Just Good Enough to Play

[Azure-Supernova]

The Wii has a select few titles which are worth a play, if only after consuming large amounts of alcohol. But a majority of the games are quite poor, at least from personal opinion.

 

[Nerf Ninja]

Why is that people insist graphics detract from quality? Just because it's fantastically rendered it is somehow less of a game.

The Wii is not "good enough" it's not even alright it's meh. my parents have a Wii and the ONLY games they play on it are Wii-sports and Wii-fit and thats when they can be bothered. I guarantee they won't upgrade to the Wii 2 or whatever they'll call it either. If it's as you say good enough, why upgrade?

We shouldn't have to settle for anything less than stellar. Once graphics reach a level of near-photorealistic do you honestly think the game developers are just going to rest on their laurels and churn out the same game over and over again? They won't make any money if they insist on that, so the quality of the games will have to improve or they will fall by the wayside.

At the moment we are in the middle of the shift from quality gaming to pretty gaming but soon we will reach the limits of what visuals can provide and it will need to make the return to quality or die.

The Wii cannot provide quality visuals and unfortunately is not providing quality gaming either. People talk about the 3rd party shovelware being released on the Wii but a good proportion of first party shovelware exists too.

 

[Graustein]

The Wii may be a "good enough system," but the games sure aren't.

I have to ask: Those who claim the Wii lacks good games, do you even look, or do you somehow have the time and money to purchase and play a new game every two weeks for your console of choice, and therefore what the Wii has to offer pales in comparison? If the latter, sign me up for whatever illegal experiments you're participating in! I won't deny that there's less good Wii games, total, than on its competitors, but to say that they don't exist or "theirs only liek five lol" stems either from elitism, not actually looking, or because of this collective egocentrism that permeates gaming culture. You know what I'm talking about: the assumption that what doesn't work for you, doesn't work at all, and the elitism that inevitably accompanies it. The assumption that people who've never picked up a controller don't deserve to pick up a controller.

And here's the real kicker: Wii Sports, Wii Play, Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games, they're all fun. Maybe not to "hardcoar" gamers, but that's because you want something more than pure clean fun from your games; you want an experience. These games focus on their simple fun, not letting complicated things like plot, health bars, dialogue trees, moral choices or experience points get in the way of the fun. You could say that those things add to the fun, I'd say it's more accurate to say they add to the overall experience. I wouldn't really call the final boss of Mother 3 "fun" in any sense of the world, but god damn if it wasn't the most immersive, gutwrenching, heartwarming sequence in any game I've played. I love the game for it, but that experience there wasn't "fun" by any definition I've heard of.

But not everybody wants a full-fledged experience when they boot up their game. Lots of people just want to play a game and enjoy it. That's why games with solid multiplayer, like Super Smash Bros. Melee or Counterstrike remain incredibly popular despite their age: because what they provide us with is closer to pure, simple fun than what you'd get in the story mode of almost any game you'd care to name. And this is what the Wii supplies to the person who hasn't played games their whole life. Simple, accessible fun. I honestly don't know why people act as though this is a crime.

 

[Nerf Ninja]

And this is what the Wii supplies to the person who hasn't played games their whole life. Simple, accessible fun. I honestly don't know why people act as though this is a crime.

Don't mean to just pick on this one piece but it Just occurred to me that yes people want simple accessible fun but it also has to justify the cost.

It might be "good enough" to play but is it "good enough" to pay for? in my experience when I owned a Wii it very often wasn't.

 

[Graustein]

And this is what the Wii supplies to the person who hasn't played games their whole life. Simple, accessible fun. I honestly don't know why people act as though this is a crime.

Don't mean to just pick on this one piece but it Just occurred to me that yes people want simple accessible fun but it also has to justify the cost.

It might be "good enough" to play but is it "good enough" to pay for? in my experience when I owned a Wii it very often wasn't.

You said it yourself. In your experience. In my experience, Neverwinter Nights and Baldur's Gate were the height of tedium, Resident Evil is boring as all hell, Starcraft can't compare to Age of Mythology and Half-Life is nothing compared to Metroid Prime. And yet I would still recommend Baldur's Gate for somebody looking for a good computer RPG, because I have heard wonderful things about it, and I've seen wonderful things in it - it's just that they didn't make up for what I percieved to be crushing flaws in my overall experience of the game. I'm still a huge fan of Blizzard and looking forward to Starcraft II, because I did love the story mode of its predecessor. Whether that justifies buying all three installments remains to be seen.

I've got no problems with people who simply don't like what the Wii has to offer. My beef is with the all-too-numerous people who seem to think that their personal experience constitutes universal human experience. The people who look at someone with different tastes and conclude, not that they have different tastes, but that they are wrong.

