OK, here is the thread for discussion about the Nintendo Wii. Do Wii love it? Do Wii hate it? I I Wiially care?
I'll start with my view on it. I almost got one, really just for the novelty of controlling a lightsabre in the various Star Wars games that brandish that sort of controlling. But then I realised that was just the problem: buying it because of the novelty. When I looked at other applications of the controller, where it is applied really well, they're all party-type games on the whole, which is fine, I mean I had a great time when I was over in the States and visited some friends and we laughed at how bad we were at Wii Sports and such, but then when I thought at how I would apply that to my standard gaming environment I realised that it would be a waste, being the curmudgeonous misanthrope that I am, as well as I would end up with extreme arm-ache or ridicule complex from waving around a controller in mid air by my lonesome self. So instead I decided that my money would be better spent elsewhere... like vet bills...
I wee on your Wii!
It really isn't so much that I hate the Wii itself. I hate what it represents. It is dead-end gaming. Point-and-click shooters and casual games after casual games. No matter how how Nintendo tries, they aren't getting the necessary third party support. The Wii is a joke for a person who only cares about RPGs and shooters.
It was great the first couple of weeks I played it, but Wii Sports got old really fast, but I thought well we'll come up with better and more unique uses out of the Wiimote, problem is never did. It's a horrible gimmick and it sucks that Microsoft and Sony feel the necessity to jump on the bandwagon.
I do like Virtual Console, but let's face it a lot of us have these games already either originally owned, or on our computers. Nintendo WiFi is horrible for so many of the games it's upsetting; and as a media console, well that simply doesn't exist.
I simply can't think of a reason to want to play a Wii game over a PS3 or 360 game unless you are going for party games or are just that much of a diehard Nintendo fanboy.
It was great the first couple of weeks I played it, but Wii Sports got old really fast, but I thought well we'll come up with better and more unique uses out of the Wiimote, problem is never did. It's a horrible gimmick and it sucks that Microsoft and Sony feel the necessity to jump on the bandwagon.
I do like Virtual Console, but let's face it a lot of us have these games already either originally owned, or on our computers. Nintendo WiFi is horrible for so many of the games it's upsetting; and as a media console, well that simply doesn't exist.
I simply can't think of a reason to want to play a Wii game over a PS3 or 360 game unless you are going for party games or are just that much of a diehard Nintendo fanboy.
Last edited by Tsurayu on Sun Aug 30, 2009 5:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm not really into the Wii personally but I believe it's an excellent console for people who play video games casually, for younger children (think 4-10, since most games on 360 and PS3 are mature rated/difficult for children). I've always recommended it for families as it has something for everyone on there.
I never really enjoyed the 3rd party games on Wii, only really playing Metroid Prime 3, Twilight Princess and a few others. I really enjoyed those, but I found the controller to be quite annoying to use, it seemed to lag, get stuck and be unresponsive at times. Maybe I was at fault, but it wasn't too fun.
It seems true that Nintendo are aiming for a more casual demographic, but when you think about it, a lot of games released on Nintendo systems are ones that most people can pick up and enjoy, the Mario Bros. series for example. Although it's been less of this and more 3rd party clones, I don't really see how the quality of Nintendo's products has changed. Sure, people are saying that Super Mario Galaxy is inferior to it's predecessors, but most people dislike change in video games. Not only this, but we have "nostalgia" attached to the older games which usually clouds a lot of people's judgment of new games in the series.
Nintendo are making a lot of money from the Wii, at one point more than Microsoft and Sony, although I'm not sure of recent statistics. This is because they're broadening their market, a very smart business move. They may be pissing some of their older fans off, but gaining a lot of new fans interested in the Wii.
I say good luck to them. Nintendo was a big part of my childhood, and that won't be tarnished by my general dislike of their products now. I can choose not to play Wii games, and I don't judge anyone for preferring the Wii over other consoles. We're all entertained by different things
I never really enjoyed the 3rd party games on Wii, only really playing Metroid Prime 3, Twilight Princess and a few others. I really enjoyed those, but I found the controller to be quite annoying to use, it seemed to lag, get stuck and be unresponsive at times. Maybe I was at fault, but it wasn't too fun.
It seems true that Nintendo are aiming for a more casual demographic, but when you think about it, a lot of games released on Nintendo systems are ones that most people can pick up and enjoy, the Mario Bros. series for example. Although it's been less of this and more 3rd party clones, I don't really see how the quality of Nintendo's products has changed. Sure, people are saying that Super Mario Galaxy is inferior to it's predecessors, but most people dislike change in video games. Not only this, but we have "nostalgia" attached to the older games which usually clouds a lot of people's judgment of new games in the series.
Nintendo are making a lot of money from the Wii, at one point more than Microsoft and Sony, although I'm not sure of recent statistics. This is because they're broadening their market, a very smart business move. They may be pissing some of their older fans off, but gaining a lot of new fans interested in the Wii.
I say good luck to them. Nintendo was a big part of my childhood, and that won't be tarnished by my general dislike of their products now. I can choose not to play Wii games, and I don't judge anyone for preferring the Wii over other consoles. We're all entertained by different things
I think most people don't really understand the Wii, or at least there are misconceptions about it that still exist. Granted I don't use mine all that much, but I don't use any of my consoles that much anymore. I just don't have the time for gaming that I once did. Ultimately, 80% of the games I play on the Wii don't really make significant use of the remote, or at least not in annoying ways that people always seem to imagine when they think of the Wii. I don't play casual games, party games, or anything similar, and I've found the controls perfectly natural and unobtrusive in all the games I've played. Is it worth the cost? Depends on who you are and what you buy. If you're a gamer who spends hours a day playing, then no, it isn't going to satisfy you all that much. But between Endless Ocean, Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, Madworld, Super Paper Mario, Harvest Moon: Tree of Tranquility, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, and the few VC things we've picked up, the system has seen a good bit of use between my wife and I. Plus it's backward compatible with all the old GC games we have, making it a nice replacement for the old unit while allowing us to play some new games. And it really wasn't all that expensive.
