surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
They do live in tiny little houses after all. The Chinpokomon clip was great, I need to watch that episode again.
Meh, it's not really a surprise developers go for the Wii. Lazy ass fuckers, I'd want to create stupid simple shit too and get all the money instead of actually WORKING for my pay.
SWING THE MOTE! SWING IT!
SWING THE MOTE! SWING IT!
What he says about the size is somewhat logical, as far as mere conjecture goes. Considering the Japanese obsession with microsizing their technology, the sight of a huge PS3 may very well scream archaic to them.
Also, TINY COCKS LOLZORZ!
Also, TINY COCKS LOLZORZ!
If this is the real issue with the PS3 and 360 in Japan, then the Japanese are idiots. I'm sorry, but this is just the silliest thing I've ever heard. Why don't you try judging a console by what it can do, Japan? I remember hearing people say the same thing about the original Xbox in Japan, but I always thought it had more to do with the types of games available on the Xbox and/or loyalty to Japanese companies VS ill feelings towards MS.
If this is the case, why doesn't Sony or MS create an 8-bit console just slightly smaller than the Wii, make some used panty dispenser sims and schoolgirl-karaoke games for it, then just sit back and watch it print money?
If this is the case, why doesn't Sony or MS create an 8-bit console just slightly smaller than the Wii, make some used panty dispenser sims and schoolgirl-karaoke games for it, then just sit back and watch it print money?
Tiny places to live and they like technology...smaller it is, the more they can have and fit in their tiny hole...err home.
@ Canadian Geese:
Why are the Japanese idiots for judging something on it's appearance? Like every other country doesn't do the exact same thing. Do people check out ugly guys/girls just because they have a good personality? How many people scoffed at the Gamecube because it looked like a sixth-grade girl's handbag? If I dress like a complete slob when I go to a job interview, do I have the same chance of getting a job just because my resume is good? Remember how crazy demand for the DS was as soon as the sleeker Lite was introduced? Sorry, appearance does matter to the vast majority of people all over the world. And like I mentioned, size is honestly a concern if you've ever seen an average Japanese apartment. That's the same reason virtual pets are so big over there, so few people have space for them.
Along with the reasons you mentioned, the Xbox also has a bit of a image problem in Japan simply because X suggests "no".
Why are the Japanese idiots for judging something on it's appearance? Like every other country doesn't do the exact same thing. Do people check out ugly guys/girls just because they have a good personality? How many people scoffed at the Gamecube because it looked like a sixth-grade girl's handbag? If I dress like a complete slob when I go to a job interview, do I have the same chance of getting a job just because my resume is good? Remember how crazy demand for the DS was as soon as the sleeker Lite was introduced? Sorry, appearance does matter to the vast majority of people all over the world. And like I mentioned, size is honestly a concern if you've ever seen an average Japanese apartment. That's the same reason virtual pets are so big over there, so few people have space for them.
Along with the reasons you mentioned, the Xbox also has a bit of a image problem in Japan simply because X suggests "no".
When I think one button music game, I think rhthym tengoku. And it makes me happy.
BUT ZOMG IT AM WII CAUSAL GAME SOE IT MUST BE SUCKS RITE!!1!
BUT ZOMG IT AM WII CAUSAL GAME SOE IT MUST BE SUCKS RITE!!1!
One Button! I haven't seen such innovation since Every single 2600 game. Thanks ‘guy who last made a hit game in 1996’!
Mxyzptlk, agreed that appearance matters.
But, what are the Japanese looking at? Do they turn the console on and then stare at the console instead of the screen? Also, you say that we all do the same thing, but do you know a single person who chose one console over another because of the way it physically looks?
You are right that appearance matters, but the console is supposed to "appear" on your screen, not your tv stand. The "idiots" comment was a bit harsh, but if THIS is what is truly causing the Japanese to buy one console over another, it sounds like they are more interested in something other than gaming.
But, what are the Japanese looking at? Do they turn the console on and then stare at the console instead of the screen? Also, you say that we all do the same thing, but do you know a single person who chose one console over another because of the way it physically looks?
You are right that appearance matters, but the console is supposed to "appear" on your screen, not your tv stand. The "idiots" comment was a bit harsh, but if THIS is what is truly causing the Japanese to buy one console over another, it sounds like they are more interested in something other than gaming.
Rhythm Tengoku proves that a one button rhythm game can both kick your ass and blow your mind. This game could be good. In fact, it could be great. There is no reason to think it wont.
Summa, why you hating?
What are you going to do if simple, low def games that are cheap to make and fun to play start to dominate the gaming world? Will you quit playing games, or just keep hating and waiting for the tide to turn back your way?
