This topic is locked from further discussion.
I found a link to this article on GoNintendo's site. It is a very good read, and I highly agree with the author.The author explains why he believes that many reviewers and devs don't understand Wii. This is not fanboy article by any means.There's no bashing of any kind in it; the author simply talks about evolution of video games, and the disconnect between the modern video game industry and the casual gamer.
How the Videogame Industry Shot Itself In the Joystick
N'Gai Croal is great, for the most part, he writes for Edge now too. I shall give the article a read soon and post my thoughts. Oh now I read further the article is by Bill Harris from Dubious Quality, another great blog I have in my favourites.
Now I have read the article I thouroughly agree with the sentiments expressed within. I especially agree with his assessment of the 'review methodology' that has developed over the last 20 or 30 years, the fact is that most reviewers and gamers cannot see games outside the terms and conventions we have been using for decades. They come to a game like Brain Training, Electroplankton or Wii Sports and to them it is like a hot potato, they have no clue about how to deal with it within the reviewing process; instead they juggle it around in their hands, unsure of where to place it.
The 'core' gamers and reviewers live on some strange balloon floating above the Earth, completely detached from the emotions and wants of the rest of society. I feel we really need to alter our perspective, we need to see the future, we need to see the forest and the trees. If not we would be a depressing club, frequented by the same people, repeating the same dull conversations, drinking the same stale beer.
what devs need isto find a control shceme that allows for pick up and playability of hardcore games.
marii-o galaxy would have worked better if the pointer acted as a reticule to pointan draw a path where mario should go, then as he's moving press the a button to jump along the path, you can also play the game the old fashioned way of course but i figure it is too much of the same.
zelda would be great if the sword woul wii moted actually move the direction you move the wii-mote
I loved the article. I completely agree.
I also think the problem the Wii faces is that for the last two gaming generations Sony and MS have convinced most of the video game fans around the globe to be "graphics lovers." Developers cater to that. If you pay close attention, you'll see that the only real thing that has changed from PS1 to PS2 to PS3 is the graphics, and that holds true for XBOX and XBOX 360. Fans pay big time dollars for the ability to look at the same games with better looks.
Now, that is not a bad thing. It makes for great games when done properly. But,I believe that graphics should not be the only advancement from generation to generation. You cannot look at any Nintendo system and see glaring similarities. The Big N always grows in graphical capacity, control interface, software medium (i.e. discs or cartridges), and hardware specs. (FYI- I haven't always been a fanboy. I divorced Nintendo for two generations because of software issues but it's a fact that their hardware advancements have always be true advances IMO)
Lastly before I get back to work, Am I the only one tired of new expensive systems being released with great looking, but crappy playing, games?
It has happened twice for Sony if anyone's counting. It has happened once for MS too. I believe that there is no excuse for a game to look as beautiful as some of the early 360 and PS3 (and early PS2 compared to PS1) games looked yet not provide a fun experience. I won't accept it. As I've said before, "games are meant to be played not looked at."
maybe there's another reason
They will have been unable to find one for sale
everywheres run out of them
He makes a good case but I don't agree with him at all. I think there is a certain audience who enjoys the simple control motion control provides, but the reality, is that current technology does not provide the kind of percision required to replace the old fashioned controller. It's not about not knowing how to use the Wii controller it's about the limitations of current motion control technology.
The differences from PS1 - PS3 goes well beyond graphics and to argue otherwise would show complete disregaurd to the benefits that advanced AI brings to the table.
I somewhat agree with this article. I think review sites really fail to grasp what some Wii games are about.
But I think handheld gaming is just as misunderstood.
A recent example would be The Legend of Zelda: Phantom HourGlass. Many reviewers marked down the game for being "casualized" when in reality it was casualized at all but "handheldlized".
The game was made for a handheld and intended to be a handheld game. So of course you aren't going to have as indepth puzzles as Twlight Princess or land masses as big as Windwaker. The game was made so you can pick up and play it because it's a handheld game and not a console game.
I loved the article. I completely agree.
I also think the problem the Wii faces is that for the last two gaming generations Sony and MS have convinced most of the video game fans around the globe to be "graphics lovers." Developers cater to that. If you pay close attention, you'll see that the only real thing that has changed from PS1 to PS2 to PS3 is the graphics, and that holds true for XBOX and XBOX 360. Fans pay big time dollars for the ability to look at the same games with better looks.
waw003
IMO nowadays people look at what the games can do more then what they can do in the games. I keep hearing about things such as A.I., Physics, etc. But in reality I haven't seen any games even use these things. I mean I still haven't played a game that utilized physics into it's gameplay that couldn't be done last gen. As for A.I., I think we've heard enough from Assassin's Creed and Halo 3's A.I. to show that big hitting games don't need it most of the time. Also better A.I. should only be given if the game is highly skillful. Take Bioshock for instance, the game had great A.I., but it rarely ever corisponded to the gameplay, since the gunplay wasn't very deep you often found your best tactic just flapping your arms around to shoot the enemy or keep respawning until you kill them with a wrench.
