles are an entirely different creature than handhelds and have always been. The best consoles have enough power to offer some serious advancement in terms of technology, graphics, physics, etc without (hopefully) breaking our wallets.

I think most people look for an entirely different experience with portable gaming, which is why many would rather play a 2D original game than some port of a game they could otherwise enjoy on their massive HDTV.

And to be perfectly honest, despite having at one point owned all of the various handhelds save the Vita, I don't much care for handheld gaming. I think Nintendos handhelds are slick and when you really consider it, the 3DS has some pretty solid horsepower for being such a tiny machine.

But my metric for consoles is entirely different. The Wii was a joke in terms of processing power and while I think the Wii U will offer games that age better given the HD component I also suspect that the PS4 and NextXB will be far more powerful and give us that generational boost we've come to expect.

And yes, better technology can and does facilitate better software.

Also, Nintendo handhelds enjoy such universal adoration because they have phenomenal third party support and focus on the core experience. The Wii was based entirely on the gimmick of motion control and the Wii U is based entirely on the vapidity of tablet gaming.

Even more irksome is that the Wii U's price is ridiculously bloated because of a feature I don't want. Were the console merely an HD upgrade with the option of having a traditional controller for a lower price tag I'd buy it day one. Instead, Nintendo has seen fit to charge an outrageous amount for aging tech because they are forcing me to purchase an insanely expensive controller for a feature I simply do not want.

In retrospect I should have never purchased a Wii as I barely played the damn thing so this time around I have no intention of giving Nintendo a dime.

And really, why would I?

Everything I would want on the Wii U I will already have on the PS3/XB.

#67 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6007 posts) -

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"][QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

I think predicating the system, once again, on the controller while making the actual console underpowered (yet again) is evidence that they have no real aim to get the core gamer's attention.

Grammaton-Cleric

Earlier, you praised Nintendo handhelds. The DS was(speaking in terms of hardware) a generation behind the PSP, and it roundly trounced the PSP in terms of both sales and(by all the accounts I've heard) library. Why should this be accepted for a handheld, but rejected outright for a home console?

A fair question.

Home consoles are an entirely different creature than handhelds and have always been. The best consoles have enough power to offer some serious advancement in terms of technology, graphics, physics, etc without (hopefully) breaking our wallets.

I think most people look for an entirely different experience with portable gaming, which is why many would rather play a 2D original game than some port of a game they could otherwise enjoy on their massive HDTV.

And to be perfectly honest, despite having at one point owned all of the various handhelds save the Vita, I don't much care for handheld gaming. I think Nintendos handhelds are slick and when you really consider it, the 3DS has some pretty solid horsepower for being such a tiny machine.

But my metric for consoles is entirely different. The Wii was a joke in terms of processing power and while I think the Wii U will offer games that age better given the HD component I also suspect that the PS4 and NextXB will be far more powerful and give us that generational boost we've come to expect.

And yes, better technology can and does facilitate better software.

Also, Nintendo handhelds enjoy such universal adoration because they have phenomenal third party support and focus on the core experience. The Wii was based entirely on the gimmick of motion control and the Wii U is based entirely on the vapidity of tablet gaming.

Even more irksome is that the Wii U's price is ridiculously bloated because of a feature I don't want. Were the console merely an HD upgrade with the option of having a traditional controller for a lower price tag I'd buy it day one. Instead, Nintendo has seen fit to charge an outrageous amount for aging tech because they are forcing me to purchase an insanely expensive controller for a feature I simply do not want.

In retrospect I should have never purchased a Wii as I barely played the damn thing so this time around I have no intention of giving Nintendo a dime.

And really, why would I?

Everything I would want on the Wii U I will already have on the PS3/XB.