So frankly, I think people are all up in arms for no reason. I'm not a Nintendo fanboy by any means, and I own and use (with what frequency I can muster) all 3 current consoles plus my PC, but I think people should find something better to complain about. At least the Wii is a functioning product and doesn't melt with daily use.
So frankly, I think people are all up in arms for no reason. I'm not a Nintendo fanboy by any means, and I own and use (with what frequency I can muster) all 3 current consoles plus my PC, but I think people should find something better to complain about. At least the Wii is a functioning product and doesn't melt with daily use.
Last edited by Quemaqua on Sun Aug 30, 2009 6:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I love my Wii and I love Nintendo in general.
I've played the Wii and DS more in the past month than I played the PS3 the entire time I had it.
I love visual novel games like Another Code, and fun multiplayer games like Mario Kart. Even the dismal Pokemon Battle Revolution is great for random battling and team testing online.
Nintendo's best feature is that they have something for everyone.
I've played the Wii and DS more in the past month than I played the PS3 the entire time I had it.
I love visual novel games like Another Code, and fun multiplayer games like Mario Kart. Even the dismal Pokemon Battle Revolution is great for random battling and team testing online.
Nintendo's best feature is that they have something for everyone.
Okay,
This is going to be long because I feel like it's worth telling the whole story. My apologies in advance.
First of all, I'm a Nintendo fanboy. My first video game system my sheltered self discovered was the Nintendo Entertainment System hooked up in a cabinet setup with a hide-away TV at a friend's. My first game was Super Mario Bros. Back in the good old days when the console wars were waged between Nintendo and Sega and a multitude of other companies all sent their small armies from the corners as distractions to the two main opposing factions, I chose sides and stuck with Nintendo. A lot of people did in those days.
Gradually I learned more of Sega when I would go to a friend's house who had both Nintendo and Sega systems. I grew to love many things about the Genesis, as I've already made mention in the thread about favorite controllers. I even bought a used Genesis in middle school (but later sold it--that's another story). Then, not long after owning a Nintendo 64, I put away video games. I was addicted so I quit.
Years later, in college, I met many gamers. It was fun to see the GameCube and the jaw dropping new graphics. But I was still mostly a 2D gamer at heart and had done away with my addiction, lost interest in video games and consequently didn't join any of the gamers' games at first.
Over the summers, I sat for a family who had all the latest systems, and slowly I learned my way around newer games and newer consoles. We mostly played the Dreamcast and the GameCube when we did play. Those systems just had the games that interested us and we all found fun and enjoyable. The games we played were also games that were age-appropriate for them but enjoyable for me. I had been playing a lot longer than them, but we all were entertained.
As college was finishing up, my best friend and I decided to bring our old consoles to our apartment. I remember some great nights with many friends crowded around our smallish TV and playing games like Mario Kart 64. Occasionally, I would also bring out some old single player games and plow through them. Sometimes I played by myself and sometimes with other friends or apartment mates cheering me on--and in turn, them being cheered by me.
Now I'm married, have gone through grad school but still am 3,000 miles away from where I started with no immediate idea of when the hoped for move back to the other side of the country will take place. I have also traveled far in my relationship with video games. I do admit to being addicted once. College was a time for me to test the waters again and re-learn how to responsibly enjoy video games. Now I feel that I do enjoy them with appropriate moderation in balance with the rest of my life. Sometimes the balance tips to one or the other side, but I've been able to maintain an consistent relationship with gaming overall.
Now let me get a little closer to the heart of the matter. With this history of gaming, I've come to believe the depiction of "casual" and "core" gamers is not only an illusion, I think it's harmful to all gamers. Whenever I played video games, I wasn't doing it as an occupation. I wasn't doing it because it put bread on the table--no! I did it because it was fun and relaxing. It was what I could do with the luxury of the times when I could be kick back and enjoy the casual life. That is the universal situation of all those on the receiving end of games. It's entertainment. When people make categories like "core" and "casual," they do so with an agenda. Can anyone reading this (which, bless you if you have, because I know this is long!) honestly say that you don't get a bad taste in your mouth when you read or hear "casual game?" But how silly because the very origin of the word "game" reefers to "amusement," "fun." A game is something you do to relax. It is what you do with casual time! When that wasn't my perspective, that's when the addiction kicked in. When I wasn't thinking of a game as something to do with my free and casual time but rather as something that took priority over most of the other parts of my life, that was the addiction. I think the very concept that there are "core" and "casual" gamers is fostering improper attitudes towards video games! This is why, when Tsurayu said:
Now, you also said:
Back on the other side of the country, I have a Magnavox Odyssey, an Atari 2600, a Nintendo Entertainment System, a Super Nintendo Entertainment System, a Nintendo 64 and a PSone (given to me as an "long term loan"). Here on this side of the country my wife and I have a Nintendo Wii and a Sega Genesis along with her and my Nintendo DS and my Game Boy Color. Why did I list my consoles? I did so to point out that I have a collection that--while incomplete--does span the entire history of consoles. I have the very first console all the way up to a Nintendo Wii. There was a time when Atari was the top dog. There was a time when Nintendo was. What got a console to the top? Each of the consoles that the top companies supported was a console that had more games than the others. Most of them were from third-parties. They had to be because one company alone can only put out so much themselves. They need support. But the catch is that a console needs to be seen as a viable platform before third parties start to develop in earnest for it. The successful consoles had more games and support because something happened just right--by design or luck--that made people attracted to the system. I am no Sony lover. I've mentioned this before. But they saw that the storage capacities of a CD could allow for a huge advancement in video gaming and people flocked to it--even when naysayers like me spoke of the advantages of cartridges (advantages that are there but don't hold up to the advantages of discs). Like it or not, I have to admit that Sony did something right that generation. So, like it or not, we have to admit Nintendo has done something right this generation--something that has resonated with people--or else people would not be buying the Wii in such large numbers. I know this is a remarkable time for Nintendo because I witnessed Nintendo's lean years after knowing their years of plenty and so have points of reference.