I remember when I was a hater. It was back when awesome looking 2D games like Astal and Darkstalkers were outsold by completely shitty looking 3D games like Battle Arena Toshinden and Tomb Raider just because the offered "innovative gameplay". I used to complain and insult the appearance of 3D games, the companies that made them, and write theories about how 3D games were just a fad and that eventually Disney quality 2D games would be the dominating force in gaming.
Now of course, I realise I was just hating and sort of making an ass of myself. I still prefer 2D games over 3D games over all, but I don't hate the fact that 3D games are more the norm these days. I just seek out the fun 2D games that I can, and accept the 3D games that play well. I still think that most 3D games look shitty compared to 3D games, but I don't hate 3D games just because they are 3D. In other words, I'm over it.
If in five years the Wii is still outselling it's nearest competator by 3-9 systems to 1, and the highly detailed 3D game has gone the way of the 2D vs. fighter, will you final get over it?
Summa, why you hating?
What are you going to do if simple, low def games that are cheap to make and fun to play start to dominate the gaming world? Will you quit playing games, or just keep hating and waiting for the tide to turn back your way?
I remember when I was a hater. It was back when awesome looking 2D games like Astal and Darkstalkers were outsold by completely shitty looking 3D games like Battle Arena Toshinden and Tomb Raider just because the offered "innovative gameplay". I used to complain and insult the appearance of 3D games, the companies that made them, and write theories about how 3D games were just a fad and that eventually Disney quality 2D games would be the dominating force in gaming.
Now of course, I realise I was just hating and sort of making an ass of myself. I still prefer 2D games over 3D games over all, but I don't hate the fact that 3D games are more the norm these days. I just seek out the fun 2D games that I can, and accept the 3D games that play well. I still think that most 3D games look shitty compared to 3D games, but I don't hate 3D games just because they are 3D. In other words, I'm over it.
If in five years the Wii is still outselling it's nearest competator by 3-9 systems to 1, and the highly detailed 3D game has gone the way of the 2D vs. fighter, will you final get over it?
Awesome 2D game that I think has immeasurably better graphics than Halo 3, but I am not bitter that it wont sell a tenth as well.
http://ps2.ign.com/articles/783/783630p1.html
http://ps2.ign.com/articles/783/783630p1.html
"If in five years the Wii is still outselling it's nearest competator by 3-9 systems to 1, and the highly detailed 3D game has gone the way of the 2D vs. fighter, will you final get over it?"
Are you serious? You'd actually want to be stuck in mediocrity?
Are you serious? You'd actually want to be stuck in mediocrity?
-> Summa: Do you honestly believe games like shadow of the colossus, RE4 or okami are graphically mediocre? Besides, if you genuinely believe the wii will seriously detriment the progress of graphical technology, I think you are more foolish than I give you credit for. I don't think the demand for HD games is going to do anything but inflate, it just so happens at this time the market at large doesn't seem to be quite ready to embrace it. Components significantly surpassing the 360's will be as cheap to manufacture as wii parts in 5 years time, as HD adoption steadily rises. You graphics whores will still get your love.
Answering a question with a question? How coy!
My idea of innovation is games that look and play like no other game I've ever played.
My idea of mediocrity is Halo 3.
I haven't played the game yet, but it looks like just another FPS.
You're idea of mediocrity and mine are clearly pretty different.
You really do sound like some of the die hard Street Fighter fans on Shoryuken.com , who still think the pinnicle of graphics and gameplay innovation is Street Fighter 3.
The rest of the world doesn't think so. Even though Street Fighter 3 has possibly the greatest 2D graphics ever seen in a videogame, it sold like crap compared to it's more innovative (but uglier) competators like Tekken 3.
So, to answer your question, my idea of mediocrity is more of the same gameplay with slightly more detailed graphics like you get (so far) on the PS3 and (for the most part) on the 360. My idea of innovation is the gameplay I've had (thus far) on the Wii.
I know it really gets your goat that people feel this way, but a lot of people do. Get over it.
My idea of innovation is games that look and play like no other game I've ever played.
My idea of mediocrity is Halo 3.
I haven't played the game yet, but it looks like just another FPS.
You're idea of mediocrity and mine are clearly pretty different.
You really do sound like some of the die hard Street Fighter fans on Shoryuken.com , who still think the pinnicle of graphics and gameplay innovation is Street Fighter 3.
The rest of the world doesn't think so. Even though Street Fighter 3 has possibly the greatest 2D graphics ever seen in a videogame, it sold like crap compared to it's more innovative (but uglier) competators like Tekken 3.
So, to answer your question, my idea of mediocrity is more of the same gameplay with slightly more detailed graphics like you get (so far) on the PS3 and (for the most part) on the 360. My idea of innovation is the gameplay I've had (thus far) on the Wii.
I know it really gets your goat that people feel this way, but a lot of people do. Get over it.
For all those who like to hate something before they know anything about it, that would be the entire hardcore game collective.
I, along with many others who aren't gaming facists, can imagine lot's of interesting games that only require one button, especially when you combine that with 3D movement.