Coupl'a things: First, new hardware has(up until the Wii) always been a wallet breaker- SNES launched in '91 at $200, Sega Saturn in '95 at 400, and PS3 in '06 for up to 600. There is no reason to believe that the Nextbox/PS4 will be anything but as- or more- expensive if the generational leap is far beyond what the Wii U is doing. Next, contrarily, while I also don't own a Vita, I have also owned every major handheld since my old 4AA BrickBoy from way way back in the day, but I love handheld games and systems. It probably started because my first game system(that actually belonged to me alone) was that old GameBoy. But now it's about the experiences I can have on my handhelds, and it's exciting to me to see what they can do now, and I eagerly await what comes next for them. The console quality experiences I can get on my little screens is amazing to me. I agree about better technology. In fact, my idea for the perfect superhero game couldn't be done on current gen console simply because the physics and all the different gameplay styles would be impossible to cram into the consoles we have now. But at the same time, I don't think the current generation has been tapped of all it's potential yet. That's why, for all my disdain of the half hour mandatory install times and all the other nonsense which has prevented me from replacing my PS3, I very much respect Sony for their ten-year plans. About the "vapidity of tablet gaming," the argument is still that the Gamepad doesn't represent Angry Birds HD, but rather it is a home console version of the DS concept- a second screen with touch functionality to do away with game stalling menus and helps unclutter the game space. Up till now, the clutter has been mostly excised by way of fading- if your health is full, the health bar disappears; if your weapon is holstered, your ammo display fades out, so on and et cetera. But now your screen can be completely clear of everything except the action on screen. Immersion is a factor, right? In games like Watch Dogs, The Amazing Spiderman and Batman: Arkham City where things like the Minimap and the in game menus are cell phones or PDAs, you now have them in your hand and they function with a touch. And finally, what about the future multiplats? It's all well and good to say that things like Black Ops 2, Darksiders 2, Assassin's Creed 3 and so on are already on PS360, but what about when the multiplats start hitting all 3 systems at once(which they will be doing for at least a year, and possibly up to 18 months according to a recent article)? When the superior version is on Wii U with additional features because of the more powerful hardware and the different input options? And if Playstation 3 is going to be supported for another 2 years and Wii U is driving software because they're the ones most invested in keeping the last gen hardware alive(assuming that the next gen will be such a leap that the Wii U won't be able to multiplat the games again), do you expect Microsoft to bow out entirely and say "next gen or bust"? Personally, I think that this move by Nintendo will keep this generation around for much more than the ten years Sony originally planned for. Unless, of course, the next generation doesn't produce software that the Wii U is incapable of running.
#68 Posted by Heirren (16509 posts) -
While I do side with the much improved technology, people still seem to be throwing away the "what ifs" in regards to the potential of the wiiu. Are people certain that Microsoft and Sony won't follow through on Nintendos idea of tablet design? No. Let's speak hypothetically and say Nintendo, along with 3rd parties, drastically changes gameplay immerstion through this setup. Will people still rag on the wiiu because it offers lower tech? Can people imagine the cost of a powerful Sony/MS console with a tablet controller? I think there is a sacrifice here that must be made, no? Personally Ive been one of the more critical people as far as the wiius power is considered. It is a bit of a letdown, but some of the Nintendoland things shown do show some gameplay progression. I miss the local multiplayer of consoles that seems to have been abandoned in favor of online, and the profits from dlc to be made. It seems as if Nintendo is trying to distance themselves from this direction the console industry is heading. For this I respect them. Just about every single sports genre can be improved upon with the tablet. I can only imagine what a mind like Hideo Kojima could put into place here. It is almost as if people think the only progression from here on out is on a visual/physics/size front. This simply isnt the case. Are the complaints solely on a power front, or are people upset at the tablet? I ask because as I pointed out earlier, people complained about every controller evolution. The wii didn't catch on with 3rd parties. So what, that is over and done with. Is it because people are in fear of feeling like a newbie when they play an fps game? There's just too many variables involved to call things this early. Also, the whole "core" thing is just a load of bs. What do people call a core game? imo, "core" more refers to the returning market gamer--those that simply like to play good, in depth games.
#69 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

Coupl'a things: First, new hardware has(up until the Wii) always been a wallet breaker- SNES launched in '91 at $200, Sega Saturn in '95 at 400, and PS3 in '06 for up to 600. There is no reason to believe that the Nextbox/PS4 will be anything but as- or more- expensive if the generational leap is far beyond what the Wii U is doing. Next, contrarily, while I also don't own a Vita, I have also owned every major handheld since my old 4AA BrickBoy from way way back in the day, but I love handheld games and systems. It probably started because my first game system(that actually belonged to me alone) was that old GameBoy. But now it's about the experiences I can have on my handhelds, and it's exciting to me to see what they can do now, and I eagerly await what comes next for them. The console quality experiences I can get on my little screens is amazing to me. I agree about better technology. In fact, my idea for the perfect superhero game couldn't be done on current gen console simply because the physics and all the different gameplay styles would be impossible to cram into the consoles we have now. But at the same time, I don't think the current generation has been tapped of all it's potential yet. That's why, for all my disdain of the half hour mandatory install times and all the other nonsense which has prevented me from replacing my PS3, I very much respect Sony for their ten-year plans. About the "vapidity of tablet gaming," the argument is still that the Gamepad doesn't represent Angry Birds HD, but rather it is a home console version of the DS concept- a second screen with touch functionality to do away with game stalling menus and helps unclutter the game space. Up till now, the clutter has been mostly excised by way of fading- if your health is full, the health bar disappears; if your weapon is holstered, your ammo display fades out, so on and et cetera. But now your screen can be completely clear of everything except the action on screen. Immersion is a factor, right? In games like Watch Dogs, The Amazing Spiderman and Batman: Arkham City where things like the Minimap and the in game menus are cell phones or PDAs, you now have them in your hand and they function with a touch. And finally, what about the future multiplats? It's all well and good to say that things like Black Ops 2, Darksiders 2, Assassin's Creed 3 and so on are already on PS360, but what about when the multiplats start hitting all 3 systems at once(which they will be doing for at least a year, and possibly up to 18 months according to a recent article)? When the superior version is on Wii U with additional features because of the more powerful hardware and the different input options? And if Playstation 3 is going to be supported for another 2 years and Wii U is driving software because they're the ones most invested in keeping the last gen hardware alive(assuming that the next gen will be such a leap that the Wii U won't be able to multiplat the games again), do you expect Microsoft to bow out entirely and say "next gen or bust"? Personally, I think that this move by Nintendo will keep this generation around for much more than the ten years Sony originally planned for. Unless, of course, the next generation doesn't produce software that the Wii U is incapable of running.

El_Zo1212o

I think we all have our own expectations and desires as it relates to portable gaming. Personally, I don't care for it in any capacity despite taking several bites at the apple, which is probably why I have such an overt distain for this tablet nonsense.

