hot  /  reviews  /  videos  /  cblogs  /  qposts

FRESH MEAT  
|   FROM OUR COMMUNITY BLOGS


MonkeyKing1969's blog


3:29 PM on 12.18.2012

Middle-Age Angst Gamers

I’ll just say it… If I hear another 24-44 year old gamer (ex-gamer) whines that s/he is less interested in games I’m going to vomit. Understand me it not that I think people of any age should be into games, should not be into games, should be leaving games behind or picking games up according to age. No, the problem is these people tend to have so much angst about the prospect of their view of games changing that they become shrill on the subject. They whine like two year olds, and then, for the love of god, they start going through the ‘levels of separation anxiety’ in public. Much like a toddler loves an audience for a tantrum, your adult gamer just loves an audiences to listen to their reason for – why games are different now, why there just isn’t enough time, what a family is really about because they know now (wink), or why they have evolved out or mere gaming.



Here is the deal, unless you MAKE games there should be no issue about how little or how much you are into games as an adult. Games are a hobby, you don’t see people on SKI magazine message boards saying, “Dude, just not into skiing every weekend any more…guess I’m growing up brah.” Hobbies are thing you either decided to spend time on or you don’t, and depending on your life, the amount of time you spend can vary. Burt the important point is NOBODY CARES!!!!



Really, folks it is okay to stop gaming without writing a ‘suicide note-like’ goodbye on your blogs. No need to start telling everyone, “they will be sorry when YOU are gone from gaming.”


THAT'S ERR WINE!!! Miles Raymond: "...if anyone orders Merlot, I'm leaving. I am NOT drinking any fucking Merlot!"

It is okay to silently and quietly without a lot of fuss to stop gaming. Alternatively, game less than you once did or would like to. Nevertheless, just remember -nobody cares- you not gaining new insights or telling some truth to the world, you just being less or more or differently engaged in a god-damn-hobby. It’s a hobby you fucking-egotistical-twits, not a life changing event. Believe me if you stop gaming you are not making the biggest choice in your life.



It’s a hobby. It’s a good hobby too. Yet, the world will keep spinning without you gaming. Your friends who still game will do so or not without your “considered” input on the subject. There is no need to write ten blogs on the ten websites about your ‘theory of adulthood’. You can just slide down the slope into other hobbies, responsibilities, or activities.



I would say, gaming less in parts of your life is wise. My rule of thumb is play video games from age 7 to 15…then STOP for ten years. Then pick up gaming again form 25-death on/off as you choose. Very simple very clean rules - play, then live the best years of your life, and then do whatever floats your boat after that. However, just do all that without whining or making a big production out of your choices.


SEE PEOPLE WITH PEOPLE, DOING THINGS TOGETHER....THIS IS 15-25 STUFF   read


11:46 AM on 12.14.2012

Micro-Blog: Interview Transcripts

The Video Game video interview is great...except when they ages-out of circulation and becomes lost...then it is a tragedy.

If there is one thing that I think video game media/journalism is getting wrong today it is that they do not transcript video interviews. While this might be a hassle in some cases, I think there is a real need to have video transcribed, especially when gaming luminaries are talking about the craft of game making. So much is locked behind video that would be useful for research or would be retrievable if it were in text. Instead of thinking “Gee, I seem to remember Sam Thompson, Producer for Uncharted: Drake's Fortune discussed the role of pulp fiction and 1930s adventure serials four years ago…but I cannot remember where.” Wouldn’t it be better if you could type “Sam Thompson” AND “Pulp fiction” into a browser to find the transcript?



This occurs to me mostly now because the President of Irrational Games, Ken Levine is speaking with about fifteen different game sites and magazines about games and Irrational’s BioShock Infinite. In a few months those videos will be hidden in the confines of various websites, there will be dozens of them and all of the information contained within the interviews will be lost unless you find all the videos and watch them again. This is just not a logical system! A simple transcript or even just and index of topics in the container story around eh video would be helpful, but most sites doesn’t do that.



