Capps: Epic will never make a Wii game [Archive]

LeisureSuitLarry

04-20-2008, 16:33

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/868/868001p1.html

Link takes you to the beginning of the interview. This snippet is from page 4:

IGN: What do you think of the Wii and Nintendo's…

Capps: Pffffffffft…

IGN: (laughter) I know! I think the same thing! It's like, "Come on, why are you buying this system?!"

Capps: I know. I've got one.

IGN: Everybody does! Bring it out at parties and everyone's like, "Oh it's a Wii!"

Capps: Part of it's being cheap. I think it's a, I mean, so two things: first of all, great credit to them. The first time I played a videogame with my parents – aging myself a bit – was on Atari 2600. The next time I played a videogame with my parents, 25 years later or whatever, was Wii Tennis. So it's about bringing people together, families, Thanksgiving, all that. I think it's kind of like a weird virus because I have not yet found a reason to play with my Wii since then.

IGN: Exactly. For a real gaming experience…

Capps: Right, Zelda I really didn't enjoy on it. They back-fitted the control scheme on it, it was better on the GameCube. Mario, I wish there had been a button instead of wiggle and all that kind of ****. So I haven't played anything that I really wished hadn't been on another platform sadly enough. It's a virus where you buy it and you play it with your friends and they're like, "Oh my God that's so cool, I'm gonna go buy it." So you stop playing it after two months, but they buy it and they stop playing it after two months but they've showed it to someone else who then go out and buy it and so on. Everyone I know bought one and nobody turns it on. Obviously there's a class of people who really love it and enjoy it and are getting into the games but I'm still waiting for that one game that makes me play it. Who knows, maybe Wii Fit will be it.

IGN: Wii Fit's pretty fun.

Capps: Is it?

IGN: At last year's E3 everyone was hatin' on me for saying it was gonna be good. But sure enough, it is.

Capps: Well everything they do is good!

IGN: Yeah, oh yeah. And everyone hates it at first. "The Wii?! Motion-sensitive controllers? What the hell is that?"

Capps: I know, the name. We all say Wii now and never even think about the name anymore. They know what they're doing and they make money better than anyone else does. As an investor you love 'em, but as a next-gen console technology maker, they don't run UE3 and they can't.

IGN: Is there any chance that Epic will ever, is there going to be a point where there are too many Wiis on the market for you guys to not make a game for it?

Capps: No, we go forward, not back. It makes more sense for us to invest in the next-generation tech. There have been shops that have done it. Red Steel was a launch title and that was on Unreal Engine. So it's been done. How you take an engine that's all based on shaders and materials and run it on hardware that doesn't support shaders is just impossible. It's about as easy as PSP for us. Maybe it would make sense, but it makes more sense to invest going forward.

Ouch. They are sure an arrogant bunch up at Epic. :shock:

seebs

04-20-2008, 16:48

A7MAD

04-20-2008, 18:08

Thanks for the link LeisureSuitLarry also some GeOW2 info there that'll be handy. ;)

As for what Capps has said I do not share his opinion plus as of late Epic has a trait to slander the competition to cheer lead for a competitors console, best example is UT3 and after Epic and Mark Rein slandered it for the PS3's praise they reversed roles and even one up'd themselves.

People in the PS3 and X360 sections of this forum share Capps very own opinion, I think they're missing out and so is Capps.

Mr. Solanky

04-20-2008, 21:10

Black Beard

04-21-2008, 09:38

I'm not saying that the Wii is the best console, because that's really up to preference, but I honestly think that the Wii is the future of gaming. The Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 are great, they really are, but all they have different is a better graphics card and online.

Interesting point. Personally I don't think of Wii as "the future of gaming", but I do see it as the beginning of a split in gaming hardware. I mean for years we've had game developers making two types of games - "hardcore" and "casual" if I can use those terms.

I feel that in the next few generations of consoles we will see more of a split in terms of hardware designed to run "hardcore" games for "hardcore" gamers (super high detailed graphics, huge open environments, over the top physics etc) which will likely lead to more complex control systems. And on the other side of the shop (so to speak) we will see hardware designed to run the sort of games casual gamers want to play, with less intensive, more cartoonish graphics, more interactive control systems, more story based games.

At the moment - the Wii (and to a lesser extent the DS) are in a bit of a limbo (you could say "before their time"), in so far as - we have alot of game developers still trying to port "hardcore" games onto the system because they want to try and catch some of the market share the Wii has, but like old mate said in the article above - he hasn't found a game on the wii that he doesn't wish was on another system.

On topic - thanks OP, good article in general, not just the stuff about the Wii.

Laser

04-21-2008, 10:50

Honestly this guys comments made me laugh. I have a Wii, and its a pretty good console, but not necessarily good enough to warrant the crazy sales numbers.

The Wii is technically a next gen console, however through the eyes of a developer like Epic I can see why they wouldn't be interested in it. Epic is all about graphics.

And hey was the game cube version of Twilight Princess really better? Just asking cuz thats what system I played it on before I got a Wii. Guess I didn't miss out on anything.

mickice

04-21-2008, 10:53

It is a virus, lol. You buy one, someone else see it and they buy one.

A7MAD

04-21-2008, 10:59

Honestly this guys comments made me laugh. I have a Wii, and its a pretty good console, but not necessarily good enough to warrant the crazy sales numbers.

The Wii is technically a next gen console, however through the eyes of a developer like Epic I can see why they wouldn't be interested in it. Epic is all about graphics.

If you read the entire source, from page 1 until the end, Mike Capps slags on the PS3 also not just the Wii. They only go easy on the X360 and maybe that's because it's so much like a PC they are comfortable with it, Like Carmack & Newell.

mickice

04-21-2008, 11:37

If you read the entire source, from page 1 until the end, Mike Capps slags on the PS3 also not just the Wii. They only go easy on the X360 and maybe that's because it's so much like a PC they are comfortable with it, Like Carmack & Newell.

Atleast they made a decent game for the PS3, unlike the Wii where most major developers are giving it a miss while smaller developers wetting them selfs over it.

Need0fOne

04-21-2008, 12:06

Interesting point. Personally I don't think of Wii as "the future of gaming", but I do see it as the beginning of a split in gaming hardware. I mean for years we've had game developers making two types of games - "hardcore" and "casual" if I can use those terms.

I feel that in the next few generations of consoles we will see more of a split in terms of hardware designed to run "hardcore" games for "hardcore" gamers (super high detailed graphics, huge open environments, over the top physics etc) which will likely lead to more complex control systems. And on the other side of the shop (so to speak) we will see hardware designed to run the sort of games casual gamers want to play, with less intensive, more cartoonish graphics, more interactive control systems, more story based games.

At the moment - the Wii (and to a lesser extent the DS) are in a bit of a limbo (you could say "before their time"), in so far as - we have alot of game developers still trying to port "hardcore" games onto the system because they want to try and catch some of the market share the Wii has, but like old mate said in the article above - he hasn't found a game on the wii that he doesn't wish was on another system.

On topic - thanks OP, good article in general, not just the stuff about the Wii.

Well I wouldn't use the term "hardcore" as you did on this forum, Seebs will come after you ;).

I agree though that a line is being drawn and the gaming market is splitting up into two factions. I've said it before in other posts about being two markets. The kids\family market (as in E for everyone) and the teens\adult market (as 16+ and M for mature).

I think this could be a good thing and it might help get politicians and activists off the gamers' backs. Right now the issue is that they see all gaming consoles as being kids' toys so they take offense to mature and violent games being published on the same console and thus in their minds being sold to children.

It's also a sign that the gaming market has expanded enough to become specialized by market. The biggest obstacle really is to find the proper label for each market :-? as some would take offense at one side being labeled "hardcore".

Black Beard

04-21-2008, 12:17

Well I wouldn't use the term "hardcore" as you did on this forum, Seebs will come after you ;).

Lawl - okay. I haven't had the pleasure of "Seebs" coming after me before, but if you're reading this Seebs, no offence mate ;)

seebs

04-22-2008, 16:01

Well, how do you define hardcore? What makes one gamer "hardcore" and another not?

A7MAD

04-23-2008, 04:56

Atleast they made a decent game for the PS3, unlike the Wii where most major developers are giving it a miss while smaller developers wetting them selfs over it.

What major development house has not developed for the Wii besides Valve, Epic and ID?

Dom102

04-23-2008, 06:19

seebs

04-23-2008, 08:25

Typical "Wii is not next-gen" malarky. yawn.

Everyone knows it's not next gen. It's 'side gen' it's sidestepped the usual console advancement and is it's own little (actually quite large) niche.[/lquote]

No, not everyone "knows" this. A bunch of people believe this -- but only because they've redefined "gen" to mean something unrelated.

Was it released around the same time as other systems from major console vendors? Is it in some way different from previous hardware, such as a radical new control scheme, or 90nm technology?

[quote]On a side note:
Give it a rest seebs, Christ.

Why's this all personal? If none of you can make an argument for the Wii not being "nextgen", or for Wii not appealing to "hardcore" gamers, that I can't shred, maybe it's not that I'm a bad person, maybe it's that you're wrong.