Speaking of which, I never had a particular affinity for the dual screen aspect of the DS. While I'm not inherently against such a model, I'd rather Nintendo had either given me a choice or invested in more powerful hardware, especially since I have no problems with the way the games you mention play on traditional controllers.

As to multiplats, my understanding is that the Wii U isn't actually more powerful overall than the XB360 or PS3 but rather does certain things better (namely a large amount of RAM) while other aspects lag behind. By all accounts the three systems are looking to have relative graphical parity and I certainly don't see myself wasting 350 dollars to slightly improve draw distance, frame rate or resolution.

If I was that anal retentive about graphical fidelity I would invest in a dedicated gaming PC.

Personally, I don't think either MS or Sony are prepared to let Nintendo get a two year lead on the next generation unless sales flat line or graphical parity is such that it doesn't matter. Regardless, when the PS4 and XB3 finally do launch, I expect they will leave the Wii U in the proverbial dust in terms of processing power.

And again, I'm speaking only from my own perspective. I have a genuine dislike for Nintendo because I've felt burned by their last three consoles. I have no one to blame but myself but the Wii U would have to be something pretty damn special to get me to cross that threshold once again.

#70 Posted by Bigboi500 (29308 posts) -

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="Pedro"]

Good for you but like many others we don't agree with your assertion.

Grammaton-Cleric

Yet, many do agree. Yay for opinions.

Subjectivity is a fine little blanket to hide under when the monsters of common sense coming stomping in but at some point I would question the taste and knowledge of anyone who would make such as assessment.

Both Galaxy games are fantastic; I own them. You could even make the argument that they represent the apex of the genre but to claim these two games trump the entirety of the PS3/XB360 exclusive library is clearly biased rhetoric.

There is objectivity to be had even when discussing a medium where subjectivity weighs in heavily and I try to apply both in equal amounts because otherwise there is no point in having a discussion at all. I could claim that Superman 64 is the best game ever made and hide behind the flimsy shield of subjective opinion but people would rightly dismiss said opinion as grossly misinformed.

To claim that the Galaxy games are the apex of this generation is difficult to fathom from an objective standpoint considering the massive strides, technological achievements and the expansion within both genres and subgenres that have occurred over the last six years.

To be fair, I think these games are among the best of the generation but to claim they somehow marginalize or negate the much larger and diverse exclusives on the competing consoles seems ridiculously hyperbolic.

Seems to me like you're trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. I've played all the big exclusives on all three consoles and I stand by what I said. The Galaxy games are, to me, the best of the generation. I find the gameplay to be unparalleled, and the game design to be almost perfect. Those games offer a great time for casual gamers, and great challenge for advanced gamers. Few games can actually do that.

What PS3 or 360 games do you think are better, and why?

#71 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

While I do side with the much improved technology, people still seem to be throwing away the "what ifs" in regards to the potential of the wiiu. Are people certain that Microsoft and Sony won't follow through on Nintendos idea of tablet design? No. Let's speak hypothetically and say Nintendo, along with 3rd parties, drastically changes gameplay immerstion through this setup. Will people still rag on the wiiu because it offers lower tech? Can people imagine the cost of a powerful Sony/MS console with a tablet controller? I think there is a sacrifice here that must be made, no? Personally Ive been one of the more critical people as far as the wiius power is considered. It is a bit of a letdown, but some of the Nintendoland things shown do show some gameplay progression. I miss the local multiplayer of consoles that seems to have been abandoned in favor of online, and the profits from dlc to be made. It seems as if Nintendo is trying to distance themselves from this direction the console industry is heading. For this I respect them. Just about every single sports genre can be improved upon with the tablet. I can only imagine what a mind like Hideo Kojima could put into place here. It is almost as if people think the only progression from here on out is on a visual/physics/size front. This simply isnt the case. Are the complaints solely on a power front, or are people upset at the tablet? I ask because as I pointed out earlier, people complained about every controller evolution. The wii didn't catch on with 3rd parties. So what, that is over and done with. Is it because people are in fear of feeling like a newbie when they play an fps game? There's just too many variables involved to call things this early. Also, the whole "core" thing is just a load of bs. What do people call a core game? imo, "core" more refers to the returning market gamer--those that simply like to play good, in depth games. Heirren

Local multiplayer didn't go anywhere (nods towards racing games, fighting games, 2D games and of course dance games and minigame collections).

As for the impact of a second screen, people can't really pay attention to two screens at the same time (trust me, I spent a lot of time with the Dreamcast). Having an unobtrusive but easy to see read HUD is better then having to divert one's attention to a second screen (Dead Space does it extremely well).

deadspace.jpg

The second screen might benefit same room multiplayer games such as sports games or any game where its helpful for one player to have a perspective on the action others in the room don't.

The possibilities offered by even standard controllers are incredibly broad, its just that most don't take advantage of them.

Last but not least, Nintendo skipped DLC in the past because it didn't have an online system, not because it has something against it in principle. I recently read an article about Fire Emblem DLC. Expect more.

http://www.siliconera.com/2012/09/22/fire-emblem-awakening-dlc-sales-in-japan-are-doing-well/

Unozawa shared sales figures that showed that 1.2 million units of paid Fire Emblem: Awakening DLC have been sold thus far. These DLC sales have brought in revenue of 380 million yen (about $4.8 million).