So, I could simply say that we all have our likes, dislikes and personal tastes in games and give you my list of preferences and why the Wii matches them. I prefer side-scrolling 2D platformers for example. I love that Wii developers are beginning to develop those games in earnest now. I feel like the 2D era was cut short by 3D and people forgot to look back. Now the visuals of 2D gaming are so beautiful and I haven't had anything to compare them to for the last couple generations. It's like 2D gaming on a console stopped for me after the Super Nintendo and just now started again with today's technology. I also LOVE the multi-player element of the Wii. In a time when people push Wi-Fi gaming, it's nice to know that the Wii brings people together in one space out of the intention of the programmer or, even, the happy accident of the limitations of the hardware. Regardless, I feel that my casual times are better spent with someone else than by myself in most cases. As someone who missed last generation, I also love being able to catch up on some tried-and-true series I enjoy as well as other truly stunning GameCube games that I had always had an interest in. Wind Waker is one of my favorite installments in The Legend of Zelda series.
I could say all that and satisfy my intention of explaining why I love the Wii. However, I also intentionally tried to set this up so that you see I'm trying to be fair. To recap, I think people have varying interests and that some consoles don't meet the tastes of some players. I also think that companies are made up of humans and can sometimes back the wrong horse (like cartridges vs discs). So, with that, I'm going to venture into some dangerous territory. I'm going to theorize just why the Wii is the system that is leading this generation in terms of sales and lace it with my own bias. Just know I recognize that that is just what I'm doing.
When I look at all the systems that I own, two things stand out for me that are especially obvious because of the last generation and a half of consoles: 1) all my consoles focus on the simple act of playing video games with minimal to no further bells and whistles and 2) all my consoles come from companies that did one thing: video games. Hardware and software. Development and publishing. The whole deal. But just video games.
I miss the days when companies could focus solely on video games and do one thing and one thing well--to use your phrase, Tsurayu, to me, Sony and Microsoft represent the new model of video gaming: one that could tragically spell the end of stand-alone consoles as we expect our machines to do more and more. I love that the Wii is light on features. I don't need it to play DVD's. I don't need it to be a jukebox. I don't need a calendar. It's enough for me that I can put photos on it! That's incredible and fits in line with a console that attempts to bring people together for sharing. My wife and I don't have the Internet Channel because we haven't seen the need yet. In other words, the Wii is simple. It doesn't take on too much. It doesn't need to be hacked. You don't have to worry about which version to buy. You don't have to compare hard drive sizes. You don't have to think about it. You can go to a store, point to a box, and you can walk away without having buyers remorse (the fact that it's easy on the wallet helps, too).
Too many choices isn't really a good thing. Heck, we could turn to our own Sword of Mana to prove that!
Read "Sword of Mana: Bad Customization" by Krystian Majewski for more.
As I've mentioned, I have no real love for Sony. I have no real love for Microsoft in the console war for the same reasons. Both push too many options and they have too many versions. A game system is not a computer that you customize. A console has always been something that you buy so you don't have to update it. It may be lacking in ability later in its life, but that's the price you pay for the convenience of a console. I think people (old and new gamers--even especially lapsed gamers) have turned to the Wii because they realize this. Also, Nintendo focused on simplifying the control scheme of the Wii. Back in the days when Super Mario Bros. and its two-button control-scheme saved video gaming from an almost certain death, anyone could pick up a controller and immediately and intuitively control a fat Italian plumber (though my mom might argue otherwise claiming that she always "falls down the holes"). Still, as developers looked for ways to add new and exciting options to the gaming experience, our controllers got more and more complicated. It works extremely well for some games but for others, it's simply too much. Nintendo saw that and made their primary controller one that is simple and elegant. It is easy to use and not intimidating. If you are playing a game that works better with traditional controls, the option is there to use either the GameCube or the Classic Controller, but the Wii Remote is the main controller and the one which developers usually have in mind when they develop. I believe this limitation makes for a much more rewarding gaming experience. Playing Wario Land: Shake It! with the Wii Remote is a joy that takes me back to the first time I played Super Mario Bros. and didn't do too poorly!
So, I think that the two things that have made the Wii successful and attracted third-party developers is that it is a simple no frills gaming machine and it has forced people to rethink the method which we control our video game characters by offering a much more intuitive method in many cases (though I admit you do find people having trouble using the Wii Remote effectively).
Admittedly, the other consoles found a market because not every system has the same games. Original IP's that are appearing on the PlayStation 3 or Xbox 360 are popular. But ultimately, I think we're seeing that this round, Nintendo saw the future more than Sony or Microsoft. Nintendo may not have caught on to using discs for video games as soon as the others, but they sure did wake us all up to the fact that less is more when it comes to buying a video game entertainment system. If you want a computer entertainment system, get a computer.
Peace,
manaman
This is going to be long because I feel like it's worth telling the whole story. My apologies in advance.
First of all, I'm a Nintendo fanboy. My first video game system my sheltered self discovered was the Nintendo Entertainment System hooked up in a cabinet setup with a hide-away TV at a friend's. My first game was Super Mario Bros. Back in the good old days when the console wars were waged between Nintendo and Sega and a multitude of other companies all sent their small armies from the corners as distractions to the two main opposing factions, I chose sides and stuck with Nintendo. A lot of people did in those days.
Gradually I learned more of Sega when I would go to a friend's house who had both Nintendo and Sega systems. I grew to love many things about the Genesis, as I've already made mention in the thread about favorite controllers. I even bought a used Genesis in middle school (but later sold it--that's another story). Then, not long after owning a Nintendo 64, I put away video games. I was addicted so I quit.
Years later, in college, I met many gamers. It was fun to see the GameCube and the jaw dropping new graphics. But I was still mostly a 2D gamer at heart and had done away with my addiction, lost interest in video games and consequently didn't join any of the gamers' games at first.