The industry keeps saying video games matter, but we are doing a terrible job documenting video game history. There are some simple task that all sites could be doing to make game research in the present/future more easily accomplished, but I think the biggest issues is transcripts of videos and audio interviews. There is so much rich history that could be lost because that video game industry itself seems to not understand how audio and video can be best preserved and used.   read


11:39 AM on 11.03.2012

The gamer’s eye - High Tech Analysis Engine

I wonder how long it takes from a gamer to look a box on the shelf and decide that something is shovel-ware and something else just has a bad cover.


This week it struck me that most gamers have a hidden skill - they can tell real games from shovel-ware. With experience we can judge most games nearly without thought. Our minds scan our internal database of knowledge, and then we have the answer. We know ‘Call of Duty MW3’ is a real game whereas ‘Heavy Fire Afghanistan’ is shovel-ware. We know Mario Cart Wii is a real game, but Rig Racer 2 is junk. The title, cover, developers/publisher either click as ‘correct’ or they do not. Even without knowing much we can look at the front and back cover and judge with great accuracy.



Sadly, what we know is not just instantaneous or obvious to others. You can tell a non-gamer about being careful about the existence of shovel-ware when buying, but without the skills and knowledge, it is hard to even start to judge. Moreover, to a certain extent it is hard to explain the importance of game reviews or even using simple tools to aid in selection. The very concept that most games worth considering are reviewed for quality is somehow a hidden concept too.



It is hard to fathom for gamers, but I think games are their own subject, like car engines or hang gliding. Common people know games exist and people like them, but what differentiates a good game form bad is puzzling to them. When you play CoD MW3 the screen looks 99% like ‘Heavy Fire Afghanistan’, you move the stick and you move, you pull the triggers too shoot…so what in the difference. We know the difference is huge, but in some cases, not even we, can explain it. An expert in shooters could break down the difference between MW3, Battleship, Medal of Honor, Killzone 3, James Bond, Marines: Modern Urban Combat, and all the other games by playing each for five minutes. However, to a non-gamer each of those games would feel the same as they shot wildly into the sky or dropped live grenades at their feet.




The next time some non-gamer buys you an unasked for game that is good thank them for solving the hardest problem in the universe. What we know is hard won knowledge, and even gamers can get it wrong...how else to explain why millions of idiots will buy Halo 4, right? (Please understand I had to end on a zigger for the trolls. ;-) ]   read


9:57 AM on 10.11.2012

Middle Sized Games ... A time to kill, a time to heal

I think one of the more interesting questions of this generation as it turns over is the trend of the middle tier game. There is a trend, perceived to be real, that middle tier games that are ‘okay quality’ are not selling well and that the developers that make them are being shut down. I think there is probably some analysis that could be ginned up to support that, but the question become does it matter.

I tend to think that is matters very little because what we are seeing is not so much the loss of a middle tier of games forever, but a reallocation of resources and a shift in how middle tier games will be made in the future. I say it matters very little because middle tier games are not gone for good, but rather they will slowly shift from one segment of the market to a different segment.


To Everything (Turn, Turn, Turn) / There is a season (Turn, Turn, Turn) / And a time to every purpose, under Heaven

A time to be born, a time to die / A time to plant, a time to reap / A time to kill, a time to heal/ A time to laugh, a time to weep

Now if you were to ask why developers are closing and the games are not selling I would say “Because the economic model for them is broken. And, types of games ‘churn’ from top to bottom or from selling well to selling poorly as the hardware cycles change what games are played and who plays them. The churn of games bring some developers to the top and other to the bottom, and small game to the top and then big games, indie development to the forefront and then solid long term businesses.


The churn of games up and down is natural...we need the churn.

I see the middle tier game coming back within three or four years. That does not mean you will not see those games it just means you will not see hundred or thousand of them being made in all territories until the business model I see coming becomes firm. In a sense, I see the problem with middle tier games being about the business model. Currently middle tier games are made the same way Triple-A effort games are made. About 60 to 130 people at a development studio come together for a projects that will take 14-20 months to complete. Top-level talent is not often there but the solid middle level coders, artist, and other staff are on hand. But, they're paying the same salaries, they are taking the same amount of time, they are often building tools custom like a Triple-A game. So they cost is not different. The game come out taking too long, costing too much, and having too much pressure to sell nearly a million just as a Triple-A game does.

