Nintendo doing it right, or everyone else doing it wrong?

[Caliostro]

For years now I've greatly disliked Nintendo. Not that they're some baby eating evil company with posters of "<3 Hitler" all around, but that I feel they make a living along the lines of "selling electronic crack to underaged kids who don't know better". The way I see it Nintendo tries to capitalize on franchise "milking" to the degree that would give George Lucas an erection and gimmicky bullshit that most gamers over the age of 12 tend to raise an eyebrow wondering why you're trying to sell them a steaming pile of feces pretending to be a delicious hamburger.

That said, I don't think that Nintendo is "the worst thing EVAAAAAR!" or anything, I just don't see why anyone over the age of 12 would pick a subpar console, with inferior hardware, inferior games with mostly only EXTREMELY tired, old, and beaten exclusives and a gimmicky, buggy and malfunctioning control system that would make Ghandi want to take up hunting in sheer frustration. In fact, let's not beat around the bush, the crushing majority of Wii titles would only get better with a real controller or a mouse and keyboard setup. So why would non-casual gamers, to whom the "wiimotes" only has around a 5 minute appeal (2 if you actually use it), buy a wii?

My theory is quite simple: cause everything else right now might be a worst option.

The PS3 is extremely expensive and has a criminally small number of amazing exclusives. A situation which doesn't seem to be getting better anytime soon due to it's inherent "high tech" system which puts production costs several months and a few thousand dollars past the comfortable point and Sony getting a bad case of the "stupids" and not shelling out to retain their most coveted exclusives. For a console that's so expensive to buy and to produce games for, and in a time of dire global economic crisis, the PS3 just doesn't deliver "enough bang for your buck" right now.

On the other hand we have the 360, arguably with the best game line up of all consoles, but with a very random life span. Nobody feels very relaxed buying a 300-ish dollar console that is known for dying on you very often... I know, tech support, but think on a global level: You really think everyone is willing to cut around 300 dollars from their paycheck + whatever you wanna spend on games only to have their console sent to the factory after a couple of months while they seat in their couch and limit themselves to enjoying the artwork on the game's box or something? And then risk having it happen again? No.

Then we have the Wii. There's nothing special about the Wii, they generally have ok games, none particularly amazing but they're not particularly bad either, they're decent, average. On the other hand it's the cheapest of all the consoles and doesn't die every other rainy day like the 360. It's a safe choice. Maybe you don't get the BEST GAMES EVER but you get some decent games, games you enjoy with your kids (if you have them) and you can go to sleep safely at night knowing that when you turn it on the other day it won't just piss itself and die.

To sum up my boring and long post, my whole argument is that the Wii isn't doing things that well, or even delivering high quality, but that all of their competitors are overlooking rather critical issues. So the Wii can never potentially deliver a game as good as the competition. Well, it can still deliver some interesting games and it's reliable, that's more that can be said about either of it's competitors.

Discuss.

 

[Corven]

Spoiler: shortened fro message space

For years now I've greatly disliked Nintendo. Not that they're some baby eating evil company with posters of "<3 Hitler" all around, but that I feel they make a living along the lines of "selling electronic crack to underaged kids who don't know better". The way I see it Nintendo tries to capitalize on franchise "milking" to the degree that would give George Lucas an erection and gimmicky bullshit that most gamers over the age of 12 tend to raise an eyebrow wondering why you're trying to sell them a steaming pile of feces pretending to be a delicious hamburger.

That said, I don't think that Nintendo is "the worst thing EVAAAAAR!" or anything, I just don't see why anyone over the age of 12 would pick a subpar console, with inferior hardware, inferior games with mostly only EXTREMELY tired, old, and beaten exclusives and a gimmicky, buggy and malfunctioning control system that would make Ghandi want to take up hunting in sheer frustration. In fact, let's not beat around the bush, the crushing majority of Wii titles would only get better with a real controller or a mouse and keyboard setup. So why would non-casual gamers, to whom the "wiimotes" only has around a 5 minute appeal (2 if you actually use it), would buy a wii?