PaRappa was one of the best Playstation games and is one of the best games made period, so give its creator the benefit of the doubt when he wants to make a game for the Wii, he sort of knows what he's doing. There's a reason why he's making games and you're not.
You so called hardcore gamers are like fundamentalist right wing christians, anything that dares to go in a different direction to the ancient code of accepted gameplay, is instantly branded wrong and unworthy.
The Wii is pissing off the right people as far as I'm concerned, I'm loving watching you lot get left behind.
I, along with many others who aren't gaming facists, can imagine lot's of interesting games that only require one button, especially when you combine that with 3D movement.
PaRappa was one of the best Playstation games and is one of the best games made period, so give its creator the benefit of the doubt when he wants to make a game for the Wii, he sort of knows what he's doing. There's a reason why he's making games and you're not.
You so called hardcore gamers are like fundamentalist right wing christians, anything that dares to go in a different direction to the ancient code of accepted gameplay, is instantly branded wrong and unworthy.
The Wii is pissing off the right people as far as I'm concerned, I'm loving watching you lot get left behind.
Zardoz is one of the best movies I have ever seen, for the intro alone.
More on the topic of mediocrity, in the world of fine art, realism eventually became synonymous with mediocrity. Byt he early 1900's, it became clear that many realistic artists were more concerned with showing off their technique than with actually creating anything interesting. Fine art "fans" realised that there was no message, no meaning in the pursuit of realism for it's own sake. They found more iconic, more abstract styles of art like surrealism, cubism, and expressionism much more appealing.
Since then, things have sort of leveled out and realism is "ok" again in fine art, but it's by far not the standard.
Same goes for modern comics and animation. In the 1980's, the more realistic the drawings in a cartoon of comic, the closer they were considered to be to"good". In today's animation and comics, totally unrealistic, two color per character, boldly exagerated drawings are more popular than realism, which appears bland and stale to the average fan.
Even in CGI, unrealistic but creative looking films with iconic characters like The Incredibles make much more money than more realistic stuff. In fact, ever since the disaster of Final Fantasy: Spirits Within, I don't think realistic CGI has even made it to theaters.
My point? Realisim is over rated by many in the hardcore video game community. They think realistic graphics legitimise their hobby. They don't. They "Boris Vallejo" it, if you get my meaning.
Many "next gen" looking games are too close to Boris Vallejo to me and I anit interested.
More on the topic of mediocrity, in the world of fine art, realism eventually became synonymous with mediocrity. Byt he early 1900's, it became clear that many realistic artists were more concerned with showing off their technique than with actually creating anything interesting. Fine art "fans" realised that there was no message, no meaning in the pursuit of realism for it's own sake. They found more iconic, more abstract styles of art like surrealism, cubism, and expressionism much more appealing.
Since then, things have sort of leveled out and realism is "ok" again in fine art, but it's by far not the standard.
Same goes for modern comics and animation. In the 1980's, the more realistic the drawings in a cartoon of comic, the closer they were considered to be to"good". In today's animation and comics, totally unrealistic, two color per character, boldly exagerated drawings are more popular than realism, which appears bland and stale to the average fan.
Even in CGI, unrealistic but creative looking films with iconic characters like The Incredibles make much more money than more realistic stuff. In fact, ever since the disaster of Final Fantasy: Spirits Within, I don't think realistic CGI has even made it to theaters.
My point? Realisim is over rated by many in the hardcore video game community. They think realistic graphics legitimise their hobby. They don't. They "Boris Vallejo" it, if you get my meaning.
Many "next gen" looking games are too close to Boris Vallejo to me and I anit interested.
One button gameplay can still be innovative. It's not how many buttons, but how the buttons are used. Gears of War did a lot with its A button. Granted, they used a load of other buttons too, but with some context sensitivity, they were able to keep things a lot more simpler than they could have ended up.
Just because a control scheme is streamlined, doesn't mean it can't be unique. Think how many notes there are in music, yet how many songs exist. Only takes a little imagination.
Koei are planning their Wii RPG to be played with just one hand, and I welcome it entirely. Of course, I'd welcome anything that allows me to game and masturbate at the same time, but there you go.
Just because a control scheme is streamlined, doesn't mean it can't be unique. Think how many notes there are in music, yet how many songs exist. Only takes a little imagination.
Koei are planning their Wii RPG to be played with just one hand, and I welcome it entirely. Of course, I'd welcome anything that allows me to game and masturbate at the same time, but there you go.
Summa has a point. But, I'm not going to go through the trouble of defending it here :) I'll let Summa expand his point in an Epic thread we all know is coming. I'll back him up on that thread. Tho, if developers continue to strive for that "casual game that sells well", how do you not expect overwhelming mediocrity to arise from that?