 

[BrotherRool]

The Wii may be a "good enough system," but the games sure aren't.

But not everybody wants a full-fledged experience when they boot up their game. Lots of people just want to play a game and enjoy it. That's why games with solid multiplayer, like Super Smash Bros. Melee or Counterstrike remain incredibly popular despite their age: because what they provide us with is closer to pure, simple fun than what you'd get in the story mode of almost any game you'd care to name. And this is what the Wii supplies to the person who hasn't played games their whole life. Simple, accessible fun. I honestly don't know why people act as though this is a crime.

The crime is a) pretending these games haven't existed for decades and treating it like a fantastic evolution, b) suggesting that Sony and MS follow suit and rob us of our experience and c)when people feel they've been led on to purchase a system which isn't following through on the quality they felt they were offered, d)when it's a very real risk the quality of the better games will decrease because of it.

And Wii Sports was banal for me at best (ie it's not necessarily describable as simple accessible fun because a lot of the people this is being said to don't enjoy these games at all. Yes they are fun to many many people and we should respect that definition, but arguing that it is fun to people who actually like games where you might actually not be asked to repeatedly move two sticks up and down with little variation for ten minutes, is a doomed point.

 

[Nerf Ninja]

You said it yourself. In your experience. In my experience, Neverwinter Nights and Baldur's Gate were the height of tedium, Resident Evil is boring as all hell, Starcraft can't compare to Age of Mythology and Half-Life is nothing compared to Metroid Prime. And yet I would still recommend Baldur's Gate for somebody looking for a good computer RPG, because I have heard wonderful things about it, and I've seen wonderful things in it - it's just that they didn't make up for what I percieved to be crushing flaws in my overall experience of the game. I'm still a huge fan of Blizzard and looking forward to Starcraft II, because I did love the story mode of its predecessor. Whether that justifies buying all three installments remains to be seen.

I've got no problems with people who simply don't like what the Wii has to offer. My beef is with the all-too-numerous people who seem to think that their personal experience constitutes universal human experience. The people who look at someone with different tastes and conclude, not that they have different tastes, but that they are wrong.

That's why I said in my experience.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Metroid Prime the youngest game out of that list? (not an FPS fan) the age of a lot of these unfortunately does mean that they weren't just "good enough" they were the best you could get at the time.

Sadly the average person does believe that what they think should be the guiding line for everyone else, just like your belief that people who "think that their personal experience constitutes universal human experience" are wrong. Everybody at some point thinks they have it right and if people only listened to them they'd see.

 

[mooncalf]

"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
French writer (1900 - 1944)

Often cited in engineering design, and I can't imagine game designers have never heard of it.

"The completely new take on video games..." from the article makes me chuckle. When I use a regular kitchen knife even though electric knives have been invented, am I applauded as a revolutionary?

I'm not saying the WII is in any way backwards, but I don't call it new thinking so much as economical thinking, like Majestic dumping overpriced commercial flops in favour of a few hundred cheap releases which sell.

 

[Graustein]

The crime is a) pretending these games haven't existed for decades and treating it like a fantastic evolution, b) suggesting that Sony and MS follow suit and rob us of our experience and c)when people feel they've been led on to purchase a system which isn't following through on the quality they felt they were offered, d)when it's a very real risk the quality of the better games will decrease because of it.

And Wii Sports was banal for me at best (ie it's not necessarily describable as simple accessible fun because a lot of the people this is being said to don't enjoy these games at all. Yes they are fun to many many people and we should respect that definition, but arguing that it is fun to people who actually like games where you might actually not be asked to repeatedly move two sticks up and down with little variation for ten minutes, is a doomed point.

A) They existed, but they weren't anywhere near as popular. Nintendo popularised them, which is just as important as actually inventing them. A product is useless if it's not in the public eye.

B) When did Nintendo suggest that Microsoft and Sony abandon games that deliver complex experiences?

C) If you'd care to look, you'd notice that Nintendo have not slowed in their delivery of the Mario, Zelda, Metroid and Pokemon games that brought their initial legions of fans to them. When was the last time a single console had two nonspinoff Mario games? Not since the SNES, at least. And a third one is on its way. We've got a second Zelda game in the making for the Wii, and another Metroid game as well. Pokemon Heartgold and Soulsilver are coming out soon. The lack of quality that is so widely percieved is because, firstly, their most-publicised products - Wii Sports Resort, Wii Fit - are, surprise surprise, made for the general public rather than the people who already know that there's another Zelda coming out; secondly, that Nintendo have been very lax in what third-party games they allow on their console. If you bought a Nintendo console expecting much quality beyond their main franchises, then you haven't been paying all too much attention (which isn't saying that there's not plenty, just that it's extremely hit-or-miss). And if you bought a Nintendo console despite hating Nintendo's milking of their franchises, then I'd venture to suggest that you've been living under a rock to expect something else.