A hint: If you can't win an argument, and the only option you have is to tell the guy who is winning the argument to "give it a rest", that usually means that you were wrong. Accept it, revise your position, and move on.

Need0fOne

04-23-2008, 12:25

We're all adults here, ok maybe not, but let's all be reasonable. No need to fight over the interpretation of 1 word, especially one that changes depending on context and personal interpretation. "hardcore" is just like "better" or "worse", it's all subjective.

To go back on track, if possible, to the OP, I think it's ok for a developer not to make a game for a console. After all, it's their choice. If they think their core competence is better put to use on a subset of consoles, then really who are we to argue? Some developers have only made games for Wii and PS2 and have stayed away from PS3\360, whether it is because of complexity or target market, it's their call in the end.

Emo-Mercenary

04-23-2008, 13:11

I agree with what he is saying, the Wii is a virus. I haven't played mine since New Years !

[velocity]

04-23-2008, 13:56

Honestly I'm kinda on the same line as he is. I prefer real next-gen-systems.

LeisureSuitLarry

04-23-2008, 14:18

;2750035']Honestly I'm kinda on the same line as he is. I prefer real next-gen-systems.

So a "real next-gen" system only refers to graphics? What is it about the PS3 and 360 that makes it "next gen" as far as gaming? The controllers haven't changed....well, except for sixaxis, but I think most acknowledge that that hasn't added much. The gameplay is the same. The games just look better. So, again, is next-gen ONLY about graphics?

I'm a graphics whore and PS fanboy* from way back, but even I see the huge leap forward that the Wii has made in gameplay. I don't see myself playing tennis, baseball, or golf on the "real next-gen" systems now that I've been exposed to Wii Sports. And if I could wave a magic wand and MAKE EVERY D4MN FPS WORK EXACTLY LIKE METROID.....yeah....in a heartbeat.

So I think you have to lay your bias on the table as to what "real next-gen" really means to you. If it is only graphics....great, no problem. But then take that bias off the table and accept that that may not be "real next-gen" to everyone else.

* A7MAD made a big deal about this comment in another thread. To clarify, I am not a PS fanboy in the strictest sense of thinking Sony can do no wrong and all other consoles are inferior to the PS3. It was just meant to illustrate my past personal preference and how the Wii has changed my outlook on gaming in many ways. Not a big deal, but I don't want to have to defend that comment from every overzealous poster who wants to make something out of nothing. Glaring right at you, A7. ;)

Dom102

04-23-2008, 15:17

[quote=Dom102;2749128]Typical "Wii is not next-gen" malarky. yawn.

Everyone knows it's not next gen. It's 'side gen' it's sidestepped the usual console advancement and is it's own little (actually quite large) niche.[/lquote]

No, not everyone "knows" this. A bunch of people believe this -- but only because they've redefined "gen" to mean something unrelated.

Was it released around the same time as other systems from major console vendors? Is it in some way different from previous hardware, such as a radical new control scheme, or 90nm technology?

Why's this all personal? If none of you can make an argument for the Wii not being "nextgen", or for Wii not appealing to "hardcore" gamers, that I can't shred, maybe it's not that I'm a bad person, maybe it's that you're wrong.

A hint: If you can't win an argument, and the only option you have is to tell the guy who is winning the argument to "give it a rest", that usually means that you were wrong. Accept it, revise your position, and move on.

Someone woke up on the wrong side of the waggle today.
I'm not trying to argue with you, nor prove a point, I'm just honestly tired of seeing (most) of your posts.

TurdFergueson2

04-23-2008, 15:36

The faster people realize that the Wii is not for all but for many, the world will be a better place. Seebs loves his Wii as well as others, let it be that way. It makes no sense for me that jagoff developers come and talk mess about any console. So Joey Jagoff at Epic feels that the Wii can't handle one of his games, move on. If I was epic, I would try to make something work on a 10 million plus install base. But that's just me.

AndyD

04-23-2008, 15:49

Need0fOne

04-23-2008, 16:39

I think it is very immature to take a stance like he is. Then again, he is saying that they wont invest the money into a game for Wii, whereas the Unreal engine is definitely going to be used by others on Wii.

After all, Epic's huge cash caw is licensing out their engine, and to make it cutting edge, they have to always work for the future and work on the most advanced platforms, as it can always be scaled back. Since they dont put out tons of games, restricting themselves to what they do best (cutting edge games on cutting edge engine) makes sense. He just could have said it better.

Well said. Also, since their games tend to be toward the graphic violence side of things it wouldn't address the full Wii market but just a small fraction of the Wii installed base as many are underaged or just casual gamers. So if you combine that with the fact that 3rd party have a tough time on that platform against Nintendo franchise games, his decision actually makes a lot of sense. As you said though, there was no need to make it sound like the Wii wasn't worthy overall, it's just not the right fit for his company.

AndyD

04-23-2008, 17:44

Well said. Also, since their games tend to be toward the graphic violence side of things it wouldn't address the full Wii market but just a small fraction of the Wii installed base as many are underaged or just casual gamers. So if you combine that with the fact that 3rd party have a tough time on that platform against Nintendo franchise games, his decision actually makes a lot of sense. As you said though, there was no need to make it sound like the Wii wasn't worthy overall, it's just not the right fit for his company.

Its not even about violence. His engine is used in a variety of types of games, including racing stuff and other "casual" stuff. Heck, one of the Wii's "flagship" titles, Red Steel, will use it in its sequel.
Its just that unlike EA or Ubisoft, they only make 1 type of game, which is always cutting edge and never a poor downscaled port. To a certain extent it pushes the technology and is used as a tech demo for the engine.

Black Beard

04-25-2008, 02:28

Well, how do you define hardcore? What makes one gamer "hardcore" and another not?

Ummmm..... okay, I didn't realize the can of worms I was opening but since you ask - it's just a word that helps categorize the type of people who play console games. I'm not saying it's right, or the most accurate way to categorize gamers, but I thought that "casual" and "hardcore" would be terms that most people on these forums would be able to instantly relate to when used in the given context. It's not meant to be derogatory towards any certain type of gamer.

If you had to come up with a one word description of the 2 main types of consumers who make up the console / software market - what would you call them?

Dom102

04-25-2008, 21:10

Ummmm..... okay, I didn't realize the can of worms I was opening but since you ask - it's just a word that helps categorize the type of people who play console games. I'm not saying it's right, or the most accurate way to categorize gamers, but I thought that "casual" and "hardcore" would be terms that most people on these forums would be able to instantly relate to when used in the given context. It's not meant to be derogatory towards any certain type of gamer.

If you had to come up with a one word description of the 2 main types of consumers who make up the console / software market - what would you call them?

ERROR.
Do not engage seebs in a discussion about this. ever.
It's like trying to teach a snake how to play ukelele. Stupid, pointless, and impossible

Black Beard

04-26-2008, 02:03

ERROR.
Do not engage seebs in a discussion about this. ever.
It's like trying to teach a snake how to play ukelele. Stupid, pointless, and impossible

Okely Dokely.

Point taken 8).

se7enthsign

04-26-2008, 07:16

The Wii doesn't need EPIC and EPIC doesn't need the Wii. As long as they stay away from each other, everyone is happy and nobody gets hurt. It's funny how they won't make a game for a Nintendo console now, but N64 was the first console that EPIC ever made a game for with Unreal Tournament. (don't check that for fact. I'm drunk and I'm not sure, but I think it's true.)

Staticneuron

04-26-2008, 15:00

How you take an engine that's all based on shaders and materials and run it on hardware that doesn't support shaders is just impossible.

Very simple. He explained his case perfectly. One of my main gripes about people defending the wii is the "change" arguement. Adding a different control to a console that is not even comparable in terms of power to its competitors is not progress. The wii is next gen...... nothing changes the fact that this is coming after the gamecube but it just 'malarky' to say that they could not have changed the controls 'AND' made the system more powerful.

Argue about 'Fun' all you want but I am calling all of you defenders out because I have had 'Fun' on all three consoles but the experience has been more immersive. There are many types of games and many types of gamers but there is a clear distinction between games that are just fun, games that are fun and have storys, and games that seek to deliver all, Fun, story, and an immersive world.

If I had a choice...of playing a version of bioshock with dumbed down graphics vs the one on the 360 or PC I would choose the more powerful. Because the gameplay was fun, that doesn't change (it would be fun on the Wii I am sure), but the sense of the ocean creeping back into the city, threatening to destroy it ads so much atmosphere it isn't even funny. The dynamic lighting, the environment that you can destroy around you. The elemental effects you can place on objects around you the AI. All of this neeed power. The wii isn't that powerful. And there isn't much of a reason for that.

http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/interview-bioware-on-narrative-wii-gaming-mainstream-press-mmos--more/?biz=1

I bet you guys also aren't going to be happy with biowares response either but the sheer fact is that these gentlemen are right.