Personally, I don't think the Wii will continue to have the success it is having now 5-6 years in the future. We'll just have to see what happens after the Wii Hype Train derails, if it ever does ;)
@Braddrac: Currently I don't feel those graphics are mediocre, but graphics age quickly. In 5 years, all those games you listed could be easily considered mediocre or even poor graphic wise. Look at some of the titles from the end of the PS1 generation and how poorly they aged, the aging is what we will get 5 years from now with the Wii, THE AGING!!! /gasp
Remember the definition of Mediocrity and what is Nintendo embracing? "...just good enough..." (I know, I'm taking the quote extremely out of context, but it's more fun that way :)
Personally, I don't think the Wii will continue to have the success it is having now 5-6 years in the future. We'll just have to see what happens after the Wii Hype Train derails, if it ever does ;)
@Braddrac: Currently I don't feel those graphics are mediocre, but graphics age quickly. In 5 years, all those games you listed could be easily considered mediocre or even poor graphic wise. Look at some of the titles from the end of the PS1 generation and how poorly they aged, the aging is what we will get 5 years from now with the Wii, THE AGING!!! /gasp
Remember the definition of Mediocrity and what is Nintendo embracing? "...just good enough..." (I know, I'm taking the quote extremely out of context, but it's more fun that way :)
yamabushi says: "One Button! I haven't seen such innovation since Every single 2600 game. Thanks ‘guy who last made a hit game in 1996’!"
I have yet to see you write anything remotely interesting. Flame off, tard.
Aex sez: "Remember the definition of Mediocrity and what is Nintendo embracing? "...just good enough..." (I know, I'm taking the quote extremely out of context, but it's more fun that way :) "
If fun = incendiary. Flame off, also, FanBoy. You're the biggest kissass on this website, and whenever Summa makes a half-baked biased wii-flame out of an article probably picked initially because it's the stupid Japanese not recognizing their own superior design. I guess its a mutually beneficial relationship, there's an ass to kiss and a kissass, hook it up, Aex.
@ Jim - Welcome to Dtoid. We all apologize for Summa and Aex. And by wii all, I mean, those of us who are willing to let the current nintendo and playstation platforms mature a little more before jumping to conclusions.
*sets soapbox aflame*
fin
I have yet to see you write anything remotely interesting. Flame off, tard.
Aex sez: "Remember the definition of Mediocrity and what is Nintendo embracing? "...just good enough..." (I know, I'm taking the quote extremely out of context, but it's more fun that way :) "
If fun = incendiary. Flame off, also, FanBoy. You're the biggest kissass on this website, and whenever Summa makes a half-baked biased wii-flame out of an article probably picked initially because it's the stupid Japanese not recognizing their own superior design. I guess its a mutually beneficial relationship, there's an ass to kiss and a kissass, hook it up, Aex.
@ Jim - Welcome to Dtoid. We all apologize for Summa and Aex. And by wii all, I mean, those of us who are willing to let the current nintendo and playstation platforms mature a little more before jumping to conclusions.
*sets soapbox aflame*
fin
@ Tron Knotts
Exactly, realism in visuals has been eventually rejected by humanity in every era, this microchip era will be no exception. The reason for this rejection? People eventually realize realism doesn't satisfy their minds eye and it isn't exaggerated enough to visually represent how we feel. Stylised realism like the visuals in Akira are just as abstract as something like Picasso, it's just that Katsuhiro Otomo has exaggerated his visuals in the right places and so people don't notice how abstract they are. Photorealism on the other hand is pointless unless you are trying to simulate a real scenario like Gran Tourismo.
People confuse realsitic experiences with realistic visuals, you can have a very "real" game experience due to the attention to detail in gameplay and art direction, it has nothing to do with realistic graphics. When used in an interesting way, realistic graphics can add a sense of believeability, but since developers are basically using realistic visuals to do the same old tricks, these visuals are ultimately wasted.
Shenmue for me was one of the most immersive game worlds, the realistic graphics helped that feeling but the way in which they were used was the key detail.
Exactly, realism in visuals has been eventually rejected by humanity in every era, this microchip era will be no exception. The reason for this rejection? People eventually realize realism doesn't satisfy their minds eye and it isn't exaggerated enough to visually represent how we feel. Stylised realism like the visuals in Akira are just as abstract as something like Picasso, it's just that Katsuhiro Otomo has exaggerated his visuals in the right places and so people don't notice how abstract they are. Photorealism on the other hand is pointless unless you are trying to simulate a real scenario like Gran Tourismo.
People confuse realsitic experiences with realistic visuals, you can have a very "real" game experience due to the attention to detail in gameplay and art direction, it has nothing to do with realistic graphics. When used in an interesting way, realistic graphics can add a sense of believeability, but since developers are basically using realistic visuals to do the same old tricks, these visuals are ultimately wasted.
Shenmue for me was one of the most immersive game worlds, the realistic graphics helped that feeling but the way in which they were used was the key detail.