A lot of money is spent needlessly on middle tier games. A lot of meetings and effort is expended in planning, many changes are allowed late in the production, and a lot of last editions are shoved into the game play to make it “more marketable”. That means any decent idea is expensive to being to market, because a lot of pork barrel spending occurs. For a Triple-A effort game the talent and vision is often there and the sales are there, and often there is a well-established IP that skids the rails to allow it to succeed. The middle tier game has none of that so it fails or lacks the profitability to really necessitate it a second game occurring or the studio staying open.



It does not take a genius to see why this is making the middle tier game impossible to make. Yet, the solution is simple. Middle tier games need to be stream-lined productions that use known tools and solid ideas well and that add innovation possible in a smaller game that might need only sell 75K units to make back the costs and only sell 150K to be nicely profitable. However, that DOES mean the whole process needs to be re-thought just as a production line, so that efficiencies occur and real world results are achievable. Medium sized games can be innovative, interesting, and affordable. But, the games need to stay medium sized, the amount of content needs to be producible in the shortened development cycle, and a smaller team using proven tools need to be utilized.   read


1:35 PM on 09.26.2012

They should have done better, they know it, but will fans admit it?

The cut scenes in DoA 5 are amateurish, and it appears they didn't even bother to hire or even subcontract out the cut scenes to professionals.  It is as if they had giving college freshman animators first assignments, and used the results as the cut scenes.



It is just an inexcusably poor effort.  Even if you do not consider DaA a Triple-A level game that has no need for AAA polish, what players received was of extremely low quality for that has little plot or scene construction.   read


10:03 AM on 09.15.2012

Don't Dog the Dogma

I am very excited because I confronted the 'uber dragon' in Dragons Dogma last night. I had been playing on and off for what seems like months, but I finally had to push through to teh end because I liked the game so much that I needed to see how it would end. Although I'm probably not at the end since teh game did not end. So now, I am in the after event of Dragons Dogma where all the enemies are uber ranked as well. I am not sure how long the 'after event' part of the game lasts, maybe I just have to reach the capital city...maybe more.

I also lucked out and had my ending with the person I wanted - Selena the woods-witch. I guess some people played the game very weirdly without interacting with people except the merchants so they had weird love interests at the end. I wanted Selena because she seemed the most likable. She was never mean or duplicitous like many fo teh other characters, perhaps she was less real as well...that a discussion for another time.

I think the early criticism that the story falls apart in the middle are correct. But I rather view it as they fail to keep popping in story elements when you in the mid-quest because the mid-quest form some could last a twenty hours or for people like me about sixty hours. The beginning and ending fit very well, the middle game I think does not stress the philosophic discussion or concepts of the start and finish so it appears weak.




At the end of the game, I think they could make three major improvements and three minor tweaks. The game could be tweaked and improved in hundreds of way, but I see three bigger game mechanism and some smaller ones that would make the world more "living" and "real".

MAJOR
- Make the story more clear throughout. If that means more cut scenes okay, if the means more dialogue options that is fine too. I think the developers should take a long look at Dragon Age and Mass Effect. Some choices to make and some forks in the stories with characters would be fun. There need to be story elemenst through that bring player back into teh main story or at least show what is happening or progessing while you off on side quests or main quests.

- The map could be 20% bigger, but much of that should be the addition of three other small villages of people. I like the accuracy of scale for the villages, city, dungeons, and other structures. Therefore, keep the scale, but allow more buildings to be entered and have some major and minor characters in them. Bigger map with more characters, and more dialogue for them, all of that is a major undertaking, but I think needed.

- Provide a sense of progression in the world. The first time you walk down a road it might be in poor repair and have monsters close to its edges. By removing the monsters a road crew appear that making the road appear smoother (texture switch). This should happen with roads, homes, villages, etc. The VISUAL IMPACT you have on the world should be evident.