BIZ: If narrative or storytelling is really the future of gaming and driving the industry forward, that sort of conflicts with Nintendo's approach because most of their games are very casual.
Muzyka: There's a narrative there, too, between people playing sports. It's actually a narrative between the people playing it. It's sort of one level abstracted from the game; it's like people playing the game and there's people in the community around the game, but if you're playing a game and laughing and having fun, instead of the game having those elements, the audience playing the game has the elements between them. I think it's still part of the game experience.
Greg Zeschuk: I think another, tangential view on that is those kinds of experiences are much more like a toy experience. They're playing, together or not, but you're not 'gaming' anymore. What's different than you actually playing tennis?
Muzyka: I think a lot of it is multiplayer, though, on that platform.
Zeschuk: It is, I agree, that's actually the strongest experience. I'm making the claim that it may not be gaming.
BIZ: Well there's the quote: BioWare says Wii is not gaming! [laughs]
Zeschuk: If gaming is defined by story, then generally Wii may not be.
Muzyka: I think it IS gaming.
Zeschuk: We don't have to agree on everything, right? The most fun you have is when you get 4 or 5 people together, right? The game they're playing is actually very different than the rest of us. What they're doing as a company is like a different flavor.
Muzyka: When you look at a moment to moment experience what a player does on a Wii game, it's different, lighter, and more toy-like. But there's also a narrative between the players outside the game and kind of fulfills the same things games do. Games are "toys" in the sense that they're fun.
Zeschuk: In our games, you're competing inside the game and with Wii you're competing outside the game with your pals.

Avrum

04-26-2008, 16:13

Mako_Drug

04-26-2008, 16:44

I found it highly amusing everyone jumped on Epic, for what? Having an opinion. God forbid! People need to lighten up, all consoles have bad points and they are all often pointed out but it is only the Wii fanboys who can't even stand the slightest >personal< criticism being leveled at >Nintendo's< console. jeezuz.

LeisureSuitLarry

04-26-2008, 17:00

I found it highly amusing everyone jumped on Epic, for what? Having an opinion. God forbid!

If that is the case then why are you posting at all. I mean....you're jumping on "everyone" for what? Having an opinion about Capp's opinion? God forbid.

People need to lighten up, all consoles have bad points and they are all often pointed out but it is only the Wii fanboys who can't even stand the slightest >personal< criticism being leveled at >Nintendo's< console. jeezuz.

Well....that's just BS. This board has 360, PS3, and Wii fanboys who will defend their console/company to the last. Singling out Wii fans is just ridiculous.

Mako_Drug

04-26-2008, 21:38

If that is the case then why are you posting at all. I mean....you're jumping on "everyone" for what? Having an opinion about Capp's opinion? God forbid.

Two wrongs make a right guy ;)

Well....that's just BS. This board has 360, PS3, and Wii fanboys who will defend their console/company to the last. Singling out Wii fans is just ridiculous.

As for the Wii fanboy thing I say that because, if an opinion like the one expressed in the interview was against 360 or PS3 I don't think you'd get responses where the general feeling is 'he shouldn't say it'. I really don't, you WOULD get irrational, hateful, pointless and generally thoughtless responses but for people to say he shouldn't voice his opinion? I just don't see it.

LeisureSuitLarry

04-26-2008, 22:04

Two wrongs make a right guy ;)

As for the Wii fanboy thing I say that because, if an opinion like the one expressed in the interview was against 360 or PS3 I don't think you'd get responses where the general feeling is 'he shouldn't say it'. I really don't, you WOULD get irrational, hateful, pointless and generally thoughtless responses but for people to say he shouldn't voice his opinion? I just don't see it.

Uh.....I didn't read "everyone's" post here, but I haven't seen where "everyone" said Capps shouldn't have an opinion or voice his opinion. Stop generalizing and making BS up.

Staticneuron

04-27-2008, 02:49

Well, actually staticneuron who exactly is right in that article? Zeschuk or Muzyka? They both seem to have difference of opinion on whether or not Wii is gaming and even with that said the experience they're relating it to is whether or not Wii is gaming if the aspect of gaming is storytelling and narrative. So in that sense, does that mean something like Zelda is more of a game than Mario Kart because of that difference? Is Mario Kart any less of a game and Zelda any greater when picking and choosing what qualities define that? That's a big issue I have with the core v. casual argument and such commentary like this regarding Wii and it's direction because such arguments spend so much time picking and choosing what matters and what doesn't and what is definitive of the gaming experience and what isn't. I think the fact that those two disagree on the matter says a lot about the argument in general; it's simply not something universally accepted or can be claimed with any real factual basis.

So how are" they right" in that regard?

Same holds true with whether or not Wii is a toy, they both seem to have some disagreement with Muzyka moreso offering an extension on the idea that "all games are toys in the sense that they're "fun." What would make Socom Confrontation any less of a toy in that sense compared to WiiSports, for example? The only real difference between the two is how elaborate their development processes happened to be, obviously Socom is going ot be far more a complex and involving game and yet no doubt many will be having fun with that just as many are having fun with WiiSports and will continue to do so.

As you can note from the exact exerpt you posted Zeschuk is in fact picking and choosing how this applies which I mentioend above when he says:

Either way, you're competing and you're having fun. The only difference here is the insistence on the idea that the connect between a player and the game is the specific defining point at which a game is either a game or a toy which really doesn't say much at all in the grand scheme of things.

They are arguing whether or not playing the Wii is actual gaming. I wasn't pointing that out really, I believe playing the wii 'is' gaming. What I was trying to get across is the concept of narrative. Which funny enough they didn't seem to be arguing about. Narrative is really a defined story. Sports game or party games with a group of people are defined as competition and really isn't a narrative. But just because there isn't a narrative doesn't mean that it isn't a game. But as I was saying above.

There are many types of games and many types of gamers but there is a clear distinction between games that are just fun, games that are fun and have stories, and games that seek to deliver all, Fun, story, and an immersive world.

The point that I am getting at is that the wii is shorting its users of an experience. It is not progressive. I mean, the wii has games that are fun and a few that try to have a decent narrative but the immersive factor, the next step is missing. The living breathing environment. All of these aren't mutually exclusive. There really isn't nothing that can be done on the wii that cannot be done by the 360 or PS3 but then that is not true the other way around. GTA4, titles like gears, uncharted, ratchet and clank have these environments that are just "alive". And I think thats what the wii should have been. SMG should have been on the scale of ratchet (can you imagine) zelda should have put oblivion to shame. I just ook at my wii and wonder how much better things would have been if it was even just slightly more powerful. Honestly the people defending the power really confuse me.

Knuckles126

04-27-2008, 03:01

LeisureSuitLarry

04-27-2008, 03:38

I agree with Epic. The Wii is a step backwards, and as a technology designer, it would be foolish for Epic to invest their time and resources into a console that is severely outdated and cannot run their engine.

lol.....wow. So it truly is about nothing other than graphics, huh? What a limited point of view. Hey....you are free to your opinion...and all that.

As for the question of the day Larry, there is no GTA IV on the Wii...'nuff said.

that is the question of the day? :shock: Then this must be the least interrogative day in the history of the world. Or maybe the most irrelevant. Either way.

Knuckles126

04-27-2008, 03:54

lol.....wow. So it truly is about nothing other than graphics, huh? What a limited point of view. Hey....you are free to your opinion...and all that.

that is the question of the day? :shock: Then this must be the least interrogative day in the history of the world. Or maybe the most irrelevant. Either way.
What did you think it was about? Ask yourself, why do games like Crisis exist? It's all about the natural progression towards photorealism and with that, comes new opportunites for developers to achieve what was previously unachievable on last generation consoles. It's more than just graphics, it includes physics, animations, number of objects on screen, scale, etc. Again, GTA IV is a great example of what a next-generation console is capable of.

If everyone bought a Wii instead of a 360/PS3, we would never see games or consoles progress naturally. The PC would be so far ahead of consoles, we would never be able to catch up. The only reason Nintendo choose the Wii route is because they knew they couldn't compete with Sony or Microsoft this generation. So they decided to use the outdated GameCube hardware, slightly beef it up, and sell it for a cheap price with the Wii-mote gimmick...and it worked.

But Nintendo will have to do the same thing next-generation if they want to compete. Don't expect any hardware progression from Nintendo from now on. They have their winning formula, and it is doubtul they will abandon it anytime soon. :|

slingblade154

04-27-2008, 05:43

What did you think it was about? Ask yourself, why do games like Crisis exist? It's all about the natural progression towards photorealism and with that, comes new opportunites for developers to achieve what was previously unachievable on last generation consoles. It's more than just graphics, it includes physics, animations, number of objects on screen, scale, etc. Again, GTA IV is a great example of what a next-generation console is capable of.

If everyone bought a Wii instead of a 360/PS3, we would never see games or consoles progress naturally. The PC would be so far ahead of consoles, we would never be able to catch up. The only reason Nintendo choose the Wii route is because they knew they couldn't compete with Sony or Microsoft this generation. So they decided to use the outdated GameCube hardware, slightly beef it up, and sell it for a cheap price with the Wii-mote gimmick...and it worked.