@TheStripe: So instead of refuting anything we say you just shout insults? Does it make you feel better at night, knowing you provided absolutely nothing to the thread? Nothing at all. Instead of show us that Mediocrity is not the way Nintendo is headed your only defense is to insult? Oh, thats right, Valid points just shrivel in the face on insults, SHRIVEL!!!!
Good job! Unfortunately, I cannot think of the same witty insults you can come up with, Summa Kiss Ass, OUCH! The best I can come up with is, you have Nintendo's balls in your mouth, never questioning anything they do, just taking everything they give you, whether it is shitty or not and you think its GRREEEEAAAATTT! You win this battle of wits, you sly devil, you ;)
Good job! Unfortunately, I cannot think of the same witty insults you can come up with, Summa Kiss Ass, OUCH! The best I can come up with is, you have Nintendo's balls in your mouth, never questioning anything they do, just taking everything they give you, whether it is shitty or not and you think its GRREEEEAAAATTT! You win this battle of wits, you sly devil, you ;)
Where exactly does one locate the balls of an international corporation?
Speaking of which, Aex had the words "balls" and "shrivel" in the same post. This amuses me.
And finally: How come everything Summa posts turns into a discussion about Summa himself? You can admire his masculine physique and rugged charm on your own time. For now though, how about discussing article content instead?
Speaking of which, Aex had the words "balls" and "shrivel" in the same post. This amuses me.
And finally: How come everything Summa posts turns into a discussion about Summa himself? You can admire his masculine physique and rugged charm on your own time. For now though, how about discussing article content instead?
@ Canadian Geese:
A hardcore gamer is going to care about the games and features of each system, definitely. But most of any company's consumer base are either going to be the type who gets a system just to play Madden, Halo, GTA, or they want something for the kids. Those people may actually care about whether or not they have room for a particular system in their entertainment center.
The primary reason PS2 did so well in Japan at launch was because it was a cheap, relatively small DVD player. Now they're selling a larger, much more expensive system that uses a format that simply isn't enough of an improvement over the current one to matter to the average buyer. The Sony name and promises of superior power were what they really were banking on, and that ended up just not being enough for a lot of people. Size is just one of several factors here. In any case, this is also just a guy's opinion, not the results of a survey or anything. :)
A hardcore gamer is going to care about the games and features of each system, definitely. But most of any company's consumer base are either going to be the type who gets a system just to play Madden, Halo, GTA, or they want something for the kids. Those people may actually care about whether or not they have room for a particular system in their entertainment center.
The primary reason PS2 did so well in Japan at launch was because it was a cheap, relatively small DVD player. Now they're selling a larger, much more expensive system that uses a format that simply isn't enough of an improvement over the current one to matter to the average buyer. The Sony name and promises of superior power were what they really were banking on, and that ended up just not being enough for a lot of people. Size is just one of several factors here. In any case, this is also just a guy's opinion, not the results of a survey or anything. :)
@MechaMonkey: Aww :`-) I'm glad you noticed /sniffle.
Where are the balls you ask? Well, I was going to Photoshop something pretty elaborate using this picture: http://www.wizznutzz.com/images/chin_balls.jpg but I changed my mind at the last minute.
And finally, People tend to "hate" Summa because he questions Nintendo. Obviously Nintendo can do no wrong, Thus, to even question them is blasphemous.
Where are the balls you ask? Well, I was going to Photoshop something pretty elaborate using this picture: http://www.wizznutzz.com/images/chin_balls.jpg but I changed my mind at the last minute.
And finally, People tend to "hate" Summa because he questions Nintendo. Obviously Nintendo can do no wrong, Thus, to even question them is blasphemous.
Sigh, this again.
I think those of us who have opposing viewpoints from summa should just stop posting here, it seems to be encouraging him.
Let him have fun with his 600 dollar paperweight, I'm perfectly fine with my 360 and wii.
I think those of us who have opposing viewpoints from summa should just stop posting here, it seems to be encouraging him.
Let him have fun with his 600 dollar paperweight, I'm perfectly fine with my 360 and wii.
-> Aex: I honestly don't think those gameswill ever look mediocre, in the same way old games like diablo, aladdin, or tales of phantasia still look great today. Good graphics, to me at least, are far more about great art direction and design than the power of the system they're on. In complete honesty, I'm quite sure that looking back 10 years from now, any of the games I mentioned will look better than say elder scrolls oblivion.
Developers will continue to strive for that "casual game that sells well", but that doesn't mean they won't produce the big budget epics as well. Perhaps it means they won't be able to spend quite as much on them, but that's a good thing for the industry, as far as I'm concerned. Games are made by gamers, and the best ones are games those gamers want to make themselves. Perhaps it'll mean the constant stream of generic HD FPSes will slow down, but is that really so terrible?
