Little Big MadWorld

[Carra]

I can play goory games and kiddie games on my console! One minute playing plants vs zombies, the next playing a game of painkiller.

But I agree that the consoles should broaden their audiences. My sister would like a WII. And although it's probably fun I'd prefer something where I can also play more mature games. The only solution seems to be buying two consoles. Or buy none and stick to my pc.

 

[Andy_Panthro]

I think you're getting confused - multiplats don't count for this excercise, for some reason. Otherwise, Jordan would have brought up World at War being on the Wii, or Lego Star Wars being on the Ps3. So, down to The Sims and The Witcher. Hardly very bloody or very cute. THe way you're describing it, PC gaming itself seems more vanilla in terms of its subject matter. I mean, where's PC gamings Katamari, for example?

One of the points Shamus was talking about was that each of the consoles (Wii, Xbox, PS3) have many games that aren't multiplatform, forcing you to just accept what you can purchase for your console, or buying multiple consoles.

His DVD player analogy suggests that he wished more games were multiplatform or that each console had plenty of games that would attract a wider audience, and therefore you weren't penalised by choosing one console.

I suggested the PC because it has access to a wide variety of games, from AAA titles to indie, as well as its vast back catalogue.

No-one ever says their game is "PC exclusive" if they only release on PC, it just gets released. The usage of "exclusive" is seemingly console specific marketing term, hence my ignoring of it.

 

[KDR_11k]

I know it wasn't a Nintendo game but it's a Wii exlusive, meaning Nintendo's been involved with the project, probably trying to show everyone they do care about 'real gamers'.

There are tons of Wii exclusives (since the hardware is so different it's difficult to make a cross platform game without completely butchering it on some platforms), I don't think that means Nintendo is involved in any way. Nintendo does have 16+ rated games, namely Disaster, Prime 3 and Batallion Wars. I do think these are aimed at mid-aged audiences but I don't think Nintendo would bother with games like MadWorld.

Also, stuffing more into a game doesn't have to take away from the rest of the game. It's just how well it's been implemented. Same goes for a console library. It's cool if they just started making more games, other genres included. But that's not a very likely scenario. Nintendo wouldn't start making more games, they'd just replace their familiar Nintendo franchises with games you could also play on another console.

I don't think anyone said NINTENDO has to do it (and if you're alledging that Nintendo was involved in MadWorld you're saying Nintendo can get high-rated games made without using their own dev power). Nor Sony. Third parties need to be less narrow-minded and make some stuff that's not in the same pigeonhole as most of what the systems currently have.

 

[Gerazzi]

LittleBigPlanet is starting to grow in replayability as the people who make horrible levels have all quit now.
Sadly, the reproductions of Super Mario Bros have not gone and they're still annoying as hell.

 

[Ernstige Jan]

I don't think anyone said NINTENDO has to do it (and if you're alledging that Nintendo was involved in MadWorld you're saying Nintendo can get high-rated games made without using their own dev power). Nor Sony. Third parties need to be less narrow-minded and make some stuff that's not in the same pigeonhole as most of what the systems currently have.

I completely agree. Third parties should get more creative with their games. I'd love to play some interesting new franchises.
But there should still be a difference in the types of games released on different consoles. That's the whole point of having multiple consoles.

 

[KDR_11k]

I completely agree. Third parties should get more creative with their games. I'd love to play some interesting new franchises.
But there should still be a difference in the types of games released on different consoles. That's the whole point of having multiple consoles.

But why is it a good thing that you have to have multiple consoles? It creates clutter, cost and reduces your choice when it comes to picking which system to play a game on.

 

[Ernstige Jan]

But why is it a good thing that you have to have multiple consoles? It creates clutter, cost and reduces your choice when it comes to picking which system to play a game on.

Never said it was a good thing. Just looking at the current situation. I'd love to have just one console, with Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony just publishing games for it. That'd push Nintendo to come up with some good games for a change. ;D

 

[randommaster]

Exclusivity wouldn't be such an annoying thing if the developers and investors would learn how to make games for different audiences on the different platforms. The Wii would be better if developers stopped making casual shovelware because they don't think that it can support good graphics. The PS3 needs more than good graphics in a game, and the 360 is able to sell games that do other things than let you pwn noobs.

LBP, Viva Pinata, and MadWorld were good starts, but as of now, they remain novelties on their platforms. When console libraries diversify things will get better. Honestly, I think Nintendo is making the most progress in this respect at the moment because their core games attract the "hardcore" and they are also gettng more 3rd party games with a mature feel. As for MS and Sony, they are trying, but the new motion sensing tech they introduced has promise.

 

[Andy_Panthro]

That might be because the number of PC exclusives is absolutely tiny, to the point where the term is barely used

Well, there are loads of PC only games released, just most of them tend to be either very niche titles or indie games (or very poor quality!).

It's the big "AAA" games that tend to get the "exclusive" tag, a good example for comparison is the multitude of Wii games.

Most big releases these days for the PC tend to be games that are also released on the Xbox, like Bioshock, Fallout 3, Mass Effect etc.

 

[Credge]

When was the last time a good and cute game was released on the PC that wasn't Free Realms?

May 2009.

Similarly, when was the last time the PC saw a game as brutal as God of War III?

Depends on what you call brutal.

 

[Woe Is You]

The Maw, Ceville, Blueberry Garden, Plants vs Zombies...

That might be because the number of PC exclusives is absolutely tiny, to the point where the term is barely used

Or you could just admit two things:

1) that you know nothing [http://adrianwerner.wordpress.com/games-of-2007/] about [http://adrianwerner.wordpress.com/games-of-2008/] the [http://adrianwerner.wordpress.com/games-of-2009/] PC [http://adrianwerner.wordpress.com/games-of-2010/] as a platform and
2) that the PC market in general works completely differently from the console market.