But Nintendo will have to do the same thing next-generation if they want to compete. Don't expect any hardware progression from Nintendo from now on. They have their winning formula, and it is doubtul they will abandon it anytime soon. :|

I thought games like Crysis and Unreal Tournament existed so that companies could pitch their engines to other developers who then in turn make money off the same exact fuĉking formulas and further pigeonhole the industry into the same shіthole that has review sites going "EPIC ADVENTURE / GRAPHICAL FPS? A++!!! 10/10!! PERFECT 100! NEW FORMULA/GENRE/SOMETHING DIFFERENT? BOO, 6/10, C-, 75/100!" and idiotic $hithead gamers eating it up and saying "OH YASE DEES GRAPHIX THIS IS LIVING!" Want progression?
Unreal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal) (Windows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows), Linux (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux), Mac OS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS)) – May 25 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_25), 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998)
Unreal Mission Pack 1: Return To Na Pali – May 31 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_31), 1999 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999)
Unreal Gold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_Gold) – January 21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_21), 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000)
Unreal Tournament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_Tournament) (Windows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows), Linux (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux), Mac OS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS), Mac OS X (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X)) – November 26 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_26), 1999 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999)
Unreal Tournament: Game Of The Year Edition – 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000)
Totally Unreal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totally_Unreal) – August 31 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_31), 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000)
Unreal Tournament 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_Tournament_2003) (Windows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows), Linux (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux), Mac OS X (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X)) – October 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_1), 2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002)
Unreal II: The Awakening (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_II:_The_Awakening) (Windows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows)) – February 4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_4), 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003)
Unreal II XMP – December 9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_9), 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003)
Unreal Tournament 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_Tournament_2004) (32-bit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32-bit) and 64-bit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit) Windows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows), 32-bit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32-bit) and 64-bit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit) Linux (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux), 32-bit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32-bit) and 64-bit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit) Mac OS X (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X)) – March 18 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_18), 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004)
Unreal Tournament 2004 Special Edition – March 18 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_18), 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004)
Unreal Tournament 2004 DVD Edition – April 13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_13), 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004)
Unreal Tournament 2004 Editor's Choice Edition – September 21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_21), 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004)
Unreal Tournament 2004 Editor's Choice Edition DVD – September 21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_21), 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004)
Unreal Anthology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_Anthology) October 16 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_16), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)
Unreal Tournament 3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_Tournament_3) – (32-bit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32-bit) and 64-bit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit) Windows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows)) - November 19 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_19), 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007)Oh yase, you are the pinnacle of innovation, lead us into teh future!1!!1!!!

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/9750/laughingdogjc2.gif

Knuckles126

04-27-2008, 05:54

I thought games like Crysis and Unreal Tournament existed so that companies could pitch their engines to other developers and make money off the same old tired formulas and further pigeonhole the industry into the same narrow hole that has review sites going "EPIC ADVENTURE / GRAPHICAL FPS? A++!!! 10/10!! PERFECT 100!" and idiotic $hithead gamers eating it up and saying "OH YASE DEES GRAPHIX THIS IS LIVING!" Want progression?

Unreal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal) (Windows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows), Linux (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux), Mac OS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS)) – May 25 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_25), 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998)
Unreal Mission Pack 1: Return To Na Pali – May 31 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_31), 1999 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999)
Unreal Gold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_Gold) – January 21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_21), 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000)
Unreal Tournament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_Tournament) (Windows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows), Linux (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux), Mac OS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS), Mac OS X (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X)) – November 26 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_26), 1999 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999)
Unreal Tournament: Game Of The Year Edition – 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000)
Totally Unreal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totally_Unreal) – August 31 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_31), 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000)
Unreal Tournament 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_Tournament_2003) (Windows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows), Linux (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux), Mac OS X (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X)) – October 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_1), 2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002)
Unreal II: The Awakening (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_II:_The_Awakening) (Windows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows)) – February 4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_4), 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003)
Unreal II XMP – December 9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_9), 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003)
Unreal Tournament 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_Tournament_2004) (32-bit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32-bit) and 64-bit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit) Windows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows), 32-bit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32-bit) and 64-bit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit) Linux (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux), 32-bit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32-bit) and 64-bit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit) Mac OS X (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X)) – March 18 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_18), 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004)
Unreal Tournament 2004 Special Edition – March 18 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_18), 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004)
Unreal Tournament 2004 DVD Edition – April 13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_13), 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004)
Unreal Tournament 2004 Editor's Choice Edition – September 21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_21), 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004)
Unreal Tournament 2004 Editor's Choice Edition DVD – September 21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_21), 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004)
Unreal Anthology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_Anthology) October 16 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_16), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)
Unreal Tournament 3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_Tournament_3) – (32-bit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32-bit) and 64-bit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit) Windows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows)) - November 19 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_19), 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007)Oh yase, you are the pinnacle of innovation, lead us into teh future!1!!1!!!

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/9750/laughingdogjc2.gif
Thats funny. But perhaps you should look at your own list of games like Mario, Zelda, and Metroid Prime. It's not about what games they are, it's about the evolution of hardware. If you think that isn't important, you wouldn't be playing the Wii, you'd still be playing the Atari or NES.

The reason 3D graphics were made possible, was because of the interest in an advancing the hardware, not a remote control with motion sensing and a beefed up GameCube. :roll:

slingblade154

04-27-2008, 05:58

Thats funny. But perhaps you should look at your own list of games like Mario, Zelda, and Metroid Prime. It's not about what games they are, it's about the evolution of hardware. If you think that isn't important, you wouldn't be playing the Wii, you'd still be playing the Atari or NES.

The reason 3D graphics were made possible, was because of the interest in an advancing the hardware, not a remote control with motion sensing and a beefed up GameCube. :roll:

Ahh poor poor you, thinking that gaming is only capable of advancing itself through one direction alone :rolleyes: Then again, this is the ps3 board, thinking outside the box isn't exactly a strong point around here.

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/5081/laughingdogwm5.gif

Knuckles126

04-27-2008, 06:04

Ahh poor poor you, thinking that gaming is only capable of advancing itself through one direction alone :rolleyes: Then again, this is the ps3 board, thinking outside the box isn't exactly a strong point around here.

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/5081/laughingdogwm5.gif
Apparently you do as well, otherwise you wouldn't be playing the Wii. But to each their own.

slingblade154

04-27-2008, 07:05

Apparently you do as well, otherwise you wouldn't be playing the Wii. But to each their own.

I also own a 360 http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/9264/laughingdogub8.gif

The only console I'm glad to see utterly dominating 3rd place is the ps3, what with the 360 kicking it firmly in the ass by providing an infinitely more robust online experience and games library, with equivalent graphics and power without all the "you'll take up a 2nd job to buy one" attitude, and the wii kicking BOTH their asses month to month by actually trying to breathe a bit of life into the industry instead of continuing the narrowminded trend of "more horsepower = innovation" that so many of the idiot children on these boards espouse to. At least Microsoft is trying (barely) to offer a better service, but it's ironic you call the wii a repackaged gamecube when it in fact offers a totally different experience from its predecessor, whereas both Microsoft and Sony seemed to think that repackaging the ps2/xbox with "moar presesorz and gigs of ramz!!1!!!", effectively making you play the exact same game experiences of last generation with a shiny new coat of paint, was the next natural evolution of the console industry.

Gamecube 1.5 indeed http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/9264/laughingdogub8.gif

Avrum

04-27-2008, 07:19

They are arguing whether or not playing the Wii is actual gaming. I wasn't pointing that out really, I believe playing the wii 'is' gaming. What I was trying to get across is the concept of narrative. Which funny enough they didn't seem to be arguing about. Narrative is really a defined story. Sports game or party games with a group of people are defined as competition and really isn't a narrative. But just because there isn't a narrative doesn't mean that it isn't a game. But as I was saying above.

Very true, if I misconstrued such a point (I was only going by the article you posted which seemed like the overall basis for your point) then sorry, although I do think I addressed the idea of narrative before, albeit only briefly.

The point that I am getting at is that the wii is shorting its users of an experience. It is not progressive. I mean, the wii has games that are fun and a few that try to have a decent narrative but the immersive factor, the next step is missing. The living breathing environment. All of these aren't mutually exclusive. There really isn't nothing that can be done on the wii that cannot be done by the 360 or PS3 but then that is not true the other way around. GTA4, titles like gears, uncharted, ratchet and clank have these environments that are just "alive". And I think thats what the wii should have been. SMG should have been on the scale of ratchet (can you imagine) zelda should have put oblivion to shame. I just ook at my wii and wonder how much better things would have been if it was even just slightly more powerful. Honestly the people defending the power really confuse me.