-> TheStripe: I'm with aex on this one. Flaming him like that isn't really being terribly productive. Reasoning > insults.
Developers will continue to strive for that "casual game that sells well", but that doesn't mean they won't produce the big budget epics as well. Perhaps it means they won't be able to spend quite as much on them, but that's a good thing for the industry, as far as I'm concerned. Games are made by gamers, and the best ones are games those gamers want to make themselves. Perhaps it'll mean the constant stream of generic HD FPSes will slow down, but is that really so terrible?
-> TheStripe: I'm with aex on this one. Flaming him like that isn't really being terribly productive. Reasoning > insults.
Yeah, apologies for the flame. I just couldn't take Previewer slant and fanboy gushing anymore at the moment. So I guess I'll throw some actual content down.
Aex: "Personally, I don't think the Wii will continue to have the success it is having now 5-6 years in the future. "
- I don't know how many generations of console you've seen come and go, but you keep saying "5-6 years in the future, blah blah blah" in 5-6 years, the Wii, the Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3 will be losing out to their successors. The only reason the PS2 is still having lots of success is because it's successor is overpriced for the average gamer and has no library to justify the investment. Maybe you're thinking 1-2 years, when the systems begin hitting their stride.
@Brad - If anything, it means game companies will be able to spend MORE on their epics. You have to think that a casual game whose single-player mode is 8 or 9 hours tops is cheaper to develop than a 25 or 30 hour monster, and is bound to be more profitable if we're to believe the cries of "sell-out," so they cost less and make more. Business sense demands devoting more money to R&D, so instead of cranking out a generic epic, actually spend your new cash flow on getting a good story and polishing the controls and mechanics and pushing the system (whichever one it may be) to it's graphical limits, vying for a GOTY. Because those ads for MP:3 Corruption or GTA V emblazoned with GAME OF THE YEAR are going to help sell the system, as well as the casual games that are making money. Would the Xbox have succeeded without Halo? Doubtful. So the goal here might be to make money selling games that aren't necessarily hardcore so you can use that money to make even grander, more immersive epics. I mean, how many of you played the metroid or zelda games? How can you argue that nintendo is going to basically drop some of it's longest-running and profitable IP's to make nothing but parlor games? It makes more sense to me to make money with simpler titles (for which devs are waiting in line to make) and spend that money on making your grander titles stand out from the glut of modern gaming.
@Aex - And for the record "questioning" is different than "calling a sellout at every opportunity."
"Nintendo is devoted to Mediocrity" is at the same time unchallengable and indefensible. The only way to know if Miyamoto and Nintendo are conciously trying to make games of less than stellar quality would be to read their minds. I have a possible challenge; i.e. that consistent mediocrity doesn't make money. You remember Sega, right?
Aex: "Personally, I don't think the Wii will continue to have the success it is having now 5-6 years in the future. "
- I don't know how many generations of console you've seen come and go, but you keep saying "5-6 years in the future, blah blah blah" in 5-6 years, the Wii, the Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3 will be losing out to their successors. The only reason the PS2 is still having lots of success is because it's successor is overpriced for the average gamer and has no library to justify the investment. Maybe you're thinking 1-2 years, when the systems begin hitting their stride.
@Brad - If anything, it means game companies will be able to spend MORE on their epics. You have to think that a casual game whose single-player mode is 8 or 9 hours tops is cheaper to develop than a 25 or 30 hour monster, and is bound to be more profitable if we're to believe the cries of "sell-out," so they cost less and make more. Business sense demands devoting more money to R&D, so instead of cranking out a generic epic, actually spend your new cash flow on getting a good story and polishing the controls and mechanics and pushing the system (whichever one it may be) to it's graphical limits, vying for a GOTY. Because those ads for MP:3 Corruption or GTA V emblazoned with GAME OF THE YEAR are going to help sell the system, as well as the casual games that are making money. Would the Xbox have succeeded without Halo? Doubtful. So the goal here might be to make money selling games that aren't necessarily hardcore so you can use that money to make even grander, more immersive epics. I mean, how many of you played the metroid or zelda games? How can you argue that nintendo is going to basically drop some of it's longest-running and profitable IP's to make nothing but parlor games? It makes more sense to me to make money with simpler titles (for which devs are waiting in line to make) and spend that money on making your grander titles stand out from the glut of modern gaming.
@Aex - And for the record "questioning" is different than "calling a sellout at every opportunity."
"Nintendo is devoted to Mediocrity" is at the same time unchallengable and indefensible. The only way to know if Miyamoto and Nintendo are conciously trying to make games of less than stellar quality would be to read their minds. I have a possible challenge; i.e. that consistent mediocrity doesn't make money. You remember Sega, right?
@TheStripe: Ooohhhhh, I see your problem now. You didn't read the other comments in the thread. I was replying to this:
"If in five years the Wii is still outselling it's nearest competator by 3-9 systems to 1, and the highly detailed 3D game has gone the way of the 2D vs. fighter, will you final get over it?"