Over the summers, I sat for a family who had all the latest systems, and slowly I learned my way around newer games and newer consoles. We mostly played the Dreamcast and the GameCube when we did play. Those systems just had the games that interested us and we all found fun and enjoyable. The games we played were also games that were age-appropriate for them but enjoyable for me. I had been playing a lot longer than them, but we all were entertained.
As college was finishing up, my best friend and I decided to bring our old consoles to our apartment. I remember some great nights with many friends crowded around our smallish TV and playing games like Mario Kart 64. Occasionally, I would also bring out some old single player games and plow through them. Sometimes I played by myself and sometimes with other friends or apartment mates cheering me on--and in turn, them being cheered by me.
Now I'm married, have gone through grad school but still am 3,000 miles away from where I started with no immediate idea of when the hoped for move back to the other side of the country will take place. I have also traveled far in my relationship with video games. I do admit to being addicted once. College was a time for me to test the waters again and re-learn how to responsibly enjoy video games. Now I feel that I do enjoy them with appropriate moderation in balance with the rest of my life. Sometimes the balance tips to one or the other side, but I've been able to maintain an consistent relationship with gaming overall.
Now let me get a little closer to the heart of the matter. With this history of gaming, I've come to believe the depiction of "casual" and "core" gamers is not only an illusion, I think it's harmful to all gamers. Whenever I played video games, I wasn't doing it as an occupation. I wasn't doing it because it put bread on the table--no! I did it because it was fun and relaxing. It was what I could do with the luxury of the times when I could be kick back and enjoy the casual life. That is the universal situation of all those on the receiving end of games. It's entertainment. When people make categories like "core" and "casual," they do so with an agenda. Can anyone reading this (which, bless you if you have, because I know this is long!) honestly say that you don't get a bad taste in your mouth when you read or hear "casual game?" But how silly because the very origin of the word "game" reefers to "amusement," "fun." A game is something you do to relax. It is what you do with casual time! When that wasn't my perspective, that's when the addiction kicked in. When I wasn't thinking of a game as something to do with my free and casual time but rather as something that took priority over most of the other parts of my life, that was the addiction. I think the very concept that there are "core" and "casual" gamers is fostering improper attitudes towards video games! This is why, when Tsurayu said:
I disagreed. You hate what it represents. "Point and click shooters." Well, I'm not sure what is wrong with that. It's a genre. There are many game genres. People gravitate towards the genres that they like. I certainly don't see anything inherently "dead-end" or particularly bad about point and click shooters. I don't know how you could say that the Wii represents this genre, either, so I'll move to what I think you really were getting at and what bothers me. You also hate that the Wii represents "casual games." Like I've already said, I view that phrase as redundant. If the Wii represents casual games, then so much the better for it! Those are the games I like to play (ie, ANY games I like to play regardless of genre)! Producing games that people enjoy and will pay to play hasn't been a dead-end strategy yet and I doubt that will change in the future.Tsurayu wrote:I hate what [the Wii] represents. It is dead-end gaming. Point-and-click shooters and casual games after casual games.
Now, you also said:
As a matter of fact, Nintendo has gotten the most amount of third-party support and in the end, that's an enormous reason why any system comes out on top during a generation.Tsurayu wrote:No matter how how Nintendo tries, they aren't getting the necessary third party support.
Back on the other side of the country, I have a Magnavox Odyssey, an Atari 2600, a Nintendo Entertainment System, a Super Nintendo Entertainment System, a Nintendo 64 and a PSone (given to me as an "long term loan"). Here on this side of the country my wife and I have a Nintendo Wii and a Sega Genesis along with her and my Nintendo DS and my Game Boy Color. Why did I list my consoles? I did so to point out that I have a collection that--while incomplete--does span the entire history of consoles. I have the very first console all the way up to a Nintendo Wii. There was a time when Atari was the top dog. There was a time when Nintendo was. What got a console to the top? Each of the consoles that the top companies supported was a console that had more games than the others. Most of them were from third-parties. They had to be because one company alone can only put out so much themselves. They need support. But the catch is that a console needs to be seen as a viable platform before third parties start to develop in earnest for it. The successful consoles had more games and support because something happened just right--by design or luck--that made people attracted to the system. I am no Sony lover. I've mentioned this before. But they saw that the storage capacities of a CD could allow for a huge advancement in video gaming and people flocked to it--even when naysayers like me spoke of the advantages of cartridges (advantages that are there but don't hold up to the advantages of discs). Like it or not, I have to admit that Sony did something right that generation. So, like it or not, we have to admit Nintendo has done something right this generation--something that has resonated with people--or else people would not be buying the Wii in such large numbers. I know this is a remarkable time for Nintendo because I witnessed Nintendo's lean years after knowing their years of plenty and so have points of reference.
So, I could simply say that we all have our likes, dislikes and personal tastes in games and give you my list of preferences and why the Wii matches them. I prefer side-scrolling 2D platformers for example. I love that Wii developers are beginning to develop those games in earnest now. I feel like the 2D era was cut short by 3D and people forgot to look back. Now the visuals of 2D gaming are so beautiful and I haven't had anything to compare them to for the last couple generations. It's like 2D gaming on a console stopped for me after the Super Nintendo and just now started again with today's technology. I also LOVE the multi-player element of the Wii. In a time when people push Wi-Fi gaming, it's nice to know that the Wii brings people together in one space out of the intention of the programmer or, even, the happy accident of the limitations of the hardware. Regardless, I feel that my casual times are better spent with someone else than by myself in most cases. As someone who missed last generation, I also love being able to catch up on some tried-and-true series I enjoy as well as other truly stunning GameCube games that I had always had an interest in. Wind Waker is one of my favorite installments in The Legend of Zelda series.
I could say all that and satisfy my intention of explaining why I love the Wii. However, I also intentionally tried to set this up so that you see I'm trying to be fair. To recap, I think people have varying interests and that some consoles don't meet the tastes of some players. I also think that companies are made up of humans and can sometimes back the wrong horse (like cartridges vs discs). So, with that, I'm going to venture into some dangerous territory. I'm going to theorize just why the Wii is the system that is leading this generation in terms of sales and lace it with my own bias. Just know I recognize that that is just what I'm doing.