D) The success of trashy vampire romance and that of gritty fantasy blockbusters are not mutually exclusive. Don't pretend that they are.

Perhaps "fun", on its own, wasn't an accurate descriptor. It would probably be better to say that they are fun for - and made for - a demographic that, shock and horror, does not happen to include you.

That's why I said in my experience.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Metroid Prime the youngest game out of that list? (not an FPS fan) the age of a lot of these unfortunately does mean that they weren't just "good enough" they were the best you could get at the time.

Sadly the average person does believe that what they think should be the guiding line for everyone else, just like your belief that people who "think that their personal experience constitutes universal human experience" are wrong. Everybody at some point thinks they have it right and if people only listened to them they'd see.

That's the point. Those games I cited as not liking were considered the best you could get at the time, and in many circles are still considered the best you can get. And still I found other games to be preferable. And yet I will still readily recognise that those games are excellent samples of their genres. I'm pointing out that it's very possible to accept that you don't need to like something personally to appreciate its value.

I'm very aware of what the average person thinks. It's not going to stop me pushing them to actually open their eyes. The main difference is, I couldn't care less whether or not you like what I like. I'd be happy if people could stop kicking up a stink over something that's not even designed for them.

 

[MR T3D]

I'm very aware of what the average person thinks. It's not going to stop me pushing them to actually open their eyes. The main difference is, I couldn't care less whether or not you like what I like. I'd be happy if people could stop kicking up a stink over something that's not even designed for them.

aye, BUT when the companies whom make games for them start to ignore them for the sake of the $ suggested in following nintendo's example, then there is.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Considering the WII is not a precise tool built for gaming but rather a toy a flimsy gimmick meant to get by on...... look I can give nin some credit for seeing through the haze that gameplay/mechanics is something more important to focus on but they missed the boat big time, sure they hit the trend bus but what has the WII really given us? A step backwords in control precision for toy like but well selling gimmick.....the WII has only shown us 3 things trends can do well and that they can come from anything that's marketed well enough. And that graphics are not everything to gaming of coarse most of this flies right over the heads of the suits in charge they don't know or care about mechanics or gamepaly even polish and bug work is lost on these morons in charge.

IMO graphics are not as important as control which is not as important as price, this means you have graphics at a level you can have precise control over(smooth frame rates and standard default full button and stick mapping) at a end price that makes you the console maker money that makes your partners the software makers money that's cheap enough to sell in the millions without losing you money....we all would be alot better off if this was the foundation for game design.....

 

[DeadlyYellow]

The Wii may be a "good enough system," but the games sure aren't.

I have to ask: Those who claim the Wii lacks good games, do you even look, or do you somehow have the time and money to purchase and play a new game every two weeks for your console of choice, and therefore what the Wii has to offer pales in comparison? If the latter, sign me up for whatever illegal experiments you're participating in! I won't deny that there's less good Wii games, total, than on its competitors, but to say that they don't exist or "theirs only liek five lol" stems either from elitism, not actually looking, or because of this collective egocentrism that permeates gaming culture. You know what I'm talking about: the assumption that what doesn't work for you, doesn't work at all, and the elitism that inevitably accompanies it. The assumption that people who've never picked up a controller don't deserve to pick up a controller.

The Wii has some top-notch first party games on the system plus a number of great 3rd party games to boot, but you already know that. I can't help but laugh at a few posts here, with my favorite being:

And yes that has interested all sorts of new people into games, but they aren't real games.

Enough to throw me into fit of chuckles. Perhaps I will say something equally as brash like "He's not a real gamer." The entire audacity of this medium is astounding, in the same way it is incredibly depressing. Here we have people blatantly given to whatever companies are willing to spoon feed them and call the rest rubbish. We have the calling out of items because they lack the same bells and whistles as their preferred titles. It's the means that are interchangeable and at times frivolous, but the end that needs to remain the same. And that end is entertainment.

And I am quite entertained.

 

[F1ak3r]

I'm not really into any kind of console gaming myself, but I really appreciate what Nintendo is doing. I'm bloody sick and tired of the industry's focus on improving graphics at a breakneck speed so that we can get prettified sequels (and it's always sequels). Shamus Young made a good point about this in his recent column about how developers can save money.