He makes some interesting points, but the whole "the reviewers just don't understand the games" argument is pretty weak. He uses Mario party 8 as an example and states that reviewers don't score it well because you can't finish it. It has no clearly defined objectives. But I've seen several party games get solid reviwes - super monkey ball for example. maybe Mario Party 8 didn't score that high because it didn't offer much different material than the prior SEVEN versions of the game?
Things can do well but still be panned by the critics. There are plenty of movies that do extremely well in the theatres despite horrible reviews. Sometimes we just want pure brainless fun and could care less about the overall quality.
He makes a good case but I don't agree with him at all. I think there is a certain audience who enjoys the simple control motion control provides, but the reality, is that current technology does not provide the kind of percision required to replace the old fashioned controller. It's not about not knowing how to use the Wii controller it's about the limitations of current motion control technology.
The differences from PS1 - PS3 goes well beyond graphics and to argue otherwise would show complete disregaurd to the benefits that advanced AI brings to the table.
Blayde-
Personally I have not seen any significant benefits from advanced AI, we are still playing the same games we were playing ten years ago. When will developers realise that the focus should be on AI that performs a social function, that conjures emotions, that soldifies character relationships? Instead the focus is on attack patterns in FPS, or player movement in a sports game. If the added power of the 360 and PS3 enable us to further the medium as art then why is this not being done? As graphics become hyper-realistic we expect the animations and emotions to follow suite, instead there is an ever-widening rift between the realism of the images, and the complete lack of realismwhen it comes to personalities, emotions and narration.
I am not letting the Wii off either, we are still largely playing the same games as ten years ago on Nintendo's latest console too.
He makes some interesting points, but the whole "the reviewers just don't understand the games" argument is pretty weak. He uses Mario party 8 as an example and states that reviewers don't score it well because you can't finish it. It has no clearly defined objectives. But I've seen several party games get solid reviwes - super monkey ball for example. maybe Mario Party 8 didn't score that high because it didn't offer much different material than the prior SEVEN versions of the game?
Things can do well but still be panned by the critics. There are plenty of movies that do extremely well in the theatres despite horrible reviews. Sometimes we just want pure brainless fun and could care less about the overall quality.
sonicare
Yep, Mario Party 8 is just junk. Reviewers don't have trouble understanding the Wii- they have trouble understanding why people actually want to play turds like Red Steel.
The writer does make a good point in that hardcore gamers' idea of play is divergent from casual gamers' idea of play. The writer points out that while other commercials focus on game footage and talk about what the game is about, Wii commercials focus on people waving wands and keep the game footage to a minimum. Also as the writer pointed out, traditional games fare poorly on the Wii, whereas minigames which encourage you to jump around and suchlike have flourished (because the latter are more in line with casual notions of play).
The only logical conclusion to reach is that developers who want to make commercially successful full games which don't lend themselves to a lot of wiggling and waving would be well advised to keep their focus on the X360 and the PS3. As prior posters have noted, the writer made some dodgy claims, but I admit I am in complete agreement with his main point.
He makes a few interesting points, butit sounded more like to me he was using the new wii controller to try and justify a few awful games that got low review scores. It's like saying Lair should get a high score because reviewers don't understand the six axis.....if it's a bad game, it's a bad game.
I think alot of the problem for the wii is that developers don't try as hard on the wii. It's a cheap cash cow to them as the games are cheaper to produce. While Nintendo are putting alot more effort into their titles then alot of third party devs, they just seem to be reeling out alot of stuffwe've seen before, which is not going to score quite as well with reviewers.
What I would like to see is more games like Endless Ocean. Titles that are original and put the wii controls to good use along with it.
[QUOTE="sonicare"]He makes some interesting points, but the whole "the reviewers just don't understand the games" argument is pretty weak. He uses Mario party 8 as an example and states that reviewers don't score it well because you can't finish it. It has no clearly defined objectives. But I've seen several party games get solid reviwes - super monkey ball for example. maybe Mario Party 8 didn't score that high because it didn't offer much different material than the prior SEVEN versions of the game?
Things can do well but still be panned by the critics. There are plenty of movies that do extremely well in the theatres despite horrible reviews. Sometimes we just want pure brainless fun and could care less about the overall quality.
AtomicTangerine
Yep, Mario Party 8 is just junk. Reviewers don't have trouble understanding the Wii- they have trouble understanding why people actually want to play turds like Red Steel.
I'm not saying Mario Party 8 is junk. I'm sure its lots of fun - but it's just not a masterpiece of a game and may not bring much to the table other than new controls.
He makes a few interesting points, butit sounded more like to me he was using the new wii controller to try and justify a few awful games that got low review scores. It's like saying Lair should get a high score because reviewers don't understand the six axis.....if it's a bad game, it's a bad game.