I don't think the Wii will continue to hold the popularity it has now 5 years down the road. On the mediocrity part, if highly detailed 3d games have gone the way of the 2d fighter, that would mean only non-highly detailed 3d games would be left. How is not shooting for excellence, not mediocrity?
On your post tho,
"So the goal here might be to make money selling games that aren't necessarily hardcore so you can use that money to make even grander, more immersive epics. I mean, how many of you played the metroid or zelda games?"
So, they are going to focus on making games that make them lots and lots and lots of money, to funnel that into games that won't make them as much money? That doesn't make much sense to me. I don't see why they would take that extra step to make better games if they are getting away with making simple games to make lots and lots of money. I don't think that is Nintendo's goal anymore, it may have been long ago, but now, I don't think so.
Zelda and Metroid used to be those games that made them lots and lots of money. They don't make quite as much anymore, what makes you think we'll get another great one of those anytime soon (Given both ZTP and Metroid are great)? While, I do think those will never go away, 1-2 titles every 3-5 years with Epic to Near Epic quality does not really justify the mass amount of what they have given us lately.
What else has Nintendo shown us? Hammer? DoD? They really havn't said or shown much of those, so its kinda hard to get even slightly excited for it. All we know is they will take a major focus on the Wiimote (which isn't exciting to me).
Nintendo has changed, they used to strive for those stellar quality games because that is what their target audience wanted, and they needed them to survive against the competition. Now, Their target audience doesn't care about stellar quality and they don't need the stellar quality games to survive. So what reason do they have for making them?
Miyamoto has said time and time again he wants to focus on "wife-meter" games. Wife-meter games aren't exactly games that strive for "stellar quality". Unless of course you think bejewelled is a game of "stellar quality".
Of course, not to mention I never said they were "Devoted to Mediocrity" I just said they were "Embracing it". With full quotes like "The graphics in games are Good Enough, we feel" I don't see how you can't see it. And calling Nintendo a Sellout on every opportunity is quite a stretch from doing it in 3 posts where the question of Nintendo's quality is raised by someone else (Which is usually Summa, hehe, but hey, he at least HAS a Wii)
"If in five years the Wii is still outselling it's nearest competator by 3-9 systems to 1, and the highly detailed 3D game has gone the way of the 2D vs. fighter, will you final get over it?"
I don't think the Wii will continue to hold the popularity it has now 5 years down the road. On the mediocrity part, if highly detailed 3d games have gone the way of the 2d fighter, that would mean only non-highly detailed 3d games would be left. How is not shooting for excellence, not mediocrity?
On your post tho,
"So the goal here might be to make money selling games that aren't necessarily hardcore so you can use that money to make even grander, more immersive epics. I mean, how many of you played the metroid or zelda games?"
So, they are going to focus on making games that make them lots and lots and lots of money, to funnel that into games that won't make them as much money? That doesn't make much sense to me. I don't see why they would take that extra step to make better games if they are getting away with making simple games to make lots and lots of money. I don't think that is Nintendo's goal anymore, it may have been long ago, but now, I don't think so.
Zelda and Metroid used to be those games that made them lots and lots of money. They don't make quite as much anymore, what makes you think we'll get another great one of those anytime soon (Given both ZTP and Metroid are great)? While, I do think those will never go away, 1-2 titles every 3-5 years with Epic to Near Epic quality does not really justify the mass amount of what they have given us lately.
What else has Nintendo shown us? Hammer? DoD? They really havn't said or shown much of those, so its kinda hard to get even slightly excited for it. All we know is they will take a major focus on the Wiimote (which isn't exciting to me).
Nintendo has changed, they used to strive for those stellar quality games because that is what their target audience wanted, and they needed them to survive against the competition. Now, Their target audience doesn't care about stellar quality and they don't need the stellar quality games to survive. So what reason do they have for making them?
Miyamoto has said time and time again he wants to focus on "wife-meter" games. Wife-meter games aren't exactly games that strive for "stellar quality". Unless of course you think bejewelled is a game of "stellar quality".
Of course, not to mention I never said they were "Devoted to Mediocrity" I just said they were "Embracing it". With full quotes like "The graphics in games are Good Enough, we feel" I don't see how you can't see it. And calling Nintendo a Sellout on every opportunity is quite a stretch from doing it in 3 posts where the question of Nintendo's quality is raised by someone else (Which is usually Summa, hehe, but hey, he at least HAS a Wii)
@Aex:
"So, they are going to focus on making games that make them lots and lots and lots of money, to funnel that into games that won't make them as much money? "
Epic games DO make them money because they sell consoles, which in turn, sells more games. It's about creating blockbuster titles with the revenue from smaller games (I NEVER said the first thing about quality, just because a game is casual doesn't make it mediocre) in order to push a highly profitable console with a highly profitable library. Words like "Epic" and "Casual" and "Hardcore" have no bearing on quality. In fact, I think I stated outright "consistent mediocrity doesn't make money." And they're not embracing mediocrity, anyway. They're still devoted to making good games, even if they're not marketed at you, and I think you're going to see nintendo shine in the next couple of years. They've basically eleminated competition by making offerings to an untapped market. Just because this is so doesn't mean that the next Zelda game is going to be mediocre and aimed at grandma. Nintendo understands that while the hardcore portion of the market is the smallest, we spend FAR more money per capita than the rest of the market. Making games the hardcore market embraces is still profitable.