I, for one, would be totally happy to play games that look like Half-Life 2, from 2005, because that game still looks great. I would be happy to spend my money buying new games - new, innovative experiences - instead of upgrading my PC all the time (or, were I a console gamer, buying new Box or Station consoles at their incredibly high launch prices).

So basically, I'm saying I appreciate how Nintendo is refocusing the industry on gameplay - the thing that actually matters - instead of graphics. Sure, a lot of Wii games may not be everyone's taste, but no-one's forcing you to buy them. And I really don't think blockbuster titles are going to be completely usurped by clones of Bejeweled. McDonald's didn't cut their burgers when they started selling salads (although that may have had a healthy effect on the human race).

Whatever your thoughts on the plebian casuals who don't play real games, I think we need them to remind us what gaming is all about. Your grandfather playing Wii golf (or whatever) for the first time is an experience akin to you walking up the PacMan machine, plopping a coin in the slot and discovering how to move a yellow man on a TV by pushing a stick.

 

[Souplex]

This philosophy isn't a new thing at Nintendo. It has been around since the Game N' Watch days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpei_Yokoi#Lateral_Thinking_of_Withered_Technology

 

[Sneaklemming]

The Nintendo approach of "barely acceptable", is well to the general public, "barely acceptable"

It's an approach that leads to nowhere, and is grounded in greed.

Mediocrity should not be celebrated.

 

[Graustein]

The Nintendo approach of "barely acceptable", is well to the general public, "barely acceptable"

It's an approach that leads to nowhere, and is grounded in greed.

Mediocrity should not be celebrated.

Question: By "general public", do you mean the actual general public, or the general public of that group which calls itself gamers? If the latter, perhaps you should qualify it with "in the eyes of true gamers" or some such nonsense. I ask because all signs that I have seen point towards Nintendo being considerably more than "barely acceptable" to the actual general public.

 

[Sneaklemming]

The Nintendo approach of "barely acceptable", is well to the general public, "barely acceptable"

It's an approach that leads to nowhere, and is grounded in greed.

Mediocrity should not be celebrated.

Question: By "general public", do you mean the actual general public, or the general public of that group which calls itself gamers? If the latter, perhaps you should qualify it with "in the eyes of true gamers" or some such nonsense. I ask because all signs that I have seen point towards Nintendo being considerably more than "barely acceptable" to the actual general public.

Ok fine; swap general public with consumers.

 

[Graustein]

The Nintendo approach of "barely acceptable", is well to the general public, "barely acceptable"

It's an approach that leads to nowhere, and is grounded in greed.

Mediocrity should not be celebrated.

Question: By "general public", do you mean the actual general public, or the general public of that group which calls itself gamers? If the latter, perhaps you should qualify it with "in the eyes of true gamers" or some such nonsense. I ask because all signs that I have seen point towards Nintendo being considerably more than "barely acceptable" to the actual general public.

Ok fine; swap general public with consumers.

Define "consumer", please. I'm having trouble believing you mean anything other than "true gamer".

 

[Sneaklemming]

The Nintendo approach of "barely acceptable", is well to the general public, "barely acceptable"

It's an approach that leads to nowhere, and is grounded in greed.

Mediocrity should not be celebrated.

Question: By "general public", do you mean the actual general public, or the general public of that group which calls itself gamers? If the latter, perhaps you should qualify it with "in the eyes of true gamers" or some such nonsense. I ask because all signs that I have seen point towards Nintendo being considerably more than "barely acceptable" to the actual general public.

Ok fine; swap general public with consumers.

Define "consumer", please. I'm having trouble believing you mean anything other than "true gamer".

you want a meter by which I'm taking my assumptions. Then I'll go with societal view. Those who put across those views are called the media. In this case, as in TV and Movies, we call them critics. In gaming they are game journalists.

 

[Graustein]

The Nintendo approach of "barely acceptable", is well to the general public, "barely acceptable"

It's an approach that leads to nowhere, and is grounded in greed.

Mediocrity should not be celebrated.

Question: By "general public", do you mean the actual general public, or the general public of that group which calls itself gamers? If the latter, perhaps you should qualify it with "in the eyes of true gamers" or some such nonsense. I ask because all signs that I have seen point towards Nintendo being considerably more than "barely acceptable" to the actual general public.

Ok fine; swap general public with consumers.

Define "consumer", please. I'm having trouble believing you mean anything other than "true gamer".

you want a meter by which I'm taking my assumptions. Then I'll go with societal view. Those who put across those views are called the media. In this case, as in TV and Movies, we call them critics. In gaming they are game journalists.

So, by "general public", you're actually talking about the critics and journalists? Why didn't you say so in the first place?