MINOR
- Cycle enemies in and out of locations. You should not find the same monsters at the same spot on the path all the time. Sometimes monsters, sometimes a farmer who needs help, sometimes nothing, and sometimes a ceremonial procession or a travelling peddler in the spot.

- More clothing! At the start of the game, you should have dozens of outfits to purchase. I should not have to spend 90% of the game trying to find yellow socks or a blue hat. Make a system where the player can buy dyes to re-color standard items.

- More detail on character models so the look better up close. More detail on clothing and armor so they too look better up close. Provide more instances where I can see my character looking nice or cool with in engine cut scenes.
  read


3:18 PM on 05.12.2012

Monsters in the House

Lately the concept of the zombie has really taken over gaming. It has been a slow burn of course there were dozens of zombie games even before Capcom mad the Biohazard/Resident Evil series, but we see how that the zombie has become a “stock” character in a lot of games from shooters to causal party games.

I have a new concept for a zombie that is different from the typical slow, fast or monstrous that we have seen in past media. I think my new concept which is a mix of some other “horror” memes and tropes has merit, but you tell me what you think

My idea is the following what if there were a sickness where the outcome is not shambling zombies, but rather passionless sociopath. When you become ill you lose all sense of right or wrong, love, and emotion; but you retain your intellect, your knowledge, and even the ability to dissemble (lie or hide the truth). You can know you are infected, but you do no care. Once infected you don’t just slaughter everyone but rather YOU COULD. It might takes days, weeks or even months before you kill, but you will and it could be anyone or anything.



Now why is this interesting? I think it is interesting because it increases the paranoia and at the same time gives no “out” for lacking humanity. A slow zombie or a fast zombie is easy to spot. A monster zombie is even easier to spot. But the smart zombie/psychopath that could be anyone so everyone is a potential monster. But, as I said this new monster has reason, so you can talk to this psychopath monster. The infected person is passionless, but is still very human it is like sitting across from Dr. Hannibal Lecter…if Dr. Lecter were you neighbor, dentist, or sister/brother.

Now there always has to be a twist, right? Well, my twist is an oldie but a goodie. Only children between 3 and 10 get infected. In my concept is after you are a toddler and become a child you hormone levels change, and then when you become a teen your hormone levels change again. The infection can only strike when you are between those ages at the right hormone level. Once puberty hits your get a high fever that lasts for a week, and if you survive that, you that emotional parts of your brain turn back on. Do you see where we are going here…you can save them…but do you risk saving your child…do you risk someone else trying to save their child? See that is where the tension is in this idea. You have a smart, methodical killer that could kill anyone at a whim…but they are human in so many ways..and can be saved. And, (there is always an AND), because it is a specific group - what would be done to save kids, what harebrained schemes would people try to protect themselves from kids or would be tried to reverse the disease. Communities without children? Communities where children are imprisoned? Communities where people scarified ANYONE ELSE to the whims of their psychopathic children?



What do you do when your ability to love and want to protect children is at odds with the disease that makes something that CANNOT love and does not care? What happens when the enemy is hidden, but hidden in something you want to protect more than yourself? What happens when you see a sly smile on the face of a child slowly hiding a knife it took from the dinner table…do you kill the child before the cold chill down you back takes over your ability to act? How do you live never fully trusting a child, or always having some doubt? What is a family like, even a 'post apocalypse' family life, when children are something to be respected and feared like a poisonous snake or a wild lion?

  read


11:07 AM on 04.28.2012

Too Hard to Balance?...why balance let me cheat!!!

You often hear in development circles that the more characters you have the more styles of play you allow the greater the headaches. The common laments that comes from that is “Geeze, balancing all that characters is hard that game gets too easy or too hard if one character runs slower/faster, carries more/less, jumps taller/shorter, etc.” But my questions is…why FIX THAT? Why not just make sure tam game works and then allow the player to experiment?



