I found VATS to be really stupid, and consequently didn't use it. It turns what could have been an intensive, real-time action experience into nothing more than a video sequence of someone shooting a few bullets at something. I have a strong preference for not being able to pause combat anyway, but VATS does that to take even more away from my experience: If I hold a gun (or a bow, for that matter), I want to aim for myself, and not have some mechanic determine whether I hit or not.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:Fallout 3 had a unique combat system that, for all its flaws, gave it a unique identity. You can point to the V.A.T.S system and say 'That's Fallout 3', which is the most important thing when trying to make your game unique and stand out.CloudAtlas said:That doesn't mean that they shouldn't add anything to the experience, that you shouldn't try to improve upon the formula, or differ in details, or anything like that, but, you know, at its core. And, yea, I think games like, say, the Mass Effects or Fallout 3 would have definitely been better if they did.
If you want to tell both the same story and use the same gameplay, sure, you gonna have problems. I totally agree with you there. But they have a lot to gain from using what's good there for their own stories. And if you do aim for a certain type of realistic combat feeling, yes, I do want to feel it to some degree like CoD, Battlefield & Co., because those games simply have refined this formula very far over the years, they simply get a lot of things very right. Now if you can do things even better, but experience shows that most firms that come from a different place can't. The two examples I cited, Bethesda and BioWare with Fallout 3 and Mass Effect, certainly couldn't, as much as I love their games for other reasons.Developers have nothing to gain by aping COD. People who want COD's mechanics already play COD. You're not going to convince them that your game is a better COD than COD. We've already seen games, and even developers, go under by trying to ape COD too much- Homefront and Medal Of Honour Warfighter are probably the best examples.
I sometimes play for gameplay, I sometimes play for story. And games with a great story can still be great games, in my eyes, even if their actual gameplay is just servicable.Personally, I'm getting more and more jaded of 'storytelling attempts' in gaming. I play games for gameplay. A game with a shit story but great mechanics is still a great game. A game with a great story but shitty mechanics is not. Ninja Gaiden Black may have the most basic of hackneyed plots, but it's still the greatest hack-and-slash game ever created. Storytelling is in many respects ancillary to the purpose of games: to be played.
Yes, but when I list exclusive for the WiiU, Wii, and DS family that are exclusives to Nintendo and not Mario and Zelda people love to chop down the list by saying "well those are developed by other studios so they don't count." Like how people wrote off X as a new IP because it's developed by Monolith Software- a company that is owned by Nintendo.Lightknight said:? The following is a very quick list I threw together of just games I recognized from the list of good exclusives. Not racing games which would certainly extend the list.Dragonbums said:All those creative IP's have come from studios that are not part of Sony and Microsoft making games for their platforms.
Sony Exclusives where they're at least the publisher
Heavy Rain
Beyond Two Souls
Flower
Heavenly Sword
inFamous
Journey
Killzone
Last of Us
Little Big Planet
Resistance
Uncharted
Note that in most of the above, they're technically the developers too because they own the developers (like Naughty Dog, Media Molecule, Guerilla Games, and Sucker Punch to name a few)
Sony Exclusives where they're the/a Developer and Publisher
Demon's Souls
God of War series
Starhawk
Tokyo Jungle
Microsoft in turn had much fewer exclusive titles but they were generally heavier hitters. That's because their bigger titles were generally also made available on the pc.
Microsoft as publisher
Banjo-Kazooie
Crackdown
DanceCentral
Fable II
Gears of War
Halo
Microsoft Studio as publisher and developer
Some of the above may have been Microsoft owned developers. Not as sure who they own nowadays.
The thing is, you can't buy the WiiU without it. I agree that the game should be considered as part of it and that does help defray the cost, but perception wise you're looking at $350 vs $400 and that's how most people actually view it. At the end of the day, it isn't always what the exact specifics are so much as what consumers think. You and many of the people on this site actually care about gaming to strongly research all the options.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:I kind of feel that this argument is somewhat unfair, given that for the money, you're also getting a bundled copy of Nintendo Land and that online Deluxe thingy which gives you extra credit (10% I believe) on digital purchases. Whereas the PS4 comes with no bundled games for the money, and requires an extra $60 a year for online multiplayer, something Nintendo offers for free.Lightknight said:Things Nintendo hasn't stated:
1. The price point is pretty darn close to the competitors. $350 for the 32GB version compared to $400 for a ps4 that has a 500GB HDD and is significantly more powerful? That's silly.