When I look at all the systems that I own, two things stand out for me that are especially obvious because of the last generation and a half of consoles: 1) all my consoles focus on the simple act of playing video games with minimal to no further bells and whistles and 2) all my consoles come from companies that did one thing: video games. Hardware and software. Development and publishing. The whole deal. But just video games.
I miss the days when companies could focus solely on video games and do one thing and one thing well--to use your phrase, Tsurayu, to me, Sony and Microsoft represent the new model of video gaming: one that could tragically spell the end of stand-alone consoles as we expect our machines to do more and more. I love that the Wii is light on features. I don't need it to play DVD's. I don't need it to be a jukebox. I don't need a calendar. It's enough for me that I can put photos on it! That's incredible and fits in line with a console that attempts to bring people together for sharing. My wife and I don't have the Internet Channel because we haven't seen the need yet. In other words, the Wii is simple. It doesn't take on too much. It doesn't need to be hacked. You don't have to worry about which version to buy. You don't have to compare hard drive sizes. You don't have to think about it. You can go to a store, point to a box, and you can walk away without having buyers remorse (the fact that it's easy on the wallet helps, too).
Too many choices isn't really a good thing. Heck, we could turn to our own Sword of Mana to prove that!
Read "Sword of Mana: Bad Customization" by Krystian Majewski for more.As I've mentioned, I have no real love for Sony. I have no real love for Microsoft in the console war for the same reasons. Both push too many options and they have too many versions. A game system is not a computer that you customize. A console has always been something that you buy so you don't have to update it. It may be lacking in ability later in its life, but that's the price you pay for the convenience of a console. I think people (old and new gamers--even especially lapsed gamers) have turned to the Wii because they realize this. Also, Nintendo focused on simplifying the control scheme of the Wii. Back in the days when Super Mario Bros. and its two-button control-scheme saved video gaming from an almost certain death, anyone could pick up a controller and immediately and intuitively control a fat Italian plumber (though my mom might argue otherwise claiming that she always "falls down the holes"). Still, as developers looked for ways to add new and exciting options to the gaming experience, our controllers got more and more complicated. It works extremely well for some games but for others, it's simply too much. Nintendo saw that and made their primary controller one that is simple and elegant. It is easy to use and not intimidating. If you are playing a game that works better with traditional controls, the option is there to use either the GameCube or the Classic Controller, but the Wii Remote is the main controller and the one which developers usually have in mind when they develop. I believe this limitation makes for a much more rewarding gaming experience. Playing Wario Land: Shake It! with the Wii Remote is a joy that takes me back to the first time I played Super Mario Bros. and didn't do too poorly!
So, I think that the two things that have made the Wii successful and attracted third-party developers is that it is a simple no frills gaming machine and it has forced people to rethink the method which we control our video game characters by offering a much more intuitive method in many cases (though I admit you do find people having trouble using the Wii Remote effectively).
Admittedly, the other consoles found a market because not every system has the same games. Original IP's that are appearing on the PlayStation 3 or Xbox 360 are popular. But ultimately, I think we're seeing that this round, Nintendo saw the future more than Sony or Microsoft. Nintendo may not have caught on to using discs for video games as soon as the others, but they sure did wake us all up to the fact that less is more when it comes to buying a video game entertainment system. If you want a computer entertainment system, get a computer.
Peace,
manaman
I agree and disagree. I'll just note a couple points, and forgive me if I'm a bit skewed. I read most of your post, but I had to skim a bit. 
Firstly, I agree that the distinction between casual and hardcore is often made too much of. However, it does manage to easily categorize some games. In general I have nothing against playing casual games. Some are fun and perfectly fine. However, generally speaking that's not what I love about gaming. I love art and story and seeing just what people can do as they attempt to create beauty and drama and horror that engages people with interactivity. While it's a bit of an overgeneralization, you can generally say that casual games aren't doing that. They're just amusements. "Hardcore" is sort of a stupid term because it doesn't really mean what it thinks it does, but it's still more right than wrong. If you're comparing Final Fantasy XIII to Bejeweled, it's easy to see the distinction.
The problem is that, as you said, it really doesn't do anything good for us to make these distinctions. Not really. There shouldn't be anything wrong with playing casual games, and people shouldn't take gaming so seriously. You're good at games, you love to play games, you think games are art... so effing what? So you're into entertaining yourself. Cool, so am I. But... so what? Secondly, I think the categories are wrong often enough to cause misconceptions. Nobody would call Left 4 Dead a casual game, but that's pretty much what it is. Light on content, very basic mechanics, easy to pick up and play for really short periods, but still pretty addictive. It even has an almost party-like atmosphere because it's an MP-focused game and is fast-paced, etc. (let's face it: it isn't particularly scary or even tense after you've played a level more than twice). And there are some casual games that have more depth and substance than people give them credit for, or that if nothing else, bring out new ideas that other games run with and expand on later.
My other point is that just because the Wii has sold a lot doesn't really mean anything. Now again, I'm not trying to be all down on the thing because I think it's fine. However, the Wii is a fad. There's really no getting around it. Tons of the people who've picked it up never bought anything for it at all and were content to play Wii Sports over and over again. So the simple fact that it sold a lot is relatively meaningless. The marketing was done well and the word-of-mouth stuff ended up snowballing into a trend, but I think the popularity of the system has rather little more behind it than that. The Wii is a passing fad as far as I'm concerned and I really don't think it speaks to the future of gaming in that sense. That isn't to say that I think it's worthless or doesn't have some interesting ideas, I just don't think that any of that had anything to do with sales at all.