The thought arises that UN-equal abilities are something that could make RPGs and adventure games more interesting. What if in an open world RPG you chose to make the smallest lightest slowest character or the tallest, most muscular, and fastest character? Would that really be BAD? Would it be bad if up front you talk the player that their choices matter and the attributes you choose would affect how the player could play or even if they could win?




In my mind, I see an RPG that is has naturally running systems in it and real world physics. You make your character, you have some choices about who they are & what they look like and what skills you want them to have. You cannot choose everything, what you know you will gain more skills in, what you can learn you can learn after hard practice, but anything you don’t know and have no affinity for will be impossible to learn beyond the basics. If I choose not have little agility then I’ll never be a second story thief, I’ll never free climb a mountain side, and I’ll never catch myself in a tricky fall. There will be all the same skills as in most RPGs…but what you choose matters…a lot. If you choose to be good with blades, but you choose to be weak & small you better choose a small sword to wield. If you choose to have “slick city skills” you better not try living off the land or hunting game in the woods very successfully. Real world rules apply big characters won’t fit into small spaces, weak characters won’t have stamina or vast reserves of health, and agile characters won’t intimidate anyone or cast a spell ever.

In my mind I see a party system as well. But even choosing a party in the real world has complications. If you choose NPCs to help you that have other skills they makes what the party can do more diverse. Yet, what happens when the smallest most agile character can only fit into the secrete magical cave? Party members can wait outside, but they won’t wait forever nor do you have their help carrying loot. There are advantages to making a more homogeneous group, yet when a problem only a mage can solve is encountered what do you do without a mage? A group of thieves might clean up as a gang, but can you trust another thief? A group of warriors might make a formidable team, but what if you don’t have the charisma to lead or loot to keep them interested.



The key would be to sometimes have multiple solutions to problems, but sometimes NOT have a solution. Sometimes there is one easy solution and one super hard tricky solution…yet as I said it is a living physicals based world. If you can use your mind to MAKE A SOLUTION then that’s great, because that where the game is doing what I want it to do. I want players that say, I couldn’t get to that cave on that cliff so I when into town and I stole a rope ladder off a ship. Then I hired an acrobat to bring the ladder up to the cave mouth so I could climb up. I want people to say, I couldn’t defeat the wizard in the cave….so I got a bottle of poison and when the cart was in town that would bring him supplies I poured poison on all the contents…but that killed the wizard and the wagon driver too…so when I stole the wizards loot and brought it to another town is the wagon I took as well….I then went to the wagon drivers wife who after not seeing her husband for three months was willing to marry me. WIN-WIN-WIN.   read


3:38 PM on 03.03.2012

Baby, we need to talk...our Erotophobia is driving us nutz!

This has been a rough few weeks on the sexism front. We have that eye popping business in the “Tekken/Street Fighter gaming community. We have had Rush Limbaugh call a law school student a sl_t. And we have all sorts of nonsense in other corners of news about Sport Illustrated models, if Angelina Jolie is too thin, and many other things.

There is the notion that nobody in American is comfortable talking about race, but if you want some real fear and bizarre nonsense start talking about sexuality. It seems no matter where you turn there is a concept about what is proper and improper…most of it conflicting.

Erotophobia- Fear of sexual love or sexual questions.

Here are my feelings
- Sex is normal. We are supposed to do it. Human females are “plumbed” to ovulate once a month after all.
- Once you pass puberty there is a sexual aspect to your life in some form…SORRY THAT’S BIOLOGIAL TRUTH.
- The fear of seeing nudity even for adults seems to be pathologically paralyzing these days, and that is unhealthy.
- We fear being considered (not considered) as sexuallly active to such a gegree that we lie about it...or boast about it...or do both.



Above you see a nude male and female..or you would just that would DRIVE PEOPLE nutz if they saw it...Admit it you'd feel weird if I put that picture here. Kinda sad.

I have to ask, how did we become so uncomfortable with naked people? How did we become uncomfortable with our own sexuality? Why are we on a course legislated, criminalize, and penalize sexuality among teens?