My theory is quite simple: cause everything else right now might be a worst option.

The PS3 is extremely expensive and has a criminally small number of amazing exclusives. A situation which doesn't seem to be getting better anytime soon due to it's inherent "high tech" system which puts production costs several months and a few thousand dollars past the comfortable point and Sony getting a bad case of the "stupids" and not shelling out to retain their most coveted exclusives. For a console that's so expensive to buy and to produce games for, and in a time of dire global economical crisis, the PS3 just doesn't deliver "enough bang for your buck" right now.

On the other hand we have the 360, arguably with the best game line up of all consoles, but with a very random life span. Nobody feels very relaxed buying a 300-ish dollar console that is known for dying on you very often... I know, tech support, but think on a global level: You really think everyone is willing to cut around 300 dollars from their paycheck + whatever you wanna spend on games only to have their console sent to the factory after a couple of months while they seat in their couch and limit themselves to enjoying the artwork on the game's box or something? And then risk having it happen again? No.

Then we have the Wii. There's nothing special about the Wii, they generally have ok games, none particularly amazing but they're not particularly bad either, they're decent, average. On the other hand it's the cheapest of all the consoles and doesn't die every other rainy day like the 360. It's a safe choice. Maybe you don't get the BEST GAMES EVER but you get some decent games, games you enjoy with your kids (if you have them) and you can go to sleep safely at night knowing that when you turn it on the other day it won't just piss itself and die.

To sum up my boring and long post, my whole argument is that the Wii isn't doing things that well, or even delivering high quality, but that all of their competitors are overlooking rather critical issues. So the Wii can never potentially deliver a game as good as the competition. Well, it can still deliver some interesting games and it's reliable, that's more that can be said about either of it's competitors.

Discuss.

technically the 360 is the cheapest console now since they dropped the arcade down to 200 which is 50 bucks cheaper then the wii

 

[Lukeje]

For years now I've greatly disliked Nintendo. Not that they're some baby eating evil company with posters of "<3 Hitler" all around, but that I feel they make a living along the lines of "selling electronic crack to underaged kids who don't know better". The way I see it Nintendo tries to capitalize on franchise "milking" to the degree that would give George Lucas an erection and gimmicky bullshit that most gamers over the age of 12 tend to raise an eyebrow wondering why you're trying to sell them a steaming pile of feces pretending to be a delicious hamburger.

I would say that that should be changed to 'between the ages of 12 and 18,' as these seem to be the only demographic wowed by shiny graphics.

And I would also argue that none of the other consoles has anything that remotely compares to SMG on their consoles yet.

 

[Caliostro]

technically the 360 the cheapest of the console snow since they dropped the arcade down to 200 which is 50 bucks cheaper then the wii

Really? Oh well, said "price cut" hasn't reached me yet then. I checked Amazon for a more global price and it seemed like the Wii was still cheaper by about 20 bucks.

MY BAD then. Everything else stands.

 

[Corven]

the wii is just a gimmick, a fun gimmick, but it wears out fast unless you have the energy of a rabid squirrel, I only really liked the zelda series from nintendo but even that's getting old, the formula of going to element temples to get pieces of something to restore the triforce has been done to death.

 

[milskidasith]

For years now I've greatly disliked Nintendo. Not that they're some baby eating evil company with posters of "<3 Hitler" all around, but that I feel they make a living along the lines of "selling electronic crack to underaged kids who don't know better". The way I see it Nintendo tries to capitalize on franchise "milking" to the degree that would give George Lucas an erection and gimmicky bullshit that most gamers over the age of 12 tend to raise an eyebrow wondering why you're trying to sell them a steaming pile of feces pretending to be a delicious hamburger.

I would say that that should be changed to 'between the ages of 12 and 18,' as these seem to be the only demographic wowed by shiny graphics.