"I never said they were "Devoted to Mediocrity" I just said they were "Embracing it". "
You meant devoted, as in "producing nothing but". All consoles are embracing mediocrity. How many platforms can you get Open Season on? There wouldn't be anything to play on the PS3 if sony hadn't embraced mediocrity.
"On the mediocrity part, if highly detailed 3d games have gone the way of the 2d fighter, that would mean only non-highly detailed 3d games would be left. How is not shooting for excellence, not mediocrity?"
This statement wrongly asserts that 3D games are automatically excellent, which I assure you is not the case. Whomever made the original point was talking about the end of 3D gaming, I believe, not that they'd just all of a sudden stop making pretty graphics for them. You're also ignoring the given within the statement that "if . . 3D games go the way of the dodo," that they're mediocre. That's why they'd be going the way of the dodo.
It doesn't really matter to what your 5-6 year statement was in response. It still says the same thing; that at the end of a console's life, it doesn't have the popularity it does during it's heyday. You really love to tweak your arguments every time someone disagrees with you. 5-6 years is the life of the console. And your blanket comment "I don't think the Wii will continue to hold the popularity it has now 5 years down the road," is just so blatantly obvious it hurts. OF COURSE IT WON'T. IT WILL BE ON THE VERGE OF BEING REPLACED BY THE NEXT BIG THING. You insisting that 5-6 years is something other than what I say it is doesn't change the fact that 5-6 years is the life of a console.
Semantics, semantics, semantics. Maybe you should throw a little logic in there, too.
Oh, and since you're always blindly following Summa, you're looking forward to Mario Strikers, too.
"So, they are going to focus on making games that make them lots and lots and lots of money, to funnel that into games that won't make them as much money? "
Epic games DO make them money because they sell consoles, which in turn, sells more games. It's about creating blockbuster titles with the revenue from smaller games (I NEVER said the first thing about quality, just because a game is casual doesn't make it mediocre) in order to push a highly profitable console with a highly profitable library. Words like "Epic" and "Casual" and "Hardcore" have no bearing on quality. In fact, I think I stated outright "consistent mediocrity doesn't make money." And they're not embracing mediocrity, anyway. They're still devoted to making good games, even if they're not marketed at you, and I think you're going to see nintendo shine in the next couple of years. They've basically eleminated competition by making offerings to an untapped market. Just because this is so doesn't mean that the next Zelda game is going to be mediocre and aimed at grandma. Nintendo understands that while the hardcore portion of the market is the smallest, we spend FAR more money per capita than the rest of the market. Making games the hardcore market embraces is still profitable.
"I never said they were "Devoted to Mediocrity" I just said they were "Embracing it". "
You meant devoted, as in "producing nothing but". All consoles are embracing mediocrity. How many platforms can you get Open Season on? There wouldn't be anything to play on the PS3 if sony hadn't embraced mediocrity.
"On the mediocrity part, if highly detailed 3d games have gone the way of the 2d fighter, that would mean only non-highly detailed 3d games would be left. How is not shooting for excellence, not mediocrity?"
This statement wrongly asserts that 3D games are automatically excellent, which I assure you is not the case. Whomever made the original point was talking about the end of 3D gaming, I believe, not that they'd just all of a sudden stop making pretty graphics for them. You're also ignoring the given within the statement that "if . . 3D games go the way of the dodo," that they're mediocre. That's why they'd be going the way of the dodo.
It doesn't really matter to what your 5-6 year statement was in response. It still says the same thing; that at the end of a console's life, it doesn't have the popularity it does during it's heyday. You really love to tweak your arguments every time someone disagrees with you. 5-6 years is the life of the console. And your blanket comment "I don't think the Wii will continue to hold the popularity it has now 5 years down the road," is just so blatantly obvious it hurts. OF COURSE IT WON'T. IT WILL BE ON THE VERGE OF BEING REPLACED BY THE NEXT BIG THING. You insisting that 5-6 years is something other than what I say it is doesn't change the fact that 5-6 years is the life of a console.
Semantics, semantics, semantics. Maybe you should throw a little logic in there, too.
Oh, and since you're always blindly following Summa, you're looking forward to Mario Strikers, too.
follow