I have to say that in my view we have a warped point of view on sexuality. We make the subject so taboo that it is shocking that anyone has any rational view on the subject at all. More troublesome, the people who do study the subject or human sexuality we deem perverts. It is as if we want to control the idea of sex and our own bodies as if they had just been created so we will legislate them like a pack of cigarettes.

- Is it any wonder men call woman whores in online games?
- Is it any wonder a man like Rush Limbaugh would demand someone seeking female contraception would have video proof of it?
- Is it any wonder boys and girls “sext” each other when that is just the use of technology to do what boys & girls did in the hay-loft 60 years ago?

We are sexual beings, and when we are not allowed to be those 'sexual beings' we crack up. We we fear our own sexuality we crack up. And when we pretend teens are not sexula being too..ones that still need guidance...we crack them up too.

I think most of the social problems we THINK we have are due to sex. No enough, and a lack of understanding aboiut how to view sexuality in a healthy way.   read


5:44 PM on 05.30.2010

THUNDERCATS!!! Ho--noooo!

ThunderCats Writer Murdered?

I just saw this story at Kotaku and it just made me sad. In short: Stephen Perry, who was a writer for 1980s cartoon ThunderCats, recently went missing. His van was found last Sunday. Inside it, a man's severed arm. Stephen Perry, police now report, is dead.

Even sadder what happened in his life since the 80s, it sounds like from reading teh rest of the story that he hit some really hard times. Crazy roommates -- Kids with a baby momma half his age -- court dates -- and the picture of his house just makes me sad. Nobody should live likd that even thought I know people do every day in America




ThunderCats was just a really neat, I'd not go so far as to say good, but a really neat concept that brought together some really weird stuff. Was it high art? Maybe! It sure was creative in that it made some crazy weird stuff seem normal and cool. I don't know....but it has to be said one last time

THUNDERCATS HO!!!!!   read


7:24 AM on 05.14.2010

Wait...Let me get this straight



Hideki Kamiya (Bayonetta creator)
It looks like there's pornographic Bayonetta fan comics. That's bound to disturb fans of the game, and I can't imagine the creators of said manga have any love for the game.

If I understand him correctly, he is confused that the game character who is viewed by way of crotch & butt shots and is in fact clothed by magic body hair is viewed in a sexualized way.

Okay, I'll accept that. However, I also accept that Hideki Kamiya suffers from a form of autism that makes the world confusing to him or he is so full of ____ that he has custom made clothing entirely made of toilet paper.

On a more serious note, that a few of you might not thing the blog will discuss, I do think the concept of fan fiction is and always will be a sensitive topic to some writers. In fact I would say any artist will always have some sensitivity to their art, be that painting, sculpture, photography, movie, game, being used in way they never intended of considered. That is nothing more then human nature. You make something and then as an artist you share it and because of the dialectic between artist and viewer there is a response. Most artists hope for the response of the viewer giving their impression of the original work as-is, but we all know that often the response can be, "Here is how you could have done it better."

The desire to mold art to our own point of view is not new, it is as old as art itself. It can be as officious as a Pope having loin cloths painted over the genitalia of the Sistine Chapel or as mundane as people singing the wrong lyrics to Rolling Stones songs.



Sometimes we 're-write' in only our minds, and sometimes we take out the red pen and scratch bit of art out. We do this out of necessity because art is communication that requires at least two parties. The artist states something by their work, the viewer responds by what they think, and the discussion continues as the artist creates more and the viewer becomes a follower of the work.



The problem arises when either artist or public comes to feel they have more control. Art is only art when shared, much like a tree falling in the woods, does it really exist without it being viewed. A better analogy could be Schrödinger's cat where only when the box is opened does anything meaningful occur. If the artist start to believe only they can have an impression of their own art and only they should have control over the art then a problem occurs. In the same way a problem occurs when the viewers thinks once art is released the artist role is over and the art now belongs to the viewer alone. Things works when the dialectic between artist and viewer is cordial and respectful, things work poorly when the artist resents the viewer or when they viewer dismisses any ownership of art to artist once it is released. And problems also occur when either party becomes thin skinned because the conversation turns sullen.