And I would also argue that none of the other consoles has anything that remotely compares to SMG on their consoles yet.

Change that from 14-24, that's generally the age of the shiny = good demographic. Honestly, the Wii has a lot of innovative games (and doesn't play nearly as badly as you say). Also, I'd like to level one of your own complaints against you. You claim that Wii games would be better with a keyboard or a control pad... Every single Xbox360 game could be improved by controlling it with a mouse, whereas quite a few Wii games only work on their own console. So, all in all, since you have a computer, why the hell buy a 360 when all the PC versions that come out are superior? At least with a Wii you get games that won't be ported to PC because they wouldn't work as well as they would on a Wii.

 

[AceDiamond]

I'm a noncasual gamer. I have played games for over 18 years. I have welcomed and enjoyed immensely the new innovations in control presented by the Nintendo Wii. I do not give a flying fuck about graphics having to be so picture-perfect, I care about gameplay, and since I gave the Wii an actual chance, I have enjoyed the gameplay presented by it. And there are plenty of innovative and fun games for it, plus collections of old favorites (mmm...Metal Slug Anthology...)

I have also enjoyed Nintendo's franchise titles, because while they may be formulaic there is just enough new about each one to make them enjoyable and *gasp* fun. Maybe I'm simple-minded, but I think my impending Bachelor of Science degree from WPI will disagree with that concept entirely.

I care about the industry moving forward in ways that aren't merely processing power and graphics, and when the PS3 is all about a multimedia device that will play games if you really want it to, and the 360 is about me playing games I can't get on the Wii (which is fair enough and the reason I own a Wii and a 360), I side with Nintendo's work as moving towards that end.

 

[Caliostro]

Change that from 14-24, that's generally the age of the shiny = good demographic. Honestly, the Wii has a lot of innovative games (and doesn't play nearly as badly as you say).

Can you honestly say that better graphics are a BAD thing? No. Better graphics are better, always. You can argue that graphics aren't everything, but by itself, better graphics = better.

And it honestly is that bad. I've played it, my nephew (who happens to be 11... total coincidence, I know) has one. It's NOT unplayable, but the Wii seems to have some "translation issues". As in, it seems to be confused when you try to use the damn Wiimote in the same way a free online translator gets confused if you try to translate more than a word at the same time.

Also, I'd like to level one of your own complaints against you. You claim that Wii games would be better with a keyboard or a control pad... Every single Xbox360 game could be improved by controlling it with a mouse, whereas quite a few Wii games only work on their own console. So, all in all, since you have a computer, why the hell buy a 360 when all the PC versions that come out are superior? At least with a Wii you get games that won't be ported to PC because they wouldn't work as well as they would on a Wii.

Nono, you got it wrong. I said with a keyboard/mouse OR a controller pad. Personally I agree the Keyboard and mouse setup is possibly the most adequate for.... Well, almost any game in existance besides beat'em ups really... But they're "adequate" on a controller. Or more adequate than on a Wiimote at least.

And yes, contrary to what Nintendo's marketing department would like you to think, more often than not you could easily replace the Wiimote with a ball mouse, which was only invented 45 years ago. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouse_(computing)]

 

[asacatman]

Can someone just make an 'official the wii is a gimmick' threak and have done with it. Allright, you present an interesting slant on the subject, but this is the THIRD time I've seen this thread IN THE SPACE OF ABOUT TWELVE HOURS AND I'M SLIGHTLY TIRED OF IT.
I don't have any energy left to argue my point anymore. But to be on topic: no, I don't think other companies are losing it, they have great systems, I bought my wii because of price and nintendo exclusives.

 

[Graustein]

So why would non-casual gamers, to whom the "wiimotes" only has around a 5 minute appeal (2 if you actually use it), buy a wii?