I think alot of the problem for the wii is that developers don't try as hard on the wii. It's a cheap cash cow to them as the games are cheaper to produce. While Nintendo are putting alot more effort into their titles then alot of third party devs, they just seem to be reeling out alot of stuffwe've seen before, which is not going to score quite as well with reviewers.
What I would like to see is more games like Endless Ocean. Titles that are original and put the wii controls to good use along with it.
AzelKosMos
Good points. But it may not neccesarily be that developers aren't trying as hard on the wii, it's just that nintendo knows their hardware the best. Nintendo has always been the best software developer for their platform - whether it be the SNES, N64, GC, or Wii. Last gen, many third party developers abandoned the gamecube because of this. But this gen, the allure of the wii and its massive audience is too big a prize for many of those companies. Couple that with cheaper development costs, and third party companies are coming back.
N'Gai Croal is great, for the most part, he writes for Edge now too. I shall give the article a read soon and post my thoughts. Oh now I read further the article is by Bill Harris from Dubious Quality, another great blog I have in my favourites.
Now I have read the article I thouroughly agree with the sentiments expressed within. I especially agree with his assessment of the 'review methodology' that has developed over the last 20 or 30 years, the fact is that most reviewers and gamers cannot see games outside the terms and conventions we have been using for decades. They come to a game like Brain Training, Electroplankton or Wii Sports and to them it is like a hot potato, they have no clue about how to deal with it within the reviewing process; instead they juggle it around in their hands, unsure of where to place it.
The 'core' gamers and reviewers live on some strange balloon floating above the Earth, completely detached from the emotions and wants of the rest of society. I feel we really need to alter our perspective, we need to see the future, we need to see the forest and the trees. If not we would be a depressing club, frequented by the same people, repeating the same dull conversations, drinking the same stale beer.
Caviglia
I guess there's not much hope for endless ocean reviews then :(
[QUOTE="Caviglia"]N'Gai Croal is great, for the most part, he writes for Edge now too. I shall give the article a read soon and post my thoughts. Oh now I read further the article is by Bill Harris from Dubious Quality, another great blog I have in my favourites.
Now I have read the article I thouroughly agree with the sentiments expressed within. I especially agree with his assessment of the 'review methodology' that has developed over the last 20 or 30 years, the fact is that most reviewers and gamers cannot see games outside the terms and conventions we have been using for decades. They come to a game like Brain Training, Electroplankton or Wii Sports and to them it is like a hot potato, they have no clue about how to deal with it within the reviewing process; instead they juggle it around in their hands, unsure of where to place it.
The 'core' gamers and reviewers live on some strange balloon floating above the Earth, completely detached from the emotions and wants of the rest of society. I feel we really need to alter our perspective, we need to see the future, we need to see the forest and the trees. If not we would be a depressing club, frequented by the same people, repeating the same dull conversations, drinking the same stale beer.
gaminggeek
I guess there's not much hope for endless ocean reviews then :(
Perhaps it may do quite well, it does have objectives of sorts. I expect that it will be received most poorly by the American gaming media. Without wishing to stereotype, US gamers tend towards more machismo, brash and violent games. Much like US society, violence is everywhere, yet it is only if you live outside the US that it becomes truly noticeable. A shame European tastes are drifting towards that of their American counterparts, especially in the UK.
I think it's a little more simple than that. I think developers (and just about everyone else, myself included) didn't expect the Wii to do as well as it's doing. Some developers have even admitted as much. So what we have here is a knee-jerk reaction to the success of the platform, which has resulted in some pretty crappy ideas and even crappier implementation. Take a look at the graphics the developers have pushed out on the system and ask yourself: Does it look like developers are on the ball with the system? Or does it look like they expected another system to come in and take the market and what we're seeing on the Wii is the result of the Silicon Valley equivalent of being caught with your pants down?
Now, I'm not saying that there aren't some developers who misunderstand the system. There totally are. And I think most of tech-savvy developers who (by no fault of their own as that's how generations have always made progress) want to push the envelope technically more than thematically don't get it. But regardless, I've seen enough half-baked shovelware put out on the system to know that a lot of the games that have hit the Wii have been "Oh, crap! Do something!!" reactions rather than planned projects that took advantage of the hardware and the controller. These developers have at least a passing familiarity with the Gamecube's hardware, and to see games that are sub-Cube visually just confirms my suspicions.
I think it also goes deeper (and here's where there's a very real hitch to the Wii). Third-party games still play second fiddle to Nintendo games, just as they did in the Cube era. Now, it could be argued that the reason for this is that the third-parties haven't planned, utilized, or implemented the hardware to the fullest (not even half that in my opinion), just as I said earlier. So here we have this vague, gray question mark -- sort of chicken and the egg scenario. Are third-party games not selling that well because people only want to buy Nintendo games? Or are they not selling well because developers have released a bunch of garbage in a white box?
Only time will answer that question, but I still believe that until developers begin putting more effort into their Wii projects, they're going to see poor results. Now, if they do, and the games still don't sell, then the problem is much more complex than it being a developer issue. Then it would be a consumer issue as well.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment