Just Good Enough to Play
- Thread starter Game People
- Start date
I don't think anyone can credibly argue the Nintendo DS is "just good enough". It's a fabulous piece of hardware with long battery life and good enough processing power to get the job done with some serious gamery games.
Oh wait, I see what you mean.
Only I don't believe similar reasoning applies to the Wii. The Wii is not "good enough" as a games machine, and in fact is not sold as a game machine at all. The Wii was a marketing success story, a way to promote a machine that allowed people to do things they used to do outside, like tennis and bowling, inside. It's a "good enough" sports simulator, if you will.
But for "gamers", it takes perhaps a few hours to see all the swinging as a gimmick (Yahtzee's point on force feedback comes home) and realise that there's nothing inherently satisfying to a gamer about the Wii. It doesn't have "good enough" online games and it doesn't have "good enough" onilne distribution, and it certainly didn't have "good enough" third party support.
Personally, I am a big believer that the Wii will see much better games in the future. When it first dropped, most software companies had Nintendo pegged to lose the console race, and probably didn't spend a whole lot of time sweating what games to make. Once the Wii was widely adopted, the demographics of it meant that the non-discerning (non-gamer) Wii owners would probably buy based on branding and uninformed decisions rather than reading game scores etc. Which isn't a problem, except for the fact that ultimately its gamers (the committed ones) that float the companies.
Bottom line, Nintendo is retreading the Path of Atari, and although they're the biggest boy on the block, they have to make sure that people keep playing their Wii, rather than pullingit out of the closet only occasionally. Otherwise, come the time for a Wii2, Nintendo will have found itself making casual games machines for a casual market, while Microsoft and Sony are selling you an machine that gives you music, tv, film and games for a little bit more.
At which stage, the Wii won't be Good Enough.
Oh wait, I see what you mean.
Only I don't believe similar reasoning applies to the Wii. The Wii is not "good enough" as a games machine, and in fact is not sold as a game machine at all. The Wii was a marketing success story, a way to promote a machine that allowed people to do things they used to do outside, like tennis and bowling, inside. It's a "good enough" sports simulator, if you will.
But for "gamers", it takes perhaps a few hours to see all the swinging as a gimmick (Yahtzee's point on force feedback comes home) and realise that there's nothing inherently satisfying to a gamer about the Wii. It doesn't have "good enough" online games and it doesn't have "good enough" onilne distribution, and it certainly didn't have "good enough" third party support.
Personally, I am a big believer that the Wii will see much better games in the future. When it first dropped, most software companies had Nintendo pegged to lose the console race, and probably didn't spend a whole lot of time sweating what games to make. Once the Wii was widely adopted, the demographics of it meant that the non-discerning (non-gamer) Wii owners would probably buy based on branding and uninformed decisions rather than reading game scores etc. Which isn't a problem, except for the fact that ultimately its gamers (the committed ones) that float the companies.
Bottom line, Nintendo is retreading the Path of Atari, and although they're the biggest boy on the block, they have to make sure that people keep playing their Wii, rather than pullingit out of the closet only occasionally. Otherwise, come the time for a Wii2, Nintendo will have found itself making casual games machines for a casual market, while Microsoft and Sony are selling you an machine that gives you music, tv, film and games for a little bit more.
At which stage, the Wii won't be Good Enough.
'fwooooosh'
That's the sound of a very well written article going right over the heads of a biased fan-base, which is disappointing because usually The Escapist is more open-minded than that. Usually it's for expanding ideas through discussion and not shutting down articles because they said the 'Wii'-word.
The Wii HAS done EXTREMELY valuable things for the gaming market because of it's lo-fi accessibility and nobody can take that away from them. And that is what this article is pointing out.
That's the sound of a very well written article going right over the heads of a biased fan-base, which is disappointing because usually The Escapist is more open-minded than that. Usually it's for expanding ideas through discussion and not shutting down articles because they said the 'Wii'-word.
At least we have Flak3r to hold some sanity.F1ak3r said:
The Wii HAS done EXTREMELY valuable things for the gaming market because of it's lo-fi accessibility and nobody can take that away from them. And that is what this article is pointing out.
There's one thing to have the hardware and graphical stuff be "just good enough". I'd actually applaud such an approach. But much of the Wii games also seems to take the "just good enough" approach when it comes to the gameplay itself.
Games like Wii Sports are "just good enough" for the casual public. Empty gaming calories that are just good enough to be fun for half an hour and entertain the non-gamers, but pieces of crap to most gamers.
Not saying that's all they do, because even the Wii does have quality games, but it's without a doubt what many of the Wii games are aiming for. Catering to the lowest common denominator with the least possile amount of investment. It may be a good way to make money but it's a bad thing for 'us gamers'.
Games like Wii Sports are "just good enough" for the casual public. Empty gaming calories that are just good enough to be fun for half an hour and entertain the non-gamers, but pieces of crap to most gamers.
Not saying that's all they do, because even the Wii does have quality games, but it's without a doubt what many of the Wii games are aiming for. Catering to the lowest common denominator with the least possile amount of investment. It may be a good way to make money but it's a bad thing for 'us gamers'.
I know this is a point Yahtzee and others like to hammer home a lot, but I feel this is based more on wishful thinking than any facts. If there's a "fad", it's the whole "casual gaming" phenomenon, which goes back to Dance Dance Revolution and PopCap Games (or maybe as far back as those crappy Tiger LCD games [http://www.handheldmuseum.com/Tiger/index.html]) and is making its way onto smartphones. The Wii & DS are just the biggest splashes in that growing pond.The_Deleted said:
I'm not speaking as a Wii fan (haven't owned a Nintendo system--not even a Gameboy--since the NES, but sometimes enjoy Wii party games at a friend's place), but I guess my point is: Nintendo might loose the "hardcore" gaming crowd, but if they lock up the casual gamers, they'll probably make out fine. I'm pretty sure the market for people willing to dish out a couple bucks here and there for a few minutes/hours of amusement while waiting for a train, or during a slow period at work, or on a bored Saturday night, is quite large. How many people drop $10-15 to see a two-hour movie, for example? How many office drones were addicted to Minesweeper and FreeCell?
The next platform might have to change to a downloadable delivery system to make it affordable, but I think it's only a matter of time before all consoles (and music labels/film studios, for that matter) get away from physical storage media anyway.
For a debut article, I have to say it's a poor piece of journalism. I'm having a hard time telling if it's objective or not, as there's some gross oversimplification and one might even say glorification. I sencerely hope Game People tone down the colouring and get some facts instead. While saying one thing is all well and good, you need to check your facts.
To come with some constructive examples:
The opener: 'I'm a greedy gamer. I love to chase the next audiovisual high or high-impact feast, but as I hurtle towards the next generation of consoles I wonder if I have too much of a good thing.'
Again, being a debut article, we do not know you. From what it appears, you are more than one person, a whole community infact. As seen by the various comments already posted, claiming to be a gamer holds no merit, as everyone has a different opinion about what a gamer is. Gamer, being the buzzword that it is, does not validate or grant authority.
Which in itself is one of my main griefs with this article. You see, I am a Gamer, and have worked with games for a living inside the industry, not as a journalist. Does this grant me any authority? it shouldn't. You see, I very much disagree with the entire article, and I certainly do not think of Nintendo.
'But then, while Sony and Microsoft were releasing hi-spec machines, Nintendo came to market with the DS and Wii - hardware that lagged behind a generation.'
The Nintendo DS had it's launch in 2004, two years prior to the Wii. At it's time, the Nintendo DS was infact the leading handheld console after the failure of the N-Gage. The DS did not lag behind a generation, it was the generation. The Playstation portable, to which i'll go ahead and assume that you're comparing it to, due to the making of the article, was released half a year later in the US, and 10 months later in Europa.
Addendum: To that sentence, I suggest you look up the technical differences between a PS2, Gamecube & Xbox. Once done, look at the release dates.
'...this was a revolutionary approach that would deeply affect the games I held dear.'
This needs clarification and examples. Aside from a new Metroid, I cannot recall a Nintendo-stable game that was completely rebuilt from the scratch up to fit the Wii, though this might be my own lack of oversight.
'Nintendo understood this. Wii Sports was a system seller because it proved the Wii could deliver simple, accessible gameplay.'
This. What were you thinking. So Pure/Lego: Batman are system sellers as well? Since you can get them with every new 360, for free.
'Grand Slam Tennis, Tiger Woods Golf and Boom Blox are all games that offer control schemes that simply aren't possible on other systems.'
I have to nitpick on this as well. While I've heard favorable things about Tiger Woods Golf with the new Wii-motion sensor plus, the series' has been around for a decade. It didn't need a different control scheme. That and Boom Blox would be no different if played with a mouse - none.
I'll stop here, since I feel that the point has been made. I'm not really sure what your aim was with this article - If for provocations sake, then I'm sure you've succeeded, but as far as journalism goes, this by all standards is blog material. A very secluded blog.
~ A fellow gamer.
To come with some constructive examples:
The opener: 'I'm a greedy gamer. I love to chase the next audiovisual high or high-impact feast, but as I hurtle towards the next generation of consoles I wonder if I have too much of a good thing.'
Again, being a debut article, we do not know you. From what it appears, you are more than one person, a whole community infact. As seen by the various comments already posted, claiming to be a gamer holds no merit, as everyone has a different opinion about what a gamer is. Gamer, being the buzzword that it is, does not validate or grant authority.
Which in itself is one of my main griefs with this article. You see, I am a Gamer, and have worked with games for a living inside the industry, not as a journalist. Does this grant me any authority? it shouldn't. You see, I very much disagree with the entire article, and I certainly do not think of Nintendo.
'But then, while Sony and Microsoft were releasing hi-spec machines, Nintendo came to market with the DS and Wii - hardware that lagged behind a generation.'
The Nintendo DS had it's launch in 2004, two years prior to the Wii. At it's time, the Nintendo DS was infact the leading handheld console after the failure of the N-Gage. The DS did not lag behind a generation, it was the generation. The Playstation portable, to which i'll go ahead and assume that you're comparing it to, due to the making of the article, was released half a year later in the US, and 10 months later in Europa.
Addendum: To that sentence, I suggest you look up the technical differences between a PS2, Gamecube & Xbox. Once done, look at the release dates.
'...this was a revolutionary approach that would deeply affect the games I held dear.'
This needs clarification and examples. Aside from a new Metroid, I cannot recall a Nintendo-stable game that was completely rebuilt from the scratch up to fit the Wii, though this might be my own lack of oversight.
'Nintendo understood this. Wii Sports was a system seller because it proved the Wii could deliver simple, accessible gameplay.'
This. What were you thinking. So Pure/Lego: Batman are system sellers as well? Since you can get them with every new 360, for free.
'Grand Slam Tennis, Tiger Woods Golf and Boom Blox are all games that offer control schemes that simply aren't possible on other systems.'
I have to nitpick on this as well. While I've heard favorable things about Tiger Woods Golf with the new Wii-motion sensor plus, the series' has been around for a decade. It didn't need a different control scheme. That and Boom Blox would be no different if played with a mouse - none.
I'll stop here, since I feel that the point has been made. I'm not really sure what your aim was with this article - If for provocations sake, then I'm sure you've succeeded, but as far as journalism goes, this by all standards is blog material. A very secluded blog.
~ A fellow gamer.
If the whole "just good enough" philosophy applies to graphics, then I agree. Graphics can only go so far. There is no "hyper-real" there is only "real." It's like a level-cap or the speed of light. A boundry that can't be crossed; a value that cannot be exceeded. And then there's different art styles to consider. Sure, you can make things more and more detailed, but eventually you're going to reach a point at which it is no longer worth the effort.
It seems to me that Nintendo knows this, and took a sharp turn off the dead end road. They've elected to explore different ways of interacting with a game, a field that doesn't have many limitations at all.
It seems to me that Nintendo knows this, and took a sharp turn off the dead end road. They've elected to explore different ways of interacting with a game, a field that doesn't have many limitations at all.
Great debate. I think tmujir955, BrotherRool, Stubee and domicius have a strong comeback about third party games. And it?s true there aren?t a huge number of successes. But if you dig around there are still some great experiences to be had, even without the latest visuals and sound.
I?m thinking of games like Sega?s House of the Dead Overkill, Monolith Soft?s Disaster Day of Crisis, Grasshopper?s No More Heroes, EA?s Boom Blox and even Arika?s Endless Ocean. I have also been impressed by how the move away from visuals has forced some very different sports games, from EA in particular. For me, Madden, Grand Slam Tennis and Tiger Woods all mean I don?t want to play these sports without motion controls.
These were all strong experiences, but of course the question remains whether the casual gamer can be attracted to these more hardcore experiences. Bottom line, do they sell enough? It feels a lot like developers like Sega have been testing the water, and remains to be seen how committed they are going forward.
I like UltimatheChosen?s comment about older games being a better case for ?just good enough? technology. I love the idea of a really cheap, and updated, GBA hardware that brings its back catalogue to the masses. The GBA Micro was a good effort, although maybe a little ahead of its time for a lot of casual gamers to realize what it was, and is also hard to get hold of now.
Like Cerity, F1ak3r and Kwil I really enjoy hearing stories of how the Wii validates a whole new group of people to call themselves gamers. I?m with bakonslayer and Beowulf DW and their take on the Wii?s lo-fi accessible gaming that sidesteps graphical limitations.
But perhaps the biggest question for us is how Nintendo managed to sell their ?just good enough? technology at such a high price. ?Just good enough? thinking should mean that they need to drop the price to hit their casual audience, but somehow they managed to keep it pretty high ? especially if you add up the cost of their controllers.
I?m thinking of games like Sega?s House of the Dead Overkill, Monolith Soft?s Disaster Day of Crisis, Grasshopper?s No More Heroes, EA?s Boom Blox and even Arika?s Endless Ocean. I have also been impressed by how the move away from visuals has forced some very different sports games, from EA in particular. For me, Madden, Grand Slam Tennis and Tiger Woods all mean I don?t want to play these sports without motion controls.
These were all strong experiences, but of course the question remains whether the casual gamer can be attracted to these more hardcore experiences. Bottom line, do they sell enough? It feels a lot like developers like Sega have been testing the water, and remains to be seen how committed they are going forward.
I like UltimatheChosen?s comment about older games being a better case for ?just good enough? technology. I love the idea of a really cheap, and updated, GBA hardware that brings its back catalogue to the masses. The GBA Micro was a good effort, although maybe a little ahead of its time for a lot of casual gamers to realize what it was, and is also hard to get hold of now.
Like Cerity, F1ak3r and Kwil I really enjoy hearing stories of how the Wii validates a whole new group of people to call themselves gamers. I?m with bakonslayer and Beowulf DW and their take on the Wii?s lo-fi accessible gaming that sidesteps graphical limitations.
But perhaps the biggest question for us is how Nintendo managed to sell their ?just good enough? technology at such a high price. ?Just good enough? thinking should mean that they need to drop the price to hit their casual audience, but somehow they managed to keep it pretty high ? especially if you add up the cost of their controllers.
This is all like asking what is the better pet between a dog and a cat?
For the sake of argument, we shall presume that all of us old school gamers are dog loving people - while the new school gamers (or the "Casual" gamers) are the cat loving types.
Both pets (and consoles) are completely different and come with their own Pros and Cons and are better suited for a particular lifestyle.
If you favour boisterous games with death, blood and mutilation - then an X-box / PS3 would be right up your alley. But if one prefers gentler games, then the Wii would be their best friends. (I myself should show my colours as an X-boxer at this point.)
I guess this all boils down to the individual gamer. If their console fits in with their lifestyle and it makes them happy - why knock it?
For the sake of argument, we shall presume that all of us old school gamers are dog loving people - while the new school gamers (or the "Casual" gamers) are the cat loving types.
Both pets (and consoles) are completely different and come with their own Pros and Cons and are better suited for a particular lifestyle.
If you favour boisterous games with death, blood and mutilation - then an X-box / PS3 would be right up your alley. But if one prefers gentler games, then the Wii would be their best friends. (I myself should show my colours as an X-boxer at this point.)
I guess this all boils down to the individual gamer. If their console fits in with their lifestyle and it makes them happy - why knock it?
My point still stands that people should not read too much into the success of Wii Sports as no one or very few ACTUALLY buy it. There is nothing particularly special about Wii Sports, only how the masses are drawn to the novelty of the Wii yet people interpret this via sales figures as them "voting with their wallets" for Wii Sports.El_Moss said:
It is utterly flawed reasoning to justify shovel-ware and shows a monumental misunderstanding of basic statistics to try and figure out what it is that Wii Sports does right to explain it's success. The ONLY explanation for it's success if because it is bundled with unique hardware!!!!
The same applies for Wii Play, the second highest selling Wii game only that is because every single Wii-remote that is sold separately COMES BUNDLED WITH WII PLAY!
No one should interpret the high sales of Wii Play as indicative of what the market wants in terms of software... it ONLY indicates their taste in HARDWARE, that 25 million Wii owners wanted as 2nd Wii-mote. They may settle for the bundled software.
This is like saying that Windows Explorer is the best web browser... but that's just because it is bundled with every copy of windows, the most popular operating system.
I disagree with Nintendo's starring role in the article. All-new hardware to support a gimmicky new controller and playing "retro" games? That's robbery. Wii was like a $300 hula-hoop for everyone I know that bought one. It was fun to watch people fumble with it for a few weeks, but after the silly controller got tired (as a gamer, I felt like it really under-delivered on its potential) the whole thing was in a closet gathering dust while a real game machine (new, or retro) pwned the living room.
Despite the higher price, the spectacular graphics and games on PS3 felt like I bought *something* with my money. Oddly enough there's no shortage of $5 and $10 retro-games with "good enough" content and mind-blowing graphics (graphical awesomeness is free with every game now that I own a current-gen machine) and PS1 titles with great story and "good enough" graphics.
Despite the higher price, the spectacular graphics and games on PS3 felt like I bought *something* with my money. Oddly enough there's no shortage of $5 and $10 retro-games with "good enough" content and mind-blowing graphics (graphical awesomeness is free with every game now that I own a current-gen machine) and PS1 titles with great story and "good enough" graphics.