Here's my reasons:
1.) The games - Brawl, Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, No More Heroes, WarioWare: Smooth Moves, Super Paper Mario, Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn... just to name those I can think of off the top of my head that I want.
2.) Virtual Console - I'm a big fan of SNES-era games, and I'm not a fan of piracy.
3.) Backwards Compatibility - Gamecube remains my favourite console ever in terms of exclusives, and the fact that the Wii can play these is icing on the cake.

Those are my top three reasons for buying a Wii. Note how they all revolve around the game lineup, which in my opinion is the sole valid reason for preferring any single console over the others. The graphics are a non-issue for me. The gimmicky controller is a non-issue for me because if a game is too gimmicky, don't buy it. Doesn't detract from the console itself that someone designed a bad game for it.

tl;dr version: Because I like the games it has. And that should be reason enough for anybody.

 

[The Stabilo Boss]

I think one of the main reasons I love my Wii is that everyone can enjoy it. I can have any friends over, gamers or non-gamers, and have fun on my Wii. My gamer friends will appreciate SSBB, or SMG, or playing old GCN games, and my non-gamer friends will be amused by games like Wii Sports, Wii Play, WarioWare etc. I think that if I had a 360 or a PS3, my non-gamer friends would be less willing to play it.

 

[Lukeje]

Change that from 14-24, that's generally the age of the shiny = good demographic. Honestly, the Wii has a lot of innovative games (and doesn't play nearly as badly as you say).

Can you honestly say that better graphics are a BAD thing? No. Better graphics are better, always. You can argue that graphics aren't everything, but by itself, better graphics = better.

Then why do some people (me included) prefer the graphical style of Wind Waker to Twilight Princess? Which one had the 'better graphics'?

 

[teh_gunslinger]

Change that from 14-24, that's generally the age of the shiny = good demographic. Honestly, the Wii has a lot of innovative games (and doesn't play nearly as badly as you say).

Can you honestly say that better graphics are a BAD thing? No. Better graphics are better, always. You can argue that graphics aren't everything, but by itself, better graphics = better.

Then why do some people (me included) prefer the graphical style of Wind Waker to Twilight Princess? Which one had the 'better graphics'?

I think the point was that standing alone, better graphics is a good thing. That however may be overruled by game play and story and delivery etc.

 

[Lukeje]

I think the point was that standing alone, better graphics is a good thing. That however may be overruled by game play and story and delivery etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley

 

[meglathon]

All right first of all, don't rip of Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw, when righting in forums, what, can think of anything witty of your own.

But for the Wii, they are a safe choice, and is fun to have at parties and get to getter.
But for me it have no lasting appeal, since many of the games bore me, to the point that I gust stop playing them, and go back to my 360.

But it those have many innovative and creative games so what the heck...

 

[teh_gunslinger]

I think the point was that standing alone, better graphics is a good thing. That however may be overruled by game play and story and delivery etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley

I'm not sure if I get this right, but you are referring to something along the lines of: Better graphics is not always a better thing as at some point it hits Uncanny valley, and repulse people?
If so, I suspect you could very well be right. I really haven't thought too much about this stuff. I was just trying interpret the post about graphics as better.
Personally I think that graphics takes a back seat to a good and well told story every time. That does not however, mean that I dislike sweet graphics.

Anyways, I would like to know if I got you right in the Uncanny thing?

Edit: Or is the problem rather that gets to similar to real life but still isn't there, as in Beowulf and so seems "wrong"?

 

[WhiteFangofWhoa]

To every man and company his own- it's good that each of the big 3 target different demographics (though I find it annoying when one of those three demographics- you know who you are- goes out of their way to rag on the others ).

My family is getting on in years- kids leaving for college including myself, so we don't have as much time to play games. Guess what's the only system any of us wants to get this Christmas? This also marks the first and only time my own mother has openly desired a gaming console for herself to play!