Retail revenue from Fire Emblem: Awakening is about 2.4 billion yen ($30.6 million). DLC sales accounted for an additional 15% of revenue.

I don't see why anyone would categorically reject DLC. Like games, some of it is worth the money, some isn't. What is 'worth it' is contingent upon the tastes of a given gamer.

#72 Posted by Haziqonfire (36344 posts) -

Miiverse very well might be the first big step towards a fully integrated social outlet on a console.

Granted Microsoft and Sony have attempted similar ideas, but both fall flat due to design choices. We can't really say much about Miiverse considering we haven't seen it - but based on what Nintendo showed for Nintendo TVii, I'm excited to see how Miiverse turns out.

Nintendo TVii already proved (surprisingly enough) that Nintendo is doing this whole multimedia integration far better than Microsoft is planning to with SmartGlass. I might be crazy, but I have faith that Nintendo will pull of a great social media type experience on a console with Miiverse.

I mean taking ideas from Dark Souls and implementing it on your entire console OS is a great idea, not to mention that there's 1GB of RAM dedicated to the OS alone ... I'm hoping for big things.

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

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]Yet, many do agree. Yay for opinions.

Bigboi500

Subjectivity is a fine little blanket to hide under when the monsters of common sense coming stomping in but at some point I would question the taste and knowledge of anyone who would make such as assessment.

Both Galaxy games are fantastic; I own them. You could even make the argument that they represent the apex of the genre but to claim these two games trump the entirety of the PS3/XB360 exclusive library is clearly biased rhetoric.

There is objectivity to be had even when discussing a medium where subjectivity weighs in heavily and I try to apply both in equal amounts because otherwise there is no point in having a discussion at all. I could claim that Superman 64 is the best game ever made and hide behind the flimsy shield of subjective opinion but people would rightly dismiss said opinion as grossly misinformed.

To claim that the Galaxy games are the apex of this generation is difficult to fathom from an objective standpoint considering the massive strides, technological achievements and the expansion within both genres and subgenres that have occurred over the last six years.

To be fair, I think these games are among the best of the generation but to claim they somehow marginalize or negate the much larger and diverse exclusives on the competing consoles seems ridiculously hyperbolic.

Seems to me like you're trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. I've played all the big exclusives on all three consoles and I stand by what I said. The Galaxy games are, to me, the best of the generation. I find the gameplay to be unparalleled, and the game design to be almost perfect. Those games offer a great time for casual gamers, and great challenge for advanced gamers. Few games can actually do that.

What PS3 or 360 games do you think are better, and why?

It's not so much about better as realizing how inherently limited it seems to suggest those two games encapsulate and represent the best of this generation in its entirety.

When you look at something like the Little Big Planet franchise for example, which offers not only a fantastic core experience but also a brilliant and unmatched creative tool set, we can observe a construct that facilitates an elasticity limited only by player imagination; an innovative game in that it becomes an endless experience of player-created content.

Or you could consider the likes of Red Dead Redemption, which fuses the sandbox genre with the expansive thematic of the untamed west, providing not merely a backdrop for epic battles replete with brilliant physics but also allows for quieter moments where you as the player explore a vast and solitary frontier that manages to perfectly capture a bygone era of history.

Then you have games that take far larger risks than your typical Nintendo fare, like Mirrors Edge, an endeavor that pushes the FPS genre further than perhaps any other game in the last decade.

Or Dark Souls, an almost perfect rendering of the 8-bit and 16-bit difficulty curves fully realized in a full three dimensions and requiring dedication and skill to complete.

The Uncharted trilogy offers almost perfect gameplay and level design.

Max Payne 3 is the purest of shooters and contains among the most brilliant use of the Euphoria engine seen to date.

Just Cause 3 is massive, gorgeous, polished and delivers an agency to the player unlike anything seen before.

And that isn't even factoring in the inexhaustible offerings from the PSN and XBLA marketplaces.

With respect, your argument seems very typical of the pro-Nintendo agenda some people seem so eager to espouse, often with the same vague praise that could be applied to so many other games. Frankly, I've read these arguments before and they seem rooted in some practiced rebuttal whereby a defender of Nintendo's paltry offerings suggests that certain key exclusives entirely eclipse the much broader offerings of rival consoles. From a rhetorical standpoint it comes off like a desperate Hail Mary; some weak justification dating back to the N64, when the software dried up and forced the fan base to adopt a new mantra: quality over quantity.

Personally, I could never choose one game above all else because there are simply far too many outstanding and divergent experiences to claim any one title or even franchise as the definitively best game.

It strikes me as disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.

But that's simply me and how I choose to approach the manner in which I critique this medium. I've come to realize my adherence to objectivity is something not readily shared so I'm certainly not expecting you to agree with my personal metric.

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

Miiverse very well might be the first big step towards a fully integrated social outlet on a console.

Granted Microsoft and Sony have attempted similar ideas, but both fall flat due to design choices. We can't really say much about Miiverse considering we haven't seen it - but based on what Nintendo showed for Nintendo TVii, I'm excited to see how Miiverse turns out.