In this case I think the 'artist' is being sullen for a very bad reason. Bayonetta is a game about a sexy witch who is portrayed in a sexy way in the 'official work', therefore her sexualization being move a few step more is too be expected. But I also wonder if any of these fan-fic artists are trying to profit from these other work of art they are making. But with that said, Hideki Kamiya is going to use the argument of Bayonetta being over sexualized in the fan fic meaning a lack of love for the game or character is full garbage. A better argument is sexualized fan-fic is to be expected, but it such fan fic misses the point if it ignored the characters other attributes aside from sexiness and is unfair to the original work if it is trying to profit off of the IP.

...

I don't know what do you think?   read


3:22 PM on 05.06.2010

What do you think: Michael Pachter says the Wii 2 delay is hurting Nintendo



In an article at MVC, the discuss how Michael Pachter accuses Nintendo of being “complacent” in face of falling Wii software sales. http://www.mcvuk.com/news/38862/Wii-2-delay-is-hurting-Nintendo

On the surface I think it is a bit silly so see gloom and doom for Nintendo and the current Wii, but he does makes some good points about if Wii 2 had the power of a PS3 or XB360 that porting games too its system would be easier. It is a good point, even if it is just a single point of view trying to explain a bigger issue. Making all things equal might make developers happier and therfore provide more games.

However, even if the above is true it trods upon the idea that the millions who bought Wii would be happy about this? Also, who would be pleased by these ports? It would only be the 15% of Wii owners who actually would want more hardcore games, right? Those are people like me and you sure, but that’s not the bulk of mothers, uncles and old people who bought the Wii. I think a lot of people are very happy with content taht isn't the same and doesn't allow instant ports of PS3 or XB360 games.

The solution in my eyes is for Nintendo to put the BILLIONS they have made off Wii and create two or three in house development teams to make more games that fit the Wii ethos. Its not like Nintendo needs to put out many more of their own games. I would say they need only three in house titles and maybe only half a dozen 2nd part titles worth looking forward to then they have now.

A quick and dirty olution would be three in-house teams, two to make new intellectual property and one to dig into the vault and make updates to classic properties. Then, take some of the money and invest in small a few development teams to turn into second party development. In all cases Nintendo should be willing to allow some ideas to be tossed out without malace, but then take the time to polish the games that do go forward. The answer isn’t to make more game faster; it would be to build up the ability to make more good games themselves that are great.



Stage two would need be to STOP allowing shovelware. Nintendo must tighten up the firehose of junk that is giving the Wii a bad name. I bet half of the issue of declining sales can be attributed to the fact that new casual users don’t know games are reviewed and rated on websites and magazines. Most of these people bought Wii Fit and Will Part games and they accidently bought a few of those shovel ware titles. They felt burned after that because they didn’t know there was a way to find out those games were crap. These are new gamers and returning gamers who have not been brought up in the culture of there being extreme difference in quality. All they know is it a Wii game, right? They have no idea that in gaming culture there is the concept of shovelware. Moreover, how did Nintendo stray so far they they forgot some of why video game consoles got a bad name in the learly 80s when Atari lost control of what was put out on their system. They forgot why a 'Seal of Quality' was a good idea.



In the end Nintendo must use the money they made to invest in themselves. It is a CRIME that they makes billions and don’t build up more development teams and invest in more game studios. They seem to be actually very miserly with the good fortune they have had in the generation. Even while Sony and MS struggle they invest in new developers, what is wrong at Nintendo that they don’t do this? What good are all the profit if they don’t invest them towards making games?

BOTTOME LINE: Nintendo doesn't need a new system they need a new 'less crass' point of view about what being profitable is about. If they invest in themselves they can only profit more.   read





Back to Top


We follow moms on   Facebook  and   Twitter
  Light Theme      Dark Theme
Pssst. Konami Code + Enter!
You may remix stuff our site under creative commons w/@
- Destructoid means family. Living the dream, since 2006 -