Having been an avid gamer since 6, I've always looked for at least 3 verifiable 'killer apps' before buying any system. Given that many of the Wii's games were rumored to be criminally short, just like most new releases, I'd probably want more than that. It filled out that quota and then some without any help from the Virtual Console. Playstation 3* has yet to do that despite having been out for over a year now (it should be noted I dislike online shooters, that's just me).

Inferior graphics? Yes. I noticed that difference back on the Gamecube between it's version of the Prince of Persia games and the Playstation 2's. But I believe we've gotten to the point now where it doesn't matter much. Even the lowest end of the current generation can now render realistic character models and faces, play voices, and all that. Having slightly lower resolution will not break your eyes. No More Heroes is on my list and it doesn't exactly have killer graphics. Same goes for anything released on the Virtual Console. See 'The Megaman 9 Effect'.

All gaming consoles require an investment of energy- even mashing buttons at a high rate requires that, and the longer the game the more energy used. But now people are complaining that flailing the Wiimote tires them out, that the games require that too have lots of pent-up energy to play. God forbid you actually get some excercise out of this! It takes no less exertion than using a TV remote. And in case the sarcasm isn't biting, many games just have you use it as a regular controller.

Wii, like any console is not without it's flaws but I can forgive them, because for once Nintendo's complete ignorance towards what the teenagers generally like in their games is actually serving it well instead of putting in a hole. Yay for cartoony graphics devoid of blood and titties with a preferred emphasis on making fun games that kids and adults can both enjoy.

*- PS3 has one game I really want to get my hands on right now; MGS4. It's going to kill me to choose one of these over another but money's tight right now.

 

[Lukeje]

I think the point was that standing alone, better graphics is a good thing. That however may be overruled by game play and story and delivery etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley

I'm not sure if I get this right, but you are referring to something along the lines of: Better graphics is not always a better thing as at some point it hits Uncanny valley, and repulse people?
If so, I suspect you could very well be right. I really haven't thought too much about this stuff. I was just trying interpret the post about graphics as better.
Personally I think that graphics takes a back seat to a good and well told story every time. That does not however, mean that I dislike sweet graphics.

Anyways, I would like to know if I got you right in the Uncanny thing?

Edit: Or is the problem rather that gets to similar to real life but still isn't there, as in Beowulf and so seems "wrong"?

Yes, the theory is that at some point graphics could get too unnervingly close to real-life, such that instead of appreciating how much its trying to be like real life, you notice how much it isn't like real-life, and this may cause 'repulsion.'

While game graphics don't seem to be there yet, it won't be long until graphics will be unnervingly realistic...

Sorry for not explaining, I completely forgot after posting the link.

 

[teh_gunslinger]

Yes, the theory is that at some point graphics could get too unnervingly close to real-life, such that instead of appreciating how much its trying to be like real life, you notice how much it isn't like real-life, and this may cause 'repulsion.'

While game graphics don't seem to be there yet, it won't be long until graphics will be unnervingly realistic...

Sorry for not explaining, I completely forgot after posting the link.

That's really an interesting view point. I've never thought about it that way, but it does seem to make sense. (OMG, I have admitted to learning something on the internet!)
In Deus Ex it was obvious that it was polygons, and I kinda made the rest up myself. These days less and less is left for me to do, so that makes it more impersonal in a way. Hmm. I need to think about this some more. I just hope I remember tomorrow when I get sober again.

By the way, the wiki seemed to propose that after the valley the robots would again resemble humans more and more. I wonder if the same thing goes for graphics? Will the mimicry be perfect or will there continue to be flaws in the animation. Actually, this gets me thinking about that tech demo of Heavy Rain some time back.

 

[ward.]

I'm a ps3 fanboi, so agreeing with the OP isn't likely to come as a surprise to anyone but I think he's got it locked down.

I also think the PS3 shouldn't be compared to the current generation of consoles because it is very different or atleast should be (the fact that games should be a lot longer thanks to the whole blue-ray disc things is a good example of this).