I mean, there are still genres where the PC absolutely decimates the console offerings (RTS, grand strategy, simulation, adventure and MMO-anything). I say there's plenty of reason to keep a gaming PC around.

 

[Woe Is You]

You might not have noticed but a lot of downloadable non-retail titles on the PC are full games and not just arcade minigame stuff. A recently released 20-hour title like Ceville or Wandering Willows is somehow inferior to Disgaea 3 because the latter just happened to come in a box? I'm not quite sure I agree with that.

Adventure and Simulation are still fully console territory.

Sure, if you count action adventures Zelda but games like Wallace & Gromit, Ceville and Vampyre Story are far fewer. Even the DS and the Wii, the adventure game platforms aside from the PC, seem to getting ports from older adventure titles (like Broken Sword) on the PC mostly.

As for simulation, well... where are my console flight simulators? No, neither Blazing Angels nor HAWX are simulators. What about space sims? Tank sims? Naval sims? Submarine sims? Trade sims? If we head out of the racing simulator category on the consoles, there really aren't that many actual simulators around.

 

[Woe Is You]

And in that case, isn't it a little telling that the biggest adventure game in about 10 years is a console exclusive?

You mean the new Monkey Island games?

If you mean Heavy Rain... well, as far as I know, it has done as much as it can to get rid of the few adventure trappings Fahrenheit had. And really, while there's a whole lot of hype, Quantic hasn't made an actual AAA title so far: both Omikron and Fahrenheit were hugely hyped games that turned out to be just average games with stories that fell spectacularly on their face.

Also, isn't it kind of funny that both Microsoft and Sony have dibs on some of the most overhyped studios with French roots?

Now you're reclassifying real time strategy and resource management titles as simulation gmaes, which they're not: they're real time strategy and resource management games.

It is an actual genre. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_simulation_game]

And outside from Harvest Moon, games like that on the console are few.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

I fail to see how that is relevant in any way. I thought we all long ago recognized that the truly great games will never achieve massive sales.

Half-Life, Ocarina of Time, and GoldenEye hit around 8 million. GTA III hit 11 mil.

some truly games may never achieve massive sales, but quite a few will.

This article's a load of poop if you ask me. While Littlebigplanet is a great game, Madworld sounds like a terrible game, a meager attempt from Nintendo to appeal to the 'hardcore gamers' who probably own an Xbox or Playstation for that.

Nintendo didn't release the game, Platinum Games did.

The reason there's 3 different consoles is the different games that appear on those consoles, and while Playstation and Xbox don't differ alot from eachother, I've always bought Nintendo consoles for it's Nintendo games. Seems logical, no? When I want to play Animal Crossing, Zelda, Mario or any of those, there's Nintendo. That's their identity, that's what they're good at. This article is like saying each game should have every genre put into it. That way you don't need multiple games. It's just silly.

Rewind back to two generations ago. Some of the most acclaimed Non-Nintendo titles on a Nintendo console were on the 64, and they were for an older audience (damn you to hell Woolworths for not selling me Perfect Dark when I was younger, and thank you 3rd Testament Games, for doing so), and Crash Bandicoot and Rayman, two popular and acclaimed franchises (well, not so much Rayman) were on the Playstation.

Nintendo might be known for 'Nintendo games' but it doesn't mean that every other developer must create similar games, they have already complained that it's hard to compete with Nintendo when it comes to their own titles. Variety is good for business, and is good for someone who wants it (certain consumers), and only has one console. It's not like every console must have the same games, but at least have a broad range of games in different genres. Console identity is bad, you should be looking at the selection of titles that appeal to you.

I'd like a broader range of titles just to see what they come up with on the respective consoles where such titles aren't in the majority.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

I know it wasn't a Nintendo game but it's a Wii exlusive, meaning Nintendo's been involved with the project, probably trying to show everyone they do care about 'real gamers'.

There are tons of Wii exclusives (since the hardware is so different it's difficult to make a cross platform game without completely butchering it on some platforms), I don't think that means Nintendo is involved in any way. Nintendo does have 16+ rated games, namely Disaster, Prime 3 and Batallion Wars. I do think these are aimed at mid-aged audiences but I don't think Nintendo would bother with games like MadWorld.

Also, stuffing more into a game doesn't have to take away from the rest of the game. It's just how well it's been implemented. Same goes for a console library. It's cool if they just started making more games, other genres included. But that's not a very likely scenario. Nintendo wouldn't start making more games, they'd just replace their familiar Nintendo franchises with games you could also play on another console.

I don't think anyone said NINTENDO has to do it (and if you're alledging that Nintendo was involved in MadWorld you're saying Nintendo can get high-rated games made without using their own dev power). Nor Sony. Third parties need to be less narrow-minded and make some stuff that's not in the same pigeonhole as most of what the systems currently have.

But see on the two more expensive consoles, taking such risks probably isn't such a good idea. When one or two unsuccessful titles could kill your company, chances are punking out and slapping a grizzled late 20s Caucasian male in a brown/grey environment of your choice is a much better idea, than to create a game concept that while is probably great, will probably not hit close to a million sales, the kind of figure that needs to be a success on those consoles.

 

[thebestaround21]

If I could agree anymore I wouldn't be agreeing. I wouldn't say I'm a hardcore gamer but I love violent videogames and yes Animal Crossing is my guilty pleasure so possibly a retarted mutant offspring would be fantastic. Possibly Grand Theft Crossing or Animal Theft Auto (but that just sounds like stealing animal cars).