This I disagree with... granted, Wii games may not be able to have "as elaborate" as environments among other elements to convey the game world/experience but they can have such elaborate elements all the same. It's not exactly shorting users of an experience if they can in fact get such an experience developed with the Wii in mind. Something on the scale of Bioshock doesn't exactly take away from organic and alien looking/feeling worlds of Metroid Prime 3. A great sense of narrative in story orientation doesn't take away from what elements may exist in Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn as just the same you can still be made to "care" about the characters who live and die in that game. Such things I feel are scalable in a sense because it doesn't detract so much from ability to have software that explores these things even if they aren't on the scale of what you may find in a PS3/360 game for certain obvious reasons. Elaborate and complex games have existed before this generation was underway so there is no reason why such games couldn't exist on Wii either considering there at least a handful of those that in fact do. I don't know very many people who were crying foul of Super Mario Galaxy because it wasn't on the same scale as Ratchet and Clank, overall there is alot more praise thrown around for Galaxy than Ratchet in general so obviously that can't be too critical of a factor determining things like that.

As grand as the experience could potentially be on other consoles it's no guarantee for perceived quality of the title; hence why there are Wii games that have scored higher than PS3/360 games and why certain games in particular were panned. (like Lair for instance) Granted, it was in other areas but what is noted here but it simply shows that the experience is all encompassing and that's the crux of my point. Wii obviously wouldn't be able to deliver a game on the same scale and scope graphically as Ratchet and Clank for instance, but it can still play home to games that manage in some form these things all their own and can be successful at it. If that "missing next step" is so critical then obviously something in Nintendo's regard must be the exception; same must hold true with the idea that Wii owners are being shorted on that front.

Avrum

04-27-2008, 07:38

As for the question of the day Larry, there is no GTA IV on the Wii...'nuff said.

I have to ask... why exactly is that "the question of the day?"

A7MAD

04-27-2008, 08:46

Don't knock the Wii, it's pwning both the Triple and X360 every single day.

Staticneuron

04-27-2008, 12:04

Very true, if I misconstrued such a point (I was only going by the article you posted which seemed like the overall basis for your point) then sorry, although I do think I addressed the idea of narrative before, albeit only briefly.

This I disagree with... granted, Wii games may not be able to have "as elaborate" as environments among other elements to convey the game world/experience but they can have such elaborate elements all the same. It's not exactly shorting users of an experience if they can in fact get such an experience developed with the Wii in mind. Something on the scale of Bioshock doesn't exactly take away from organic and alien looking/feeling worlds of Metroid Prime 3. A great sense of narrative in story orientation doesn't take away from what elements may exist in Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn as just the same you can still be made to "care" about the characters who live and die in that game. Such things I feel are scalable in a sense because it doesn't detract so much from ability to have software that explores these things even if they aren't on the scale of what you may find in a PS3/360 game for certain obvious reasons. Elaborate and complex games have existed before this generation was underway so there is no reason why such games couldn't exist on Wii either considering there at least a handful of those that in fact do. I don't know very many people who were crying foul of Super Mario Galaxy because it wasn't on the same scale as Ratchet and Clank, overall there is alot more praise thrown around for Galaxy than Ratchet in general so obviously that can't be too critical of a factor determining things like that.

As grand as the experience could potentially be on other consoles it's no guarantee for perceived quality of the title; hence why there are Wii games that have scored higher than PS3/360 games and why certain games in particular were panned. (like Lair for instance) Granted, it was in other areas but what is noted here but it simply shows that the experience is all encompassing and that's the crux of my point. Wii obviously wouldn't be able to deliver a game on the same scale and scope graphically as Ratchet and Clank for instance, but it can still play home to games that manage in some form these things all their own and can be successful at it. If that "missing next step" is so critical then obviously something in Nintendo's regard must be the exception; same must hold true with the idea that Wii owners are being shorted on that front.

Ahh no problem. But I was just giving an example when I mention environments. But one has to point out AI, interaction with world, and yes graphical horespower (in terms of gameplay). I praise a certain games not only for their artistic design but also because how they make me feel. And the graphics are apart of that. It lends to the interaction. Take for instance oblivion blew me away with that amount of things you could interact with and the sheer fact that everyone talked. Because of the open and unique nature of the world I really didn't know what to expect when walking into a dungeon. Zelda didn't afford that. And while one can argue design I also think that all devs try to work best with what is given and what is financially viable to do. I seek a break from the mechanics that are pattern based in nintendo games. SMG slightly bucked the trend but could have been done better. I am not saying I hate these games I still enjoyed them and in metroid my fave sequence is the first ridley battle but I cannot help but think that nintendo could really have pulled greatness off with a more powerful console. Something to put the 360 and PS3 to shame.

Baki

04-27-2008, 13:19

Wow. It's like he's the perfect fanboy; he's got no experience, but he heard something that happened to this guy his friend knows, so he's an expert.

The irony is in the whole thing about "we go forward, not back". Not with that kind of fear of change, you don't.
He's a software developer, so him saying we go forward and not back makes perfect sense. I agreed with him on a few points, but IMHO games like No More Heroes, Super Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Bros. would've been more enjoyable on a traditional controller. However games like, Trauma centre are much better on the Wii controller.

The Wii it's a great system, but I can understand why Software Devs would see it as a step back. I mean anyone could've released a motion sensitive controller as a peripheral for a game. But they can't give you a stick of ram with the game, if you catch my drift.

LeisureSuitLarry

04-27-2008, 16:18

Xaor

04-27-2008, 17:13

Mako_Drug

04-27-2008, 17:51

And I could just as easily make an argument that Sony and Microsoft are not making a "natural progression" (what a ridiculous phrase) in gaming because their controllers are virtually the same as last generation.

Progression in terms of videogames 'should' mean more fun. So in terms of fun, the Wii trumps Gamecube. The progression from Sony and MS is in terms of visual and technical advances to immerse the player as opposed to Ninty's casual games = fun.

The real question is what IS more fun, casual or serious games? The answer is different for everyone and hence the market will likely change to suit the two, seemingly very opposite views which frankly the PS2's library combined very effectively over its time...

LeisureSuitLarry

04-27-2008, 19:42

You can make whatever argument you want about progression, it doesn't really matter. The XBOX360 and PS3 make me a million times more happy than the Wii does.

In general, it's reception from the casual audience is great... ... Bravo.

Thing is, I can get something similar to a Wii experience from an XBOX360, or a PS3.

The next generation, all it would take is a peripheral, at which point what does the Wii have? They better hope they can come up with another decent innovation.

Next gen is up in the air for all three consoles. Who knows what to expect. Nintendo could come out with the best graphical system next gen and even more intuitive controls. Probably not....but anything is possible. I am 99% sure both Sony and Microsoft will have motion sensors of some sort next gen (talking more than just sixaxis). Progression has been made by all three consoles in very different areas. Whether one is better or more "natural", depends on the gamer. Like you, I prefer my PS3, but the Wii is such a different sort of gameplay that I have a lot of fun with it as well.

One problem I see for Nintendo is that their key demographic (casual and non-gamers) are probably not going to be the sort to buy a new console every generation. Of course, Nintendo probably won't need to come out with a new console as quickly as Sony and Microsoft considering their current sales.

Nuvian

04-27-2008, 20:37

Im glad that epic arent making a wii game,to be totaly honest thier games are all looks,has been so since the first unreal game in my opinion,the only game that had a half descent story was gears,but the cover system made that game.

Baki

04-27-2008, 20:57

zombieking36

04-27-2008, 21:26

Wii has no hard drive... That is all that matters, no hard drive=less devs thinking about it.

Baki

04-27-2008, 23:39

...Wow, what a dumbѕhit. They sure don't breed them smart around here.
:lol:

Slingblade you again, why do you try so hard? I just have to ask.

Sventax

04-28-2008, 00:29

Typical "Wii is not next-gen" malarky. yawn.

Everyone knows it's not next gen. It's 'side gen' it's sidestepped the usual console advancement and is it's own little (actually quite large) niche.

On a side note:
Give it a rest seebs, Christ.

Well I think it belongs to the Smart-gen.
Take no risk and do your research console.
They did a splendid job

Avrum

04-28-2008, 02:40

Ahh no problem. But I was just giving an example when I mention environments. But one has to point out AI, interaction with world, and yes graphical horespower (in terms of gameplay). I praise a certain games not only for their artistic design but also because how they make me feel. And the graphics are apart of that. It lends to the interaction. Take for instance oblivion blew me away with that amount of things you could interact with and the sheer fact that everyone talked. Because of the open and unique nature of the world I really didn't know what to expect when walking into a dungeon. Zelda didn't afford that. And while one can argue design I also think that all devs try to work best with what is given and what is financially viable to do. I seek a break from the mechanics that are pattern based in nintendo games. SMG slightly bucked the trend but could have been done better. I am not saying I hate these games I still enjoyed them and in metroid my fave sequence is the first ridley battle but I cannot help but think that nintendo could really have pulled greatness off with a more powerful console. Something to put the 360 and PS3 to shame.