Firstly, I agree that the distinction between casual and hardcore is often made too much of. However, it does manage to easily categorize some games. In general I have nothing against playing casual games. Some are fun and perfectly fine. However, generally speaking that's not what I love about gaming. I love art and story and seeing just what people can do as they attempt to create beauty and drama and horror that engages people with interactivity. While it's a bit of an overgeneralization, you can generally say that casual games aren't doing that. They're just amusements. "Hardcore" is sort of a stupid term because it doesn't really mean what it thinks it does, but it's still more right than wrong. If you're comparing Final Fantasy XIII to Bejeweled, it's easy to see the distinction.
The problem is that, as you said, it really doesn't do anything good for us to make these distinctions. Not really. There shouldn't be anything wrong with playing casual games, and people shouldn't take gaming so seriously. You're good at games, you love to play games, you think games are art... so effing what? So you're into entertaining yourself. Cool, so am I. But... so what? Secondly, I think the categories are wrong often enough to cause misconceptions. Nobody would call Left 4 Dead a casual game, but that's pretty much what it is. Light on content, very basic mechanics, easy to pick up and play for really short periods, but still pretty addictive. It even has an almost party-like atmosphere because it's an MP-focused game and is fast-paced, etc. (let's face it: it isn't particularly scary or even tense after you've played a level more than twice). And there are some casual games that have more depth and substance than people give them credit for, or that if nothing else, bring out new ideas that other games run with and expand on later.
My other point is that just because the Wii has sold a lot doesn't really mean anything. Now again, I'm not trying to be all down on the thing because I think it's fine. However, the Wii is a fad. There's really no getting around it. Tons of the people who've picked it up never bought anything for it at all and were content to play Wii Sports over and over again. So the simple fact that it sold a lot is relatively meaningless. The marketing was done well and the word-of-mouth stuff ended up snowballing into a trend, but I think the popularity of the system has rather little more behind it than that. The Wii is a passing fad as far as I'm concerned and I really don't think it speaks to the future of gaming in that sense. That isn't to say that I think it's worthless or doesn't have some interesting ideas, I just don't think that any of that had anything to do with sales at all.
Hey Quemaqua,
I would agree with you that there is a distinction between games like Final Fantasy VIII and Bejeweled, but I don't think the distinction is casual or hardcore. It's a distinction of genre.
As for your last point of the Wii being a fad and not speaking towards the future of gaming, I would disagree. I think it speaks of a great new trend in gaming that could make for the largest overhaul of the industry to date. Namely, making games accessible to everyone.
As I've said, I agree with you that there are distinctions between games. It takes all kinds, and for a long time a lot of people have been left outside of gaming and not appreciating it. As more people experience the good side of gaming as a fun and entertaining pastime, more people will likely look towards new experiences--experiences like those that are epic in scope and story-telling and bring another element to gaming that is more than just fun and entertaining, but narrative. It's been the natural flow of the industry to get more cinematic in story-telling and more beautiful in environments within this genre of games--but games that succeed in those areas tend to be established on bygone models and are very complex for someone who is a first-timer.
I was confused as anything with Secret of Mana when I first picked it up, but I could play and enjoy it--though it was my first RPG. After hacking and slashing a lot, I realized that I had to wait for the number on the bottom of the screen to reach 100%. The design of the game lent itself to a first-timer to the genre--and obviously to veterans or this site wouldn't exist. Likewise, I had never appreciated turn-based RPG's until Breath of Fire IV. The art and story were impressive and the option to have the game fight a battle for me allowed me a chance to see what I should and shouldn't be doing. Likewise, the menu system was not too confusing. But imagine how less confusing it could have been with a point and click interface like that possible with the Wii?
Basically, I think the Wii is paving the way to make all our games more intuitive and thus more accessible. I appreciate the types of games that are more grand in their story-telling. I prefer those games in a lot of ways, but I also think that they've gotten too complex to be enjoyable anymore. They are also too big. I can get a much more immersive experience watching a film for two hours than playing a game for thirty. Especially when most of the experience is "filler" there for the sake of the game being longer and not for getting across and atmosphere or a message.
Nintendo has been broadening and broadening the demographic that appreciates video games. The thing that has to happen is that some developers have to start to take more risks and begin to make more universally enjoyed games of more varying genres--but I believe it will happen if Nintendo keeps up what it's doing and Sony and Microsoft begin to see what motion controls represent and not as a buck to be made.
Peace,
manaman
I would agree with you that there is a distinction between games like Final Fantasy VIII and Bejeweled, but I don't think the distinction is casual or hardcore. It's a distinction of genre.
As for your last point of the Wii being a fad and not speaking towards the future of gaming, I would disagree. I think it speaks of a great new trend in gaming that could make for the largest overhaul of the industry to date. Namely, making games accessible to everyone.
As I've said, I agree with you that there are distinctions between games. It takes all kinds, and for a long time a lot of people have been left outside of gaming and not appreciating it. As more people experience the good side of gaming as a fun and entertaining pastime, more people will likely look towards new experiences--experiences like those that are epic in scope and story-telling and bring another element to gaming that is more than just fun and entertaining, but narrative. It's been the natural flow of the industry to get more cinematic in story-telling and more beautiful in environments within this genre of games--but games that succeed in those areas tend to be established on bygone models and are very complex for someone who is a first-timer.
I was confused as anything with Secret of Mana when I first picked it up, but I could play and enjoy it--though it was my first RPG. After hacking and slashing a lot, I realized that I had to wait for the number on the bottom of the screen to reach 100%. The design of the game lent itself to a first-timer to the genre--and obviously to veterans or this site wouldn't exist. Likewise, I had never appreciated turn-based RPG's until Breath of Fire IV. The art and story were impressive and the option to have the game fight a battle for me allowed me a chance to see what I should and shouldn't be doing. Likewise, the menu system was not too confusing. But imagine how less confusing it could have been with a point and click interface like that possible with the Wii?
Basically, I think the Wii is paving the way to make all our games more intuitive and thus more accessible. I appreciate the types of games that are more grand in their story-telling. I prefer those games in a lot of ways, but I also think that they've gotten too complex to be enjoyable anymore. They are also too big. I can get a much more immersive experience watching a film for two hours than playing a game for thirty. Especially when most of the experience is "filler" there for the sake of the game being longer and not for getting across and atmosphere or a message.
