L.B. Jeffries said:
Backwards for who? The best-selling online game of all time cracks in at 10 million (WoW), which is 'Act of God' class sales figures. Although awesome by video game standards, that's hardly as massive an appeal as movies or television. The Wii Fit is being demonstrated on freaking Oprah. New gamer, meet old gamer.
The Wii chose a weaker processor and now numerous indie developers are able to keep making games for relatively cheap costs. A Wii game costs 2 million and 18 months to make (roughly). Other next-gen consoles come in at 25-50 million and three years to make (roughly). So when someone has a creative idea for a game, which system is it viable to take the risk for? Yeah, there is a lot of shovelware, but there's also a ton of really innovative stuff coming out.
With a 50 millionish price tag on every Unreal 3 game coming out, no one is going to make a game unless it conforms to every generic standard that already exists so they know they'll make their money back. If anyone is moving the industry backwards and into the same old draconian crap they're always making, it's Epic.
Oprah speaks about Wii Fit? That's not a surprise, since the marketing machine and goal of Nintendo. Still, Wii Fit has very little to nothing to do with gaming, and I truly pity Nintendo for trying to sell that tablet (which they do, but hell, a lot of people buy shit).
Now is Oprah a seal of quality?
How much innovative stuff is actually appearing on the Wii?
Especially when compared to XBLA or PSN?
I agree, however, that the race to more powerful technology is killing the industry. But maybe that's because the tools aren't providing enough high quality content at faster rates?
It's possible that with more efficient tools, production costs could be cut a tad (not much I'm afraid, though).
It's funny how we're entering a new era of Neo Geos, which only the richest will be able to acquire. The number of games they need to sell to return a profit is extremely high, considering the budgets.
The Wii problem? It detracts buyers from the more powerful consoles, reduces the sales of said consoles, and thus reduces the sales of the games on such consoles. Ergo Epic: "the Wii is not for us" or something along those lines.
JakubK666 said:
L.B. Jeffries said:
The Wii chose a weaker processor and now numerous indie 3rd party developers are able to keep making games shovelware for relatively cheap no costs.
That's more like it.
Nintendo needs to bring back it's Seal of Quality.
The Seal? It quickly became a joke. At best, it would mean your game was roughly bug free - and that's even disputable (NES in sight). It hardly guaranteed a quality of games.
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
Junaid Alam said:
His comments also come on the heels of a recent New York Times article titled, "New Wii finds a big (but stingy) audience," showing that Wii owners, as casual gamers, tend to buy less software for the system because they are not driven by a need to play the newest games.
Or it could be the fact that there's not a huge amount of actually good games on the Wii. Metroid Prime, Mario, Zelda...?
Both sir, in my opinion. The type of audience the Wii reaches, combined to its catalogue, easily explain the situation.
The Wii is not a bad console, far from it. Nintendo put a hell of money and completely built the appeal out of the blue, but now it's really getting implanted. It's not generating legions of new avid gamers, but it's putting a video console in places where you wouldn't expect it with the 360 or PS3. It also has easy controls. Not the best by far, but they do their job more or less well.
In that sense, it's indeed a sort of virus, but it's more a therapy, a necessary step part of a war to democratize games.
Still, it's largely gimmicky.
As for UT3, I don't understand the appeal. For me, it's doesn't seem to have any flavour.
xMacx said:
I've seen three-five comments in this whole thread that suggest a poster might have actually read the article before commenting.
THE HEADLINE IS MISLEADING; READ THE ARTICLE BEFORE POSTING.
This is not the first time it happens here.
I'd like the summaries use less spin, unless the magazine should be called The Sensasionalist?
P. 4 of the article, Epic guy did criticize the Wii, but it's integrated to a whole article that describes what Epic is looking for, so you get it as Wii is not part of their plan.
But it doesn't mean it's correct to label the Wii as something going backwards. It after all did positive things.