Well I'm not accusing you of hating these games or anything, I mean, even if you did I can't exactly tell you you're wrong if that's an opinion you hold. Even so, considering everything in the game to some extent (as mentioned before) you aren't going to find everything on a Wii game that you could in a PS3/360, such as your examples with Oblivion of course, I can understand that much, but a lot of the more basic/ essential things I think very well could be done on Wii. For example, I see no reason why a game like Mass Effect couldn't be done on Wii; would it be as elaborate? For specific reasons, no it wouldn't, but that kind of game wouldn't be impossible to do on Wii. No doubt that with more power much more could be done, Mario Galaxy could look better and the world physics could be much more improved; but the game received quite a few perfect to near perfect scores and I don't recall any serious reviews taking much away from the game when it came to things like graphics or the game's environments right on down to the gameplay. Anything can be better of couse, but you can still get a wholesome experience if such a game is created for the Wii to begin with.

@ Xaor

What ifs don't fly very far... sure, they "could" introduce a new peripheral but how far are they willing to go to make it the feature controller of the system? Not only that, but Wii's success is not just because the controller exists but how games are designed with that controller in mind and how that content is oriented towards the market. If Microsoft or Sony released a Wii remote like device now, what good would it do them if they didn't have the kind of software to push and support as we're seeing with Wii? it's kind of like when MS made it a big deal last E3 about grabbing the casual market, yet the only two games to spawn from that idea were Viva Pinata Party Animals and Scene It. Both games launched with very little to no marketing whatsoever and have been almost pretty much forgotten about it and MS hasn't seemingly made any more strides since that.

You have to do more than just copy what another is doing to benefit from the same ideals, you have to realize every aspect that is attributing to it and capitalize where you can.

Vulgotha

04-28-2008, 03:08

SolidSnakeUS

04-28-2008, 04:05

I think this is kind of a given. They would never do it, they only try to let a lot of other games use their engines, but the Wii can't handle them. Oh well, SSBB is amazing anyways.

Knuckles126

04-28-2008, 05:34

And I could just as easily make an argument that Sony and Microsoft are not making a "natural progression" (what a ridiculous phrase) in gaming because their controllers are virtually the same as last generation.

Not only will Nintendo not be abandoning it, but I fully expect Sony and Microsoft to totally rip it off next gen. That is where your argument goes down in flames, K. Who is going to copy more next gen? Will Sony/Microsoft take more from Nintendo's model? Or vice versa. The answer is obvious whether you wish to admit it or not. So much for your "natural progression".
Yes, you can make that arguement and I don't see anything wrong with it. It's a ridiculous phrase to those who don't understand the concept behind such powerful gaming machines, and the desire to make them more powerful each new generation. The goal is to reach photorealism and at the same time, keep up with the PC's. Also, companies like Microsoft are taking online gaming to the next level.

Online gaming is in high demand right now, and I only see it getting better as new technologies become available. Through new technology, we can create an online structure and marketplace on a much larger scale than what we currently see now with Xbox Live. We can even pull in new crowds of people who perhaps have a Zune and want a digital distribution music service like iTunes or want a virtual world like Home that they can call their own.

The Wii is a great option for kids because they don't care about technology. For people like you, I guess it's just about the fun factor and playing Mario. For me, the Wii is useless because I don't get any fun out of it. I have fun playing online games with other people and games that push the technological envelope. So everyone is different in that regard.

As for my arguement going down in flames, it doesn't because all you can do is make predictions. My arguement was that Nintendo would stick to their winning formula, I'm glad you agree. As for Sony or Microsoft copying Nintendo, well, that is your prediction, not mine. My prediction was that Microsoft and Sony would both continue to install cutting edge techonology in their consoles for generations to come. Considering the fact that it's within their best interests to please their fanbases, I don't see them going 'Wii!' anytime soon...no pun intended. ;)

Avrum

04-28-2008, 07:45

LeisureSuitLarry

04-28-2008, 08:23

Another problem is the that the Wii disc size is half of that of a normal 360 game. (4.5GB). This would limit any kind of "Port jobs" many developers would make to the Wii, and why it is very rare that one sees a game developed on all 3 consoles with identical content (with visual discrepancies).

Some do exist, but is indeed rare.

This would prove difficult for a "Wii Mass Effect" to ever be developed in any way similar to the 360 version. Although downgrade in texture sizes\resolutions and in other graphical areas would certainly help alleviate the pressure for space, it would still, in the end, take a content hit.

Actually the Wii supports 8.5 double sided DVD. Same as 360.

http://maxconsole.net/?mode=news&newsid=8802

Yes, you can make that arguement and I don't see anything wrong with it. It's a ridiculous phrase to those who don't understand the concept behind such powerful gaming machines, and the desire to make them more powerful each new generation. The goal is to reach photorealism and at the same time, keep up with the PC's. Also, companies like Microsoft are taking online gaming to the next level.

No, it is a ridiculous phrase because it is just a matter of opinion, but you attach the word "natural" as if to say any other type of progression is "unnatural". Sony/Microsoft and Nintendo obviously do not share the same goals. It is a bit silly to suggest that Nintendo's progression is unnatural when they are beating the stew out of those striving for "photorealism" in the marketplace.

As for my arguement going down in flames, it doesn't because all you can do is make predictions. My arguement was that Nintendo would stick to their winning formula, I'm glad you agree. As for Sony or Microsoft copying Nintendo, well, that is your prediction, not mine. My prediction was that Microsoft and Sony would both continue to install cutting edge techonology in their consoles for generations to come. Considering the fact that it's within their best interests to please their fanbases, I don't see them going 'Wii!' anytime soon...no pun intended. ;)No, it is in their "best interests" to make money for their stockholders. If you think that will not compel Sony and Microsoft to go "Wii" (that sounds weird) then I think you are looking at this from the wrong perspective as a gamer rather than what it truly is: a business.

Jabjabs

04-28-2008, 10:03

Actually the Wii supports 8.5 double sided DVD. Same as 360.

http://maxconsole.net/?mode=news&newsid=8802

And if you remove 360;s 1gb security files ten the Wii has more space than 360 dies.

Baki

04-28-2008, 12:54

Well I'm not accusing you of hating these games or anything, I mean, even if you did I can't exactly tell you you're wrong if that's an opinion you hold. Even so, considering everything in the game to some extent (as mentioned before) you aren't going to find everything on a Wii game that you could in a PS3/360, such as your examples with Oblivion of course, I can understand that much, but a lot of the more basic/ essential things I think very well could be done on Wii. For example, I see no reason why a game like Mass Effect couldn't be done on Wii; would it be as elaborate? For specific reasons, no it wouldn't, but that kind of game wouldn't be impossible to do on Wii. No doubt that with more power much more could be done, Mario Galaxy could look better and the world physics could be much more improved; but the game received quite a few perfect to near perfect scores and I don't recall any serious reviews taking much away from the game when it came to things like graphics or the game's environments right on down to the gameplay. Anything can be better of couse, but you can still get a wholesome experience if such a game is created for the Wii to begin with.

@ Xaor

What ifs don't fly very far... sure, they "could" introduce a new peripheral but how far are they willing to go to make it the feature controller of the system? Not only that, but Wii's success is not just because the controller exists but how games are designed with that controller in mind and how that content is oriented towards the market. If Microsoft or Sony released a Wii remote like device now, what good would it do them if they didn't have the kind of software to push and support as we're seeing with Wii? it's kind of like when MS made it a big deal last E3 about grabbing the casual market, yet the only two games to spawn from that idea were Viva Pinata Party Animals and Scene It. Both games launched with very little to no marketing whatsoever and have been almost pretty much forgotten about it and MS hasn't seemingly made any more strides since that.

You have to do more than just copy what another is doing to benefit from the same ideals, you have to realize every aspect that is attributing to it and capitalize where you can.
It does fly. Think about it, you can supply a peripheral with a game (a la Guitar Hero) but you can't give a stick of ram with a game. If you catch my drift. Basically the Wii's advantages can be rectified with a peripheral, but the PS3/X360 advantages can't. End of Story.

Avrum

04-28-2008, 13:58

It does fly. Think about it, you can supply a peripheral with a game (a la Guitar Hero) but you can't give a stick of ram with a game. If you catch my drift. Basically the Wii's advantages can be rectified with a peripheral, but the PS3/X360 advantages can't. End of Story.

It doesn't. Granted, you are right on the Wii side of things, but not so much with the alternative. Thing is, simply giving a Wii remote like peripheral with a game on the other systems isn't going to do a whole lot both for the fact that obviously only that game will have any real use for it and the fact that any other use for it would be minimal because devs would be catering to only a small fraction of the userbase that "might" have that particular peripheral. Everyone who buys a Wii will have a Wii remote, thus why the majority of games use it and all things considered being the reason why Wii has that particular advantage.

Oh sure, they "could" introduce such a device, but it likely wouldn't go very far let alone meet whatever advantage/benefit the Wii has seen from its own implementation of the device. Wii with the Wii remote and Guitar Hero with a guitar really aren't the same thing considering one is hardware which is the base for playing those games and one is software to be played on hardware with an additional peripheral.

LeisureSuitLarry

04-28-2008, 15:48

It does fly. Think about it, you can supply a peripheral with a game (a la Guitar Hero) but you can't give a stick of ram with a game. If you catch my drift. Basically the Wii's advantages can be rectified with a peripheral, but the PS3/X360 advantages can't. End of Story.