Nintendo has been broadening and broadening the demographic that appreciates video games. The thing that has to happen is that some developers have to start to take more risks and begin to make more universally enjoyed games of more varying genres--but I believe it will happen if Nintendo keeps up what it's doing and Sony and Microsoft begin to see what motion controls represent and not as a buck to be made.
Peace,
manaman
Sure, we can cater to people who don't have the time or energy to really invest in games, but that doesn't really say anything fabulous about the future of gaming.
I really can't agree much with your above post. You can't get a more immersive experience from a movie. You may prefer it, but it isn't more immersive. It's far less immersive in every conceivable regard, and if you say otherwise you're blatantly flying in the face of logic. "Filler" is a relative term, anyway. I don't consider any part of Fallout 3 to be filler. All of it was compelling and interesting, and I spent nearly 100 hours with the game. At the end I felt like every part of it had been telling pieces of the story, which it more or less had. And even a game isn't doing it in quite such a compelling way, it's letting the player build their own story by making their own choices, cumulating in an experience they had at least some part in directing, rather than purely resting on their laurels waiting for the next thing to happen.
I don't see any need to make games more accessible. Little kids still eat our "complicated" games for breakfast (just like a lot of us used to when we were young), and if my wife, who is as technologically dunderheaded as they come, can manage to adapt to as many games as she has and now consider herself a gamer, I'm pretty sure practically anyone that puts in the time can do the same.
Sure, you can open the market to more people... but so what? What does that mean to any of us that are already here? If you, for some weird reason, feel the need to evangelize games and get more people to play them, I guess that's one thing, but even then I don't see the Wii as some magical device that's going to make things better for the average person. To make a game compelling there has to be something to it, and as I stated in my other post, just because tons of people are buying Wiis doesn't really mean anything when all they do is spend 10 minutes playing virtual boxing with their grandkids. That's not an important step or indicative of future movements, unless you count more whiz-bang diversions being marketed to families, which really doesn't make a whole lot of difference to most of us one way or the other.
I'm not saying it hasn't opened things up to some people, because it may have. However, my guess is that such events happen only when the people in question realize there's so much more to gaming than simple puzzlers and motion-control gimmicks. The only thing you can market to people who think Wii Sports is truly compelling is... more Wii Sports. You know?
I really can't agree much with your above post. You can't get a more immersive experience from a movie. You may prefer it, but it isn't more immersive. It's far less immersive in every conceivable regard, and if you say otherwise you're blatantly flying in the face of logic. "Filler" is a relative term, anyway. I don't consider any part of Fallout 3 to be filler. All of it was compelling and interesting, and I spent nearly 100 hours with the game. At the end I felt like every part of it had been telling pieces of the story, which it more or less had. And even a game isn't doing it in quite such a compelling way, it's letting the player build their own story by making their own choices, cumulating in an experience they had at least some part in directing, rather than purely resting on their laurels waiting for the next thing to happen.
I don't see any need to make games more accessible. Little kids still eat our "complicated" games for breakfast (just like a lot of us used to when we were young), and if my wife, who is as technologically dunderheaded as they come, can manage to adapt to as many games as she has and now consider herself a gamer, I'm pretty sure practically anyone that puts in the time can do the same.
Sure, you can open the market to more people... but so what? What does that mean to any of us that are already here? If you, for some weird reason, feel the need to evangelize games and get more people to play them, I guess that's one thing, but even then I don't see the Wii as some magical device that's going to make things better for the average person. To make a game compelling there has to be something to it, and as I stated in my other post, just because tons of people are buying Wiis doesn't really mean anything when all they do is spend 10 minutes playing virtual boxing with their grandkids. That's not an important step or indicative of future movements, unless you count more whiz-bang diversions being marketed to families, which really doesn't make a whole lot of difference to most of us one way or the other.
I'm not saying it hasn't opened things up to some people, because it may have. However, my guess is that such events happen only when the people in question realize there's so much more to gaming than simple puzzlers and motion-control gimmicks. The only thing you can market to people who think Wii Sports is truly compelling is... more Wii Sports. You know?
Last edited by Quemaqua on Wed Sep 02, 2009 3:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
I think you guys should find another scape goat for your frustrations, it has become quite tiring this anti-Wii campaign. It may not be the best console ever, but there are plenty of good games in there, and not only the standard Mario and childish stuff. If you don´t like it, don´t buy it.
None of you live in a third world country like me, so prices may not be a problem where you live but in here we are truly thankful to have a videogame which is nearly affordable nowadays.
None of you live in a third world country like me, so prices may not be a problem where you live but in here we are truly thankful to have a videogame which is nearly affordable nowadays.
Last edited by IrishLuiz on Wed Sep 16, 2009 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hmmm,
I actually have to say, I'm sorry for not responding to this. I have some notepad files on my desktop that have some of the thoughts I jotted down but never fleshed out. I've been really thinking about this a lot lately. And while this thread was going on, I was discussing this same topic with some people at work as well and getting fairly burned out on it.
I guess I was sort of afraid that this would get out of hand. I mean, I don't think it has, but for some reason it's such a personal subject for a lot of people--myself included. And that bothers me.
Quemaqua, when you used the word "evangelize," I decided to back off. To be honest, I really don't want to be addicted to video games again and I don't want to get worked up about these console wars anymore. I had thought I was expressing my opinion fairly level-headedly, but perhaps not. Besides, the gaming industry is fickle as the PS3 is now increasing its sales by 8,234,729,870,911,647,594,823,202,986% or some such nonsensical number.
Peace,
manaman
PS: In case you're wondering, those unfinished thoughts copied and pasted from the notepad files are below (so I can throw the files in the trash can). I'm sure it doesn't make a lot of sense, but maybe you'll get my general drift:
I actually have to say, I'm sorry for not responding to this. I have some notepad files on my desktop that have some of the thoughts I jotted down but never fleshed out. I've been really thinking about this a lot lately. And while this thread was going on, I was discussing this same topic with some people at work as well and getting fairly burned out on it.