Nintendo TVii already proved (surprisingly enough) that Nintendo is doing this whole multimedia integration far better than Microsoft is planning to with SmartGlass. I might be crazy, but I have faith that Nintendo will pull of a great social media type experience on a console with Miiverse.

I mean taking ideas from Dark Souls and implementing it on your entire console OS is a great idea, not to mention that there's 1GB of RAM dedicated to the OS alone ... I'm hoping for big things.

Haziqonfire

That's fantastic assuming I give two sh*ts about social networking.

I don't.

I'm a gamer and even though Nintendo supposedly wants my hardcore allegiance and money they claim their killer app is some bit of social fluff that has little to do with the actual propagation of game play.

Personally, I think Nintendo has been suckling at the casual teat for so long they've forgotten that gamers like me even exist.

Luckily, Sony and MS have not.

(And if they do, I'll become a dedicated PC gamer)

#75 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6007 posts) -

That's fantastic assuming I give two sh*ts about social networking.

I don't.

Grammaton-Cleric
Then this seems like a hell of an odd place to hang out. :D And Reggie's a tool. Worse, he's a dreadfully out-of-touch tool. See the important stuff for yourself, rather than listen to the people who point out exactly the wrong things.
#76 Posted by Haziqonfire (36344 posts) -

That's fantastic assuming I give two sh*ts about social networking.

I don't.

I'm a gamer and even though Nintendo supposedly wants my hardcore allegiance and money they claim their killer app is some bit of social fluff that has little to do with the actual propagation of game play.

Personally, I think Nintendo has been suckling at the casual teat for so long they've forgotten that gamers like me even exist.

Luckily, Sony and MS have not.

(And if they do, I'll become a dedicated PC gamer)

Grammaton-Cleric

I don't think you understand PR.

The wording might state killer app but the larger picture here is Reggie stating that Miiverse can be one of Wii U's biggest draw ins and differentiating factor. It's similar to Xbox Live being the draw in for console consumers who want the best online gaming experience.

You act as if going after a larger audience is a bad thing. This is something that is shared industry wide by self proclaimed hardcore gamers. The sentiment is honestly becoming one of the biggest problems with the industry and sorry to say, I loathe people who actively associate going after a wider audience as a horrible, vile business strategy. It's not as if Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft have entirely abandoned their core demographic. People who like those games are still going to have games to play. Nintendo has proven with the Wii that they can still offer high quality experience for both audiences. Deal with it.

Also you must not really know the industry that well if you honestly think Microsoft and Sony haven't attempted to capture a wider audience. Microsoft has done this by way of Kinect. Sony has done this by way of the PS1 and PS2 -- both accidentally -- and the PS Move, intentionally.

So let me try to understand your point of view at the end of your post. -- You're willing to ditch all the console manufacturers in attempting to go after a larger audience, regardless of the fact that all three still make games for their core demographics?

lol.

#77 Posted by Bigboi500 (29308 posts) -

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

Subjectivity is a fine little blanket to hide under when the monsters of common sense coming stomping in but at some point I would question the taste and knowledge of anyone who would make such as assessment.

Both Galaxy games are fantastic; I own them. You could even make the argument that they represent the apex of the genre but to claim these two games trump the entirety of the PS3/XB360 exclusive library is clearly biased rhetoric.

There is objectivity to be had even when discussing a medium where subjectivity weighs in heavily and I try to apply both in equal amounts because otherwise there is no point in having a discussion at all. I could claim that Superman 64 is the best game ever made and hide behind the flimsy shield of subjective opinion but people would rightly dismiss said opinion as grossly misinformed.

To claim that the Galaxy games are the apex of this generation is difficult to fathom from an objective standpoint considering the massive strides, technological achievements and the expansion within both genres and subgenres that have occurred over the last six years.

To be fair, I think these games are among the best of the generation but to claim they somehow marginalize or negate the much larger and diverse exclusives on the competing consoles seems ridiculously hyperbolic.

Grammaton-Cleric

Seems to me like you're trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. I've played all the big exclusives on all three consoles and I stand by what I said. The Galaxy games are, to me, the best of the generation. I find the gameplay to be unparalleled, and the game design to be almost perfect. Those games offer a great time for casual gamers, and great challenge for advanced gamers. Few games can actually do that.

What PS3 or 360 games do you think are better, and why?

It's not so much about better as realizing how inherently limited it seems to suggest those two games encapsulate and represent the best of this generation in its entirety.

When you look at something like the Little Big Planet franchise for example, which offers not only a fantastic core experience but also a brilliant and unmatched creative tool set, we can observe a construct that facilitates an elasticity limited only by player imagination; an innovative game in that it becomes an endless experience of player-created content.

Or you could consider the likes of Red Dead Redemption, which fuses the sandbox genre with the expansive thematic of the untamed west, providing not merely a backdrop for epic battles replete with brilliant physics but also allows for quieter moments where you as the player explore a vast and solitary frontier that manages to perfectly capture a bygone era of history.

Then you have games that take far larger risks than your typical Nintendo fare, like Mirrors Edge, an endeavor that pushes the FPS genre further than perhaps any other game in the last decade.

Or Dark Souls, an almost perfect rendering of the 8-bit and 16-bit difficulty curves fully realized in a full three dimensions and requiring dedication and skill to complete.

The Uncharted trilogy offers almost perfect gameplay and level design.