Sorry....no. The reason is that the Wii's controller is NOT a peripheral. It is a dedicated part of the system. A peripheral will work for a single game or a limited family of games, like Guitar Hero, but an add-on does not emulate the architecture and design that is inherent to the Wii. The Wii was designed from the start with the controller in mind. And even if Microsoft or Sony did throw out a peripheral designed to "rectify" the Wii's advantage.....what games are you going to use it for? Do you really think a lot of devs are going to create dedicated games for a rip-off peripheral that customers may or may not actually buy? Heck no. Microsoft/Sony would probably create some themselves, but you are not going to have mass adoption of this peripheral in which case consumers are not going to buy the thing cuz of the limited game selection. See the problem? It is a catch 22 that cannot be resolved a generation's midstream.

AndyD

04-28-2008, 16:23

Sorry....no. The reason is that the Wii's controller is NOT a peripheral. It is a dedicated part of the system. A peripheral will work for a single game or a limited family of games, like Guitar Hero, but an add-on does not emulate the architecture and design that is inherent to the Wii. The Wii was designed from the start with the controller in mind. And even if Microsoft or Sony did throw out a peripheral designed to "rectify" the Wii's advantage.....what games are you going to use it for? Do you really think a lot of devs are going to create dedicated games for a rip-off peripheral that customers may or may not actually buy? Heck no. Microsoft/Sony would probably create some themselves, but you are not going to have mass adoption of this peripheral in which case consumers are not going to buy the thing cuz of the limited game selection. See the problem? It is a catch 22 that cannot be resolved a generation's midstream.

It can be. The PS one added analog sticks mid gen and devs adapted. PS3 added vibration back inthe past few weeks and between patches and new games its almost like it was never missing.

The point is that it would have to be cheap so that people without it would pick it up, bundled with 1-2 key releases that most people would pick up and included in consoles from now on.

Is it likely to happen? No. It is possible? Yes.

More than likely, what will happen is mass development for the Eye. We have already seen it being capable of tracking an object in your hand and being used as a pointer in tech demos. One thing that was rumored was a small addon to the USB port of the Sixaxis which would emit infrared and be tracked by the Eye. Such a tiny "nub" could be freely distributed by Sony, or included in Eye games or wth the Eye itself. If Sony develops easy API to do the basic tracking, then maybe more games would integrate it into their development.

LeisureSuitLarry

04-28-2008, 16:48

It can be. The PS one added analog sticks mid gen and devs adapted. PS3 added vibration back inthe past few weeks and between patches and new games its almost like it was never missing.

True, but we are not talking about adding functionality to existing controllers. We are talking about adding entirely new controllers as peripherals. How many of the games that devs created after the analog sticks were added REQUIRED the user to have those analog sticks? Or did they allow functionality for users that did not buy the newer controllers? I'm asking cuz I don't know. Rumble is irrelevant since it is never required for gameplay.

The point is that it would have to be cheap so that people without it would pick it up, bundled with 1-2 key releases that most people would pick up and included in consoles from now on.

And even then could it really negate the Wii's advantage as baki suggests? I certainly doubt it.

Is it likely to happen? No. It is possible? Yes.

More than likely, what will happen is mass development for the Eye. We have already seen it being capable of tracking an object in your hand and being used as a pointer in tech demos. One thing that was rumored was a small addon to the USB port of the Sixaxis which would emit infrared and be tracked by the Eye. Such a tiny "nub" could be freely distributed by Sony, or included in Eye games or wth the Eye itself. If Sony develops easy API to do the basic tracking, then maybe more games would integrate it into their development.

Sure. That makes sense. And just like with the EyeToy last gen, some devs will make use of it, some will not. It adds new functionality to an existing system, but it is not functionality inherent to that system. That is where the 360 and PS3 will hit a wall.

seebs

04-28-2008, 17:13

It can be. The PS one added analog sticks mid gen and devs adapted.

Mostly by pretty much ignoring them. I think someone once found an actual example of a game that required analog sticks on the PS1, but it sold under a quarter million copies, so that was pretty much a dead end.

As Wii Fit has shown, you can sell a really unique game which has a custom controller designed for that game. As the various DDR ripoffs have shown, if you try to build a game around a controller, even a controller millions of people have, you will fail in the marketplace.

People have to want your game enough to get it with the controller.

(And, to reiterate: The Wii has the same DVD9 as everyone else. Remember the big to-do over SSBB failing on some machines, because it was the first dual-layer game, and the lenses needed to be cleaned?)

AndyD

04-28-2008, 17:28

As Wii Fit has shown, you can sell a really unique game which has a custom controller designed for that game. As the various DDR ripoffs have shown, if you try to build a game around a controller, even a controller millions of people have, you will fail in the marketplace.

People have to want your game enough to get it with the controller.

I agree. But just like Wii fit, Singstar, DDR and Guitar hero and Rock band, if you make a good game, the controller can be included and that's just fine. A system as it ships does not need to be seen as complete. You can always add functionality via addons and peripherals. And that goes for all systems. Its just that you have to make the peripherals worth it.

I was not disagreeing with the idea that a game specific controller can sell if bundled with the game. And are you saying DDR failed? Or Singstar? Sure theres ripoffs, and then theres successful games, but that goes with everything.

babybell

04-28-2008, 17:40

he goal is to reach photorealism and at the same time, keep up with the PC's.

I would have to disagree about those goals.

Consoles keeping up with PCs? Do you know how quickly the tecnology advances in the PC world right? It is impossiable for a console to keep up with PC advancments.

Striving for photorealism is something the special effects/movie industries are after. For gaming purposes it could prove to be a real hinderence. (For games like GTA, GT and other racers not so much.) Not to mention running that level of detail in real time would require tremendous power.

Its all more down to style too. A photorealistic Mario game would lose the charm of the series.

seebs

04-28-2008, 19:23

I agree. But just like Wii fit, Singstar, DDR and Guitar hero and Rock band, if you make a good game, the controller can be included and that's just fine. A system as it ships does not need to be seen as complete. You can always add functionality via addons and peripherals. And that goes for all systems. Its just that you have to make the peripherals worth it.

They have to be worth it for a single game. And no game other than that can succeed relying on that controller.

I was not disagreeing with the idea that a game specific controller can sell if bundled with the game. And are you saying DDR failed? Or Singstar? Sure theres ripoffs, and then theres successful games, but that goes with everything.

DDR and Singstar both succeeded.

No other games using dance pads or microphones succeeded using those peripherals.

If a game is going to succeed, it has to do one of two things:
1. Be bundled with its special controller, and be so amazing that people spend the extra money anyway.
2. Be completely playable and still fun on the standard controller.

That's it. The DDR/Singstar series can sort of coast on having some versions bundled with controllers, but in general, if you do a game that requires a separate controller, and your game isn't worth the full cost of the game AND the controller, you will fail in the marketplace.

That's why no addon controller has any impact on the current-gen war between controls and CPU power; the Wii will always have the most flexible controller, and Wii-only games will be able to rely on features that games for other platforms cannot rely on. That's it.

AndyD

04-28-2008, 20:22

They have to be worth it for a single game. And no game other than that can succeed relying on that controller.

DDR and Singstar both succeeded.

No other games using dance pads or microphones succeeded using those peripherals.

If a game is going to succeed, it has to do one of two things:
1. Be bundled with its special controller, and be so amazing that people spend the extra money anyway.
2. Be completely playable and still fun on the standard controller.

That's it. The DDR/Singstar series can sort of coast on having some versions bundled with controllers, but in general, if you do a game that requires a separate controller, and your game isn't worth the full cost of the game AND the controller, you will fail in the marketplace.

That's why no addon controller has any impact on the current-gen war between controls and CPU power; the Wii will always have the most flexible controller, and Wii-only games will be able to rely on features that games for other platforms cannot rely on. That's it.

I am still confused. Are we talking about the Wii remote or Wiifit here?

If the remote, then I agree with you that its a standard feature of the console, which can be taken advantage of by all devs, and which can lead to successful and unsuccessful games. And no other console is likely to be able to launch anything as successfully that would give their devs the same liberties on current consoles. But then again all consoles have some advantage that the others do not and which cannot be rectified through any addon or software released. We may see some games using some optional addons but nothing universal of the same scale. If this is it, I misread the previous posts somehow, but I actually agree.

If Wii Fit, then how is that optional peripheral any more successful than say the microphones of Singstar or the pad of DDR? All three are worth the price of admission for a package containing the game and the peripheral together. Surely you cant compare the Fit board and the microphone and say well one has more features than the other, as they address different needs. The board does not record your voice, and the microphone does not record your weight. But there are a number of other peripherals that also came bundled and sold well, guns in Virtua Cop style games, the Eyetoy itself...

seebs

04-28-2008, 21:10

I am still confused. Are we talking about the Wii remote or Wiifit here?

I'm mostly talking about the remote.

Wii Fit is no different, IMHO, from DDR or Singstar or Guitar Hero; it's a game you could make for any platform, because it requires a custom controller but is cool enough to justify it.