I guess I was sort of afraid that this would get out of hand. I mean, I don't think it has, but for some reason it's such a personal subject for a lot of people--myself included. And that bothers me.
Quemaqua, when you used the word "evangelize," I decided to back off. To be honest, I really don't want to be addicted to video games again and I don't want to get worked up about these console wars anymore. I had thought I was expressing my opinion fairly level-headedly, but perhaps not. Besides, the gaming industry is fickle as the PS3 is now increasing its sales by 8,234,729,870,911,647,594,823,202,986% or some such nonsensical number.
Peace,
manaman
PS: In case you're wondering, those unfinished thoughts copied and pasted from the notepad files are below (so I can throw the files in the trash can). I'm sure it doesn't make a lot of sense, but maybe you'll get my general drift:
PPS: Here's a video I thought was fairly good and gave some insight on this topic: Controllers. In watching the other videos by the people on this site, I discovered that sometimes they're fairly good and insightful and other times, they appear very uneducated and off the mark. In other words--they're just regular gamers like you and me and don't have degrees in this field!Two more things I thought of:
What people usually refer to as "casual" games by today's standards are not that far removed from the arcade games of yesteryear and in those times those arcade machines would have been considered more than "hardcore." (Still, those words don't describe games, in my opinion.)
Also, Nintendo's new feature to play through difficult areas for you is showing that story and all of that doesn't need to be sacrificed by an exaggerated game . . . or something to this effect. In response to Q's last post.
I CAN get a more immersive experience from a movie than a 20 hour video game, how's that?
The key to that statement is that I can get a more immersive experience in a 2 hour movie than a 20 hour game. Game developers follow trends and game length increasing is a trend. But a lot of games are needlessly long. It's a matter of implementation. There does need to be a balance and there needs to be one for even veteran video gamers. I've played games for a number of years now, but I think the market has stagnated a bit. I don't want to invest 20 plus hours in every game I pick up.
Some games great story line--play through option will be good.
Not a matter of evangelizing video games--I don't want to do that at all.
At the end of the day my biggest gripe with Sony is it's a consumer electronics company and Microsoft is a computer company and neither are solely dedicated to video games.
People who argue that the Wii doesn't have enough "core" games might be suggesting that the system could use some more lengthy RPG's or FPS's. If that's the case, then sure--but recognize that the 360 and the PS3 could do with more 2D platformers and puzzle games and say what you mean rather than hide behind words that not only have different meanings but actually are used in a derogatory manner. These are genres and not distinctions of "core" or "casual" which in todays term really means "good" and "bad" to the wielder of these words.
Its just opinions. As much as we all hate fanboyism there is a fine line between a strong opinion and fanboyism. I hate fanboys with a passion, but I know that my hatred for the Wii is on the line, and often breaches a form of fanboyism in of itself.IrishLuiz wrote:I think you guys should find another scape goat for your frustrations, it has become quite tiring this anti-Wii campaign. It may not be the best console ever, but there are plenty of good games in there, and not only the standard Mario and childish stuff. If you don´t like it, don´t buy it.
None of you live in a third world country like me, so prices may not be a problem where you live but in here we are truly thankful to have a videogame which is nearly affordable nowadays.
I hate myself mostly. I got suckered into the Wii with Wii Sports only to be come insanely bored with it after about two weeks, and then only to realize that not a single game afterwards came close to utilizing the controls in a good way.
I'll admit there are some games I like on the Wii: Galaxy, Twilight Princess, Brawl (if you have a ton of friends,) Dawn of the New World. But it is still populated by a whole lot of crap because no third-party developer has really tried to work with the Wii. Most of them just make sub-par ports of games that would have been better suited for the technological capabilities of the 360 and PS3, and neglecting to use the Wii's strong points.
The only thing the Wii really has going for it is the controls, but when a lot of games fail to use them even in a remotely effective manner I always say to myself "Why can't I be playing this on my 360?" I mean all of the games I mentioned that I liked could have easily been played with a standard controller, and would have been better if they had.
Last edited by Tsurayu on Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
I agree Tsurayu. I really feel frustrated with Nintendo´s tendency of delivering most games to casual/young players, but i also think there are good things comming recently.
I think the controls issue has been pretty much solved with the Motion Plus. I haven´t played other games with it, but on Sports Resorts it worked perfectly (although it sucks to buy a new accessory to do something that should have been there since the beginning), and I really think game producers don´t need to be stuck on he duty of using motions on every game. Muramasa didn´t use any, and it´s fine! Motion controls should not be used on every game.
I think the controls issue has been pretty much solved with the Motion Plus. I haven´t played other games with it, but on Sports Resorts it worked perfectly (although it sucks to buy a new accessory to do something that should have been there since the beginning), and I really think game producers don´t need to be stuck on he duty of using motions on every game. Muramasa didn´t use any, and it´s fine! Motion controls should not be used on every game.
I guess the strange thing is that I've always thought of Nintendo's games as for all ages rather than for young gamers. To me, I would much rather play something in a surreal or stylized--heck, even flat out cartoon-like--world than an FPS that's meant to look like the real world (by the way, I think it's inexcusable that games based on actual wars have been released, but that's another topic). I might be willing to concede that I'm not sharing in the majority opinion; besides, I still enjoy watching PBS Kids and classic animated shows, so it would make sense that the games I like share that style. Regardless, I think Nintendo's games aren't "for kids" but for all. Games that are especially geared towards youth have come out for the Wii, but mostly by third-party publishers. And on that note, many people criticize, but no one ever recognizes that the most popular system always gets the majority of games in a generation, and the majority of games are sub par. Always have been.IrishLuiz wrote:I really feel frustrated with Nintendo´s tendency of delivering most games to casual/young players. . . .
And if you need a concrete example of a "mature" Nintendo franchise . . . Metroid. . . .