Max Payne 3 is the purest of shooters and contains among the most brilliant use of the Euphoria engine seen to date.

Just Cause 3 is massive, gorgeous, polished and delivers an agency to the player unlike anything seen before.

And that isn't even factoring in the inexhaustible offerings from the PSN and XBLA marketplaces.

With respect, your argument seems very typical of the pro-Nintendo agenda some people seem so eager to espouse, often with the same vague praise that could be applied to so many other games. Frankly, I've read these arguments before and they seem rooted in some practiced rebuttal whereby a defender of Nintendo's paltry offerings suggests that certain key exclusives entirely eclipse the much broader offerings of rival consoles. From a rhetorical standpoint it comes off like a desperate Hail Mary; some weak justification dating back to the N64, when the software dried up and forced the fan base to adopt a new mantra: quality over quantity.

Personally, I could never choose one game above all else because there are simply far too many outstanding and divergent experiences to claim any one title or even franchise as the definitively best game.

It strikes me as disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.

But that's simply me and how I choose to approach the manner in which I critique this medium. I've come to realize my adherence to objectivity is something not readily shared so I'm certainly not expecting you to agree with my personal metric.

I had a long response, but my damn browser closed on me for no reason. But I'll do a TL;DR post.

I'm not a blind Nintendo fanboy, if that's what you're suggesting. My favorite system this gen is PS3, and some of my favorite games are Valkyria Chronicles, Rayman Origins, Fallout NV & 3, The Elder Scrolls, Tales of Vesperia and Red Dead Redemption. My favorite genres are platforming and RPGs.

I shouldn't have to defend what I find to be my favorite games, no matter what system they're on.

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

I had a long response, but my damn browser closed on me for no reason. But I'll do a TL;DR post.

I'm not a blind Nintendo fanboy, if that's what you're suggesting. My favorite system this gen is PS3, and some of my favorite games are Valkyria Chronicles, Rayman Origins, Fallout NV & 3, The Elder Scrolls, Tales of Vesperia and Red Dead Redemption. My favorite genres are platforming and RPGs.

I shouldn't have to defend what I find to be my favorite games, no matter what system they're on.

Bigboi500

I'm not accusing you of anything but merely relating my own perceptions because I have encountered these types of arguments before.

I've also gone out of my way to ensure that you understand I'm not expecting you to use my own personal rubric for deciding quality.

What you choose to defend is up to you. I do have a serious problem with anyone claiming a single game or franchise utterly eclipses the entirety of such a rich and varied generation of gaming and I possess the requisite knowledge to rebut such an assertion assuming that is something you are looking to debate.

But understand I'm not looking to deride you personally or put you in a corner. If you want to defend your assertion that is fine and if not I'll happily move along.

#79 Posted by Bigboi500 (29308 posts) -

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

I had a long response, but my damn browser closed on me for no reason. But I'll do a TL;DR post.

I'm not a blind Nintendo fanboy, if that's what you're suggesting. My favorite system this gen is PS3, and some of my favorite games are Valkyria Chronicles, Rayman Origins, Fallout NV & 3, The Elder Scrolls, Tales of Vesperia and Red Dead Redemption. My favorite genres are platforming and RPGs.

I shouldn't have to defend what I find to be my favorite games, no matter what system they're on.

Grammaton-Cleric

I'm not accusing you of anything but merely relating my own perceptions because I have encountered these types of arguments before.

I've also gone out of my way to ensure that you understand I'm not expecting you to use my own personal rubric for deciding quality.

What you choose to defend is up to you. I do have a serious problem with anyone claiming a single game or franchise utterly eclipses the entirety of such a rich and varied generation of gaming and I possess the requisite knowledge to rebut such an assertion assuming that is something you are looking to debate.

But understand I'm not looking to deride you personally or put you in a corner. If you want to defend your assertion that is fine and if not I'll happily move along.

Well I've already clearly explained why I think they're the best of the generation. I don't see what else there is for me to try to defend. They've simply offered me the best personal experience out of all the games I like and have played as of yet this generation. There's nothing fanboyistic or fake about anything I've said.

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

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

That's fantastic assuming I give two sh*ts about social networking.

I don't.

I'm a gamer and even though Nintendo supposedly wants my hardcore allegiance and money they claim their killer app is some bit of social fluff that has little to do with the actual propagation of game play.

Personally, I think Nintendo has been suckling at the casual teat for so long they've forgotten that gamers like me even exist.

Luckily, Sony and MS have not.

(And if they do, I'll become a dedicated PC gamer)

Haziqonfire

I don't think you understand PR.

The wording might state killer app but the larger picture here is Reggie stating that Miiverse can be one of Wii U's biggest draw ins and differentiating factor. It's similar to Xbox Live being the draw in for console consumers who want the best online gaming experience.

You act as if going after a larger audience is a bad thing. This is something that is shared industry wide by self proclaimed hardcore gamers. The sentiment is honestly becoming one of the biggest problems with the industry and sorry to say, I loathe people who actively associate going after a wider audience as a horrible, vile business strategy. It's not as if Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft have entirely abandoned their core demographic. People who like those games are still going to have games to play. Nintendo has proven with the Wii that they can still offer high quality experience for both audiences. Deal with it.