When you factor in all the associated costs, the gap is larger than Sony would perhaps care to admit. It's also worth pointing out that internal flash memory is far more expensive dollar-to-gigabyte than regular internal memory, and that the Wii U lets you attach any external hard-drive to act as extra storage space. Perhaps that sounds like a cop-out to some, but to me its an adequate explanation for the smaller hard-drive space.
Not that you don't otherwise make good points, but that point is one I've always disagreed with.
We have indeed discussed this at length and I'll say the same thing I did before. I'm not referring to their handheld division. Nintendo is remarkably keen on that side of things and is damn near perfect where it comes to supplying an endless stream of joy on that front. Even if this was their last home console release I'd just expect even more out of their handheld division.I think we may have debated this before, but I'll say it again: Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Xenoblade, Endless Ocean, Nintendogs, Pushmo, Crashmo, Sakura Samurai, Dillon's Rolling Western, The Last Story, Nintendogs, Brain Age were all original IP developed and/or published by Nintendo this generation. They may not have been to your taste, or struck you as particularly 'hardcore', but that doesn't discount them as original titles.Lightknight said:Sony and Microsoft have been relatively MUCH more productive where new IPs are concerned. This is mostly the nature of them being new consoles but Sony in particular has pumped out a lot. Nintendo has put out very few new IPs that I haven't already been playing since the 80's and 90's and it's part of their business model to do it that (aka, it's intentional because existing IPs will make more money and are less risky than new ones).
As for new IP for the Wii U, they're already publishing The Wonderful 101, and Miyamoto has said he's got an original IP in the works for next year. If Monolith's X isn't a Xenoblade 2, then that will likely be a new IP (I can't see Nintendo buying the Xenogears license from Namco). They've only got so many development teams, and can only work on a finite number of games at once, so I'm willing to wait and see what the Pikmin 3 and NSMBU guys come up with now they're both free.
It's less "viscous cycle" and more that they're a generation behind hardware-wise. There's not much incentive to spin up WiiU development when the PS4 and Xbox180 are dropping later this year, and both are powerful enough to bring us a retread of the PC-Xbox-PS trifecta that ruled this gen. Third party developers just aren't interested in supporting an odd-man-out console when they've already got a three-platform ecosystem (soon to be a five-platform ecosystem during the transition period between this gen and next) that's perfectly functional and profitable.Mirrorknight said:A: No 3rd party games lead to low system sales. Low system sales leads to no 3rd party games. Vicious circle they can't seem to break out of.
Sony Computer Entertainment for Japan is actually Japan Studios, which gets confusing sometimes, and a lot of the development team from Japan Studios actually are also part of Team Ico. Then Europe's is Sony Computer Entertainment Cambridge, then the US one is just Sony Computer Entertainment America. Japan Studios will release some games from time to time, but a lot of games like some of the Ape Escape ones tend to not be released out in the west anymore since Ape Escape 3. Took a while for us to get Ape Quest and I didn't like Move, but we never got Million Monkeys or Big Mission sadly. I actually know people who think Ubisoft developed the games when all they did was just localize some of the Ape Escape games in the west.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:I'll give you that one. But still. Sony's own internal development outings are far less frequent than Nintendo's own internally developed games. And while Sony Japan has made original games like Rain, Nintendo EAd has matched that with games like Endless Ocean and Nintendogs.Tokyo Jungle
The PS3 was one of the factors that almost killed Sony and the Wii was one of the most successfull consoles last genBloodSquirrel said:It's less "viscous cycle" and more that they're a generation behind hardware-wise. There's not much incentive to spin up WiiU development when the PS4 and Xbox180 are dropping later this year, and both are powerful enough to bring us a retread of the PC-Xbox-PS trifecta that ruled this gen. Third party developers just aren't interested in supporting an odd-man-out console when they've already got a three-platform ecosystem (soon to be a five-platform ecosystem during the transition period between this gen and next) that's perfectly functional and profitable.