If the remote, then I agree with you that its a standard feature of the console, which can be taken advantage of by all devs, and which can lead to successful and unsuccessful games. And no other console is likely to be able to launch anything as successfully that would give their devs the same liberties on current consoles. But then again all consoles have some advantage that the others do not and which cannot be rectified through any addon or software released. We may see some games using some optional addons but nothing universal of the same scale. If this is it, I misread the previous posts somehow, but I actually agree.

Yes, I think we're pretty much in agreement on that.

The difference I see between the remote and, say, the raw horsepower of the PS3 or 360, is that most PS3 or 360 games could be approximated fairly well on the Wii by simply dropping the graphical complexity a whole bunch -- but the essential gameplay would be unchanged. A lot of Wii games can't be played on a PS3 or 360, because you can't just "simplify" the controls while keeping them essentially the same.

It's a very one-sided difference, because controls are much more transformative of gameplay than graphical detail. Changing from 2D to 3D was a big deal; changing from 100k polygons to 500k polygons, or 1M polygons, really isn't.

Baki

04-28-2008, 21:44

Sorry....no. The reason is that the Wii's controller is NOT a peripheral. It is a dedicated part of the system. A peripheral will work for a single game or a limited family of games, like Guitar Hero, but an add-on does not emulate the architecture and design that is inherent to the Wii. The Wii was designed from the start with the controller in mind. And even if Microsoft or Sony did throw out a peripheral designed to "rectify" the Wii's advantage.....what games are you going to use it for? Do you really think a lot of devs are going to create dedicated games for a rip-off peripheral that customers may or may not actually buy? Heck no. Microsoft/Sony would probably create some themselves, but you are not going to have mass adoption of this peripheral in which case consumers are not going to buy the thing cuz of the limited game selection. See the problem? It is a catch 22 that cannot be resolved a generation's midstream.
Firstly, I'm not talking about adoption rates. I'm saying if MS/Sony wanted to offer a similar experience to the consumer they could. I'm not saying all devs would use it, but then again not all Wii games are designed to be used in conjunction with motion sensors(Smash Bros.) and that's a design choice(not saying it doesn't have motion sensing parts in the game, just saying the game is designed for a classic controller). Now if a dev. wanted to make a design choice to include a motion sensor, they could. All they'd have to do is pack it in the game (Guitar Hero).

Now on the other hand, if Nintendo wanted to offer the consumer a similar experience to PS3/X360 they couldn't.

More power gives the Developers more leg room. Not just graphically, but also the AI, the physics and the scope. People keep thinking more power just = better graphics. But what they don't understand is that it's so much more. Could Portal have been done on the Wii, I doubt it. Not with the same level of sophistication.

On the other hand, I do agree that because the Wii-Mote is standard, dev's are more inclined to use it. But that's just like with XBL voice chat, more games have it because a headset is packed in with the Xbox 360. Does that mean the PS3 can't offer something similar, No. And if they definitely want users to interact via a headset, then they can pack it in just like Warhawk.

Bitbydeath

04-28-2008, 21:46

The Wii is great for the gaming industry, it doesn't directly compete with the 360 or PS3 but what it does do is give developers a stepping stone into the market as its much cheaper to make games for and can give developers a name for themselves to later compete in the big leagues.

Being a new dev and jumping straight into the PS3/360 zone would be crazy with the prices around today, so no matter what console you have the Wii is doing good for the gaming industry.

AndyD

04-28-2008, 21:47

The difference I see between the remote and, say, the raw horsepower of the PS3 or 360, is that most PS3 or 360 games could be approximated fairly well on the Wii by simply dropping the graphical complexity a whole bunch -- but the essential gameplay would be unchanged. A lot of Wii games can't be played on a PS3 or 360, because you can't just "simplify" the controls while keeping them essentially the same.

It's a very one-sided difference, because controls are much more transformative of gameplay than graphical detail. Changing from 2D to 3D was a big deal; changing from 100k polygons to 500k polygons, or 1M polygons, really isn't.

I agree on principle.

But I disagree that there are a lot of games that use the Wiimote well enough to where it cannot be equivalented into other consoles. There are only a handful of games where I think the Wiimote was taken advantage of to its fullest (or significantly to where the gameplay would fundamentally change without it). Wii sports, shooting in RE and MP... and few others. Most of the time it seems motion controls are tacked on and would be mappable to a button (which they are when the classic controller or the GC one is an option). And the pointer is not used nearly enough. Its cool in some shooters, but for example in Mario I think it actually removes from the gameplay, and I have played that game for about 20 hours now.

As to what the difference graphics makes, its hard to say. In some games once you play in HD you can never go back. And in some genres, graphics have not affected the quality of the gameplay in a decade. Its all in the eye of the individual player.

unbredraptor

04-28-2008, 22:13

Well ive only read the first page, but lets ask ourselves "What is Next Gen?". Im sure you will get several different answers. That because "Next Gen" is more a matter of opinion rather then a matter of fact. Graphics might be a lot of people's opinon on what Next Gen should be. A lot of people may think Gameplay and innovation is what makes a "Next Gen", Next Gen(Including myself). But the point is, different people think different things define Next Gen. I find it a bit Cheeky of Epic to think of the Wii as just a blah system just because of graphics. I always thought Devolopers thought gameplay and just having fun was more important. I know one thing for sure though, i will not be buying anymore of Epic's games.

The way i look at it, The 360 and PS3 are just another set of consoles with some better graphics. As i said before i think Next Gen is defined by innovation and gameplay. Thats why i love Endless Ocean and consider it, the most Next Gen of all the games i own.

seebs

04-28-2008, 22:42

But I disagree that there are a lot of games that use the Wiimote well enough to where it cannot be equivalented into other consoles.

Of the top of my head:

Anything at all that uses the pointer. PES 2008 -- you could not make this playable on the other systems. SMG -- the star bits stuff would be unplayable on anything else. I don't think you could make a decent Super Paper Mario for the other systems. Wii Sports, obviously.

There are only a handful of games where I think the Wiimote was taken advantage of to its fullest (or significantly to where the gameplay would fundamentally change without it). Wii sports, shooting in RE and MP... and few others. Most of the time it seems motion controls are tacked on and would be mappable to a button (which they are when the classic controller or the GC one is an option).

Ahh, but "mappable to a button" is not the only test.

You can play DDR on a standard controller. You just map the dance-pad buttons to, well, buttons. Done!

... And totally pointless.

And the pointer is not used nearly enough. Its cool in some shooters, but for example in Mario I think it actually removes from the gameplay, and I have played that game for about 20 hours now.

I really like the star bits being separate from the other controls. It works for me.

As to what the difference graphics makes, its hard to say. In some games once you play in HD you can never go back. And in some genres, graphics have not affected the quality of the gameplay in a decade. Its all in the eye of the individual player.

True. But once I get into a game, I just don't care that much about looks; I'm playing, not watching. I watched a friend play Hellgate London for about ten minutes. It looks way better than WoW. Absolutely. Then I went back to WoW, which I find more fun to play.

AndyD

04-28-2008, 23:56

Of the top of my head:

Anything at all that uses the pointer. PES 2008 -- you could not make this playable on the other systems. SMG -- the star bits stuff would be unplayable on anything else. I don't think you could make a decent Super Paper Mario for the other systems. Wii Sports, obviously.

Ahh, but PES is on other consoles, quite successfully. Sure its not perfectly the same, but it is nonetheless. And one could argue that the Wii controls are weaker than the other consoles (as a matter of preference if nothing else).

Ahh, but "mappable to a button" is not the only test.

You can play DDR on a standard controller. You just map the dance-pad buttons to, well, buttons. Done!

... And totally pointless.

Well, you cant compare a peripheral game to a standard controller game. In that game the dancing motion was integral, much like say Wiisports. In wario ware, it would not be nearly as much fun if instead of holding the Wii remote in 20 differnt positions you pressed buttons.
In the majority of Wii games though, the implementation of motion is not much different than presing a button. Its not cool enough to jerk the controller to create an on screen motion that does not follow my physical motion when I could just press a button to get the same effect, much more accurately most of the time. The PS3 gets criticized for its use of such motion implementations, and the Wii is not immune. Some of these things work, but a lot of times its shoehorned in.

True. But once I get into a game, I just don't care that much about looks; I'm playing, not watching. I watched a friend play Hellgate London for about ten minutes. It looks way better than WoW. Absolutely. Then I went back to WoW, which I find more fun to play.

Well its all personal like I said. Down to every game and every genre. Hellgate London is a piece of junk game. Now LOTRO for example trounces on WOW visually and plays much better in my opinion. Driving in GT5P is the same mechanically to the first GT, but visually its leaps and bounds. Playing Doom vs say Resistance, or Halo is infinitely different. Playing the first Ratchet vs. the most recent, its a world of difference. Same with say NHL 98 vs. 08. The mechinics have not changed much, but the graphics leaps and sound leaps are incredible and not reversible. Heavenly Sword was as beautiful to watch as it was to play. Ratchet, Zelda, Silent