Also you must not really know the industry that well if you honestly think Microsoft and Sony haven't attempted to capture a wider audience. Microsoft has done this by way of Kinect. Sony has done this by way of the PS1 and PS2 -- both accidentally -- and the PS Move, intentionally.

So let me try to understand your point of view at the end of your post. -- You're willing to ditch all the console manufacturers in attempting to go after a larger audience, regardless of the fact that all three still make games for their core demographics?

lol.

I would caution you to never assume that I lack comprehension. It's a feeble way to open an argument and immediately frames your thesis as contingent upon personal slights rather than substantive content.

Not only do I understand PR, I often teach the subject at it relates to advertisements and consumer documents. It's not at all complicated but, when wielded clumsily, it can be detrimental and act as a force entirely in opposition of its original intent, which is to generate consumer interest.

I'm a consumer (with a healthy disposable income) and I remain uninterested.

Your assumption that I am inherently against generating a broader market for this medium is a simplistic bit of conjecture. As a point of fact I am all for the healthy growth of this medium assuming it doesn't come at the cost of quality for myself and like-minded gamers. What I find amusingly grotesque is that you actually think Nintendo was able to walk that fine line between broad appeal while placating the core gamer when in reality the Wii has a third-rate library save for some Nintendo first party exclusives.

Even Nintendo understands that they alienated the core demographic, which is why they are claiming (using that cheap PR you suggest I don't understand) to want those gamers back. Thus, it is utterly bizarre that you would claim the Wii offered both demographics an equitable experience when Nintendo itself has indirectly admitted the contrary.

Then you accuse me of not understanding the industry in yet another grandiose leap of baseless conjecture.

I'm well aware of MS and Sony's attempt to net the casual market and the result was a weakening of their brand among the core gamer. The PS Move is an abject failure and Kinnect is nothing more to me than an irksome impediment to real gaming that has swallowed up far too much of MS's resources.

What your pedestrian analysis of this industry fails to note is that the casual consumer is, generally speaking, not a repeat customer. The Wii sold incredibly well until the fad of the thing wore off and then the system languished at retail. Casual consumers will buy the flavor of the month and then move on even as people like me purchase software year round and indefinitely. The soccer moms, geriatrics and housewives looking to tone their asses on Wi Fit will come and go but the core gamer remains.

That's what Nintendo wants back, even if they don't necessarily understand how to get it.

You conclude with a summation that is of your own fabrication, yet you attribute it to me.

Since you require clarification let me restate my point: I will abandon the console manufacturers if they sacrifice the core market for the sake of the casual consumer. That is precisely what Nintendo did with the Wii and what they are looking to do with the Wii U based on what they have revealed thus far. If Sony and MS follow suit then I'll become a PC gamer or abandon the medium altogether, though the latter is unlikely.

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

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

That's fantastic assuming I give two sh*ts about social networking.

I don't.

El_Zo1212o

Then this seems like a hell of an odd place to hang out. :D And Reggie's a tool. Worse, he's a dreadfully out-of-touch tool. See the important stuff for yourself, rather than listen to the people who point out exactly the wrong things.

I don't consider this place the same thing as Facebook or Twitter.

It's an enthusiast board and I'm an enthusiast.

And you probably know that I always do my own research, thus my abject disgust at Nintendo's continuing downward spiral is spawned entirely from my own deductions and investigations.

Like I stated previously, four times in a row is too much to get burned, even for a staunch enthusiast like me.

#82 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6007 posts) -

[QUOTE="Haziqonfire"]

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

That's fantastic assuming I give two sh*ts about social networking.

I don't.

I'm a gamer and even though Nintendo supposedly wants my hardcore allegiance and money they claim their killer app is some bit of social fluff that has little to do with the actual propagation of game play.

Personally, I think Nintendo has been suckling at the casual teat for so long they've forgotten that gamers like me even exist.

Luckily, Sony and MS have not.

(And if they do, I'll become a dedicated PC gamer)

Grammaton-Cleric

I don't think you understand PR.

The wording might state killer app but the larger picture here is Reggie stating that Miiverse can be one of Wii U's biggest draw ins and differentiating factor. It's similar to Xbox Live being the draw in for console consumers who want the best online gaming experience.

You act as if going after a larger audience is a bad thing. This is something that is shared industry wide by self proclaimed hardcore gamers. The sentiment is honestly becoming one of the biggest problems with the industry and sorry to say, I loathe people who actively associate going after a wider audience as a horrible, vile business strategy. It's not as if Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft have entirely abandoned their core demographic. People who like those games are still going to have games to play. Nintendo has proven with the Wii that they can still offer high quality experience for both audiences. Deal with it.

Also you must not really know the industry that well if you honestly think Microsoft and Sony haven't attempted to capture a wider audience. Microsoft has done this by way of Kinect. Sony has done this by way of the PS1 and PS2 -- both accidentally -- and the PS Move, intentionally.

So let me try to understand your point of view at the end of your post. -- You're willing to ditch all the console manufacturers in attempting to go after a larger audience, regardless of the fact that all three still make games for their core demographics?

lol.

I would caution you to never assume that I lack comprehension. It's a feeble way to open an argument and immediately frames your thesis as contingent upon personal slights rather than substantive content.