Not successful at selling third party games, which is what third party developers actually care about. The Wii sold mostly to people who either didn't play a whole lot of video games or who also owned a PS3/360/PC. Third party games sold poorly on the system, so why make games for it when the other three platforms were easier to port between and you could sell more copies on each individually?lapan said:The PS3 was one of the factors that almost killed Sony and the Wii was one of the most successfull consoles last gen
So true. I still hark back to the genesis days for just that reason. Less stories, more gameplay...Praise be to the arcade era!Personally, I'm getting more and more jaded of 'storytelling attempts' in gaming. I play games for gameplay. A game with a shit story but great mechanics is still a great game. A game with a great story but shitty mechanics is not. Ninja Gaiden Black may have the most basic of hackneyed plots, but it's still the greatest hack-and-slash game ever created. Storytelling is in many respects ancillary to the purpose of games: to be played.
Combination, developed by FROM software AND SCE Japan Studio (SCE meaning Sony Computer Entertainment). [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon's_Souls]j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:Actually developed by FROM Software.Lightknight said:Sony Exclusives where they're the/a Developer and Publisher
Demon's Souls
Actually, the name of the studio is SCE Santa Monica Studios or Sony Santa Monica. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCE_Santa_Monica_Studio] It was founded in 1999 by Sony in Santa Monica, hence the most creative studio naming we've ever seen. It also has quite a pedigree of other excellent IPs with a LOT of collaboration projects. Sony is really quite friendly with other companies as far as incubation and collaboration. That's actually why Sony gets so many exclusives. In fact, one such collaboration is up next:Santa Monica Studios.God of War series
That was LightBox AND SCE Santa Monica Studio. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starhawk_(2012_video_game)] Note that Sony Santa Monica also worked on the 2007 Warhawk alongside Incognito Entertainment which may explain why Starhawk had so many similarities with Warhawk despite being considered a different IP.LightBox Entertainment.Starhawk
Hopefully you'll give me all of them once you see the information. I give no quarter here, good sir. (hah).I'll give you that one. But still. Sony's own internal development outings are far less frequent than Nintendo's own internally developed games. And while Sony Japan has made original games like Rain, Nintendo EAd has matched that with games like Endless Ocean and Nintendogs.Tokyo Jungle
To make things even more confusing, Sony owns a ton of smaller developers and does a lot of collaboration like with the Sony Santa Monica example I mentioned above. People often just call it Santa Monica and I think that Sony has made a conscious decision to make these studios look like distinct entities which they kind of are even though they were founded/purchased by Sony.Neronium said:Sony Computer Entertainment for Japan is actually Japan Studios, which gets confusing sometimes, and a lot of the development team from Japan Studios actually are also part of Team Ico. Then Europe's is Sony Computer Entertainment Cambridge, then the US one is just Sony Computer Entertainment America. Japan Studios will release some games from time to time, but a lot of games like some of the Ape Escape ones tend to not be released out in the west anymore since Ape Escape 3. Took a while for us to get Ape Quest and I didn't like Move, but we never got Million Monkeys or Big Mission sadly. I actually know people who think Ubisoft developed the games when all they did was just localize some of the Ape Escape games in the west.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:I'll give you that one. But still. Sony's own internal development outings are far less frequent than Nintendo's own internally developed games. And while Sony Japan has made original games like Rain, Nintendo EAd has matched that with games like Endless Ocean and Nintendogs.Tokyo Jungle
That really is the heart of the issue. You can't sell 10 million copies of a game on a console that hasn't even sold that many units even if you got 100% of the console owners to purchase it (which never happens). As you said, not getting games because of not enough purchasing it likewise means less motivation to purchase it and so even less games being made for it. Snake eating itself.Soxafloppin said:Developers don't want to develop for the WiiU because not enough people are buying them.
Not enough people are buying the WiiU because developers aren't developing for it.
Kind of a never ending cycle!
I think developers should act first then since they are the ones that want them sold!Soxafloppin said:Developers don't want to develop for the WiiU because not enough people are buying them.
Not enough people are buying the WiiU because developers aren't developing for it.
Kind of a never ending cycle!
Why? Why not just develop for consoles that already have huge amounts of interest instead of throwing money after bad? Think about it as if you were a developer. You can either develop for x86 environments that are selling out their preorders and that is also incredibly easy to port to computers or you can go with proprietary hardware that requires a learning curve and is for a system that didn't even sell 200k units over the past 3 months.dscross said:I think developers should act first then since they are the ones that want them sold!Soxafloppin said:Developers don't want to develop for the WiiU because not enough people are buying them.
Not enough people are buying the WiiU because developers aren't developing for it.
Kind of a never ending cycle!