Not only do I understand PR, I often teach the subject at it relates to advertisements and consumer documents. It's not at all complicated but, when wielded clumsily, it can be detrimental and act as a force entirely in opposition of its original intent, which is to generate consumer interest.

I'm a consumer (with a healthy disposable income) and I remain uninterested.

Your assumption that I am inherently against generating a broader market for this medium is a simplistic bit of conjecture. As a point of fact I am all for the healthy growth of this medium assuming it doesn't come at the cost of quality for myself and like-minded gamers. What I find amusingly grotesque is that you actually think Nintendo was able to walk that fine line between broad appeal while placating the core gamer when in reality the Wii has a third-rate library save for some Nintendo first party exclusives.

Even Nintendo understands that they alienated the core demographic, which is why they are claiming (using that cheap PR you suggest I don't understand) to want those gamers back. Thus, it is utterly bizarre that you would claim the Wii offered both demographics an equitable experience when Nintendo itself has indirectly admitted the contrary.

Then you accuse me of not understanding the industry in yet another grandiose leap of baseless conjecture.

I'm well aware of MS and Sony's attempt to net the casual market and the result was a weakening of their brand among the core gamer. The PS Move is an abject failure and Kinnect is nothing more to me than an irksome impediment to real gaming that has swallowed up far too much of MS's resources.

What your pedestrian analysis of this industry fails to note is that the casual consumer is, generally speaking, not a repeat customer. The Wii sold incredibly well until the fad of the thing wore off and then the system languished at retail. Casual consumers will buy the flavor of the month and then move on even as people like me purchase software year round and indefinitely. The soccer moms, geriatrics and housewives looking to tone their asses on Wi Fit will come and go but the core gamer remains.

That's what Nintendo wants back, even if they don't necessarily understand how to get it.

You conclude with a summation that is of your own fabrication, yet you attribute it to me.

Since you require clarification let me restate my point: I will abandon the console manufacturers if they sacrifice the core market for the sake of the casual consumer. That is precisely what Nintendo did with the Wii and what they are looking to do with the Wii U based on what they have revealed thus far. If Sony and MS follow suit then I'll become a PC gamer or abandon the medium altogether, though the latter is unlikely.

You know, I get the sense that you and I are pretty alike as gamers, and I can't understand how we stand so far apart on the issue of Wii U and the future of Nintendo hardware... Tell me, what are your top 10(no specific order is necessary) 360 games? Or multiplats, if you favor the PS3. And not necessarily your highest rated, but rather your most frequently played games. For instance, one of the highest rated games for me was Red Dead Redemption, but since I'm only just now playing through it for the second time, I wouldn't put it in my top 10.
#83 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6007 posts) -

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"][QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

That's fantastic assuming I give two sh*ts about social networking.

I don't.

Grammaton-Cleric

Then this seems like a hell of an odd place to hang out. :D And Reggie's a tool. Worse, he's a dreadfully out-of-touch tool. See the important stuff for yourself, rather than listen to the people who point out exactly the wrong things.

I don't consider this place the same thing as Facebook or Twitter.

It's an enthusiast board and I'm an enthusiast.

And you probably know that I always do my own research, thus my abject disgust at Nintendo's continuing downward spiral is spawned entirely from my own deductions and investigations.

Like I stated previously, four times in a row is too much to get burned, even for a staunch enthusiast like me.

I'll admit to keeping and checking a Faceyspace account, but isn't the whole concept of the Miiverse thing basically part online service, part message board for your games? I wouldn't ever have listed it as a selling point with a bullet, but I don't see it as a demerit, either.
#84 Posted by JustPlainLucas (73582 posts) -
Nintendo's so out of touch with themselves...
#85 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

I'll admit to keeping and checking a Faceyspace account, but isn't the whole concept of the Miiverse thing basically part online service, part message board for your games? I wouldn't ever have listed it as a selling point with a bullet, but I don't see it as a demerit, either.

El_Zo1212o

I should clarify that I don't see it as a detriment per se but rather as something that seems at odds with the notion that the Wii U is, fundamentally, a hardcore experience.

Honestly, it is the least of my concerns as it pertains to the console but I find it ironic that Nintendo touts it as their killer app yet claims this system is designed around the core enthusiast.

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

You know, I get the sense that you and I are pretty alike as gamers, and I can't understand how we stand so far apart on the issue of Wii U and the future of Nintendo hardware... Tell me, what are your top 10(no specific order is necessary) 360 games? Or multiplats, if you favor the PS3. And not necessarily your highest rated, but rather your most frequently played games. For instance, one of the highest rated games for me was Red Dead Redemption, but since I'm only just now playing through it for the second time, I wouldn't put it in my top 10.

El_Zo1212o

I have no doubt we share common tastes and sensibilities as it pertains to gaming.

Our divergence on this specific issue comes from my own POV: I'm simply tired of Nintendo's shtick.

I consider the N64, the GC and the Wii successive failures punctuated by the occasional exclusive gem but ultimately failures nonetheless.

I waited patiently for Nintendo to wow me; to show me some evidence that they understood, on some level, what I was looking for as a gamer.

Then they announced another gimmicky input device packaged with underpowered hardware.

I see the same Nintendo grasping at the same feeble straws.

The Wii U has nothing I want or need. If that changes I'll buy one but by the time that occurs I think Sony and MS will have something much better-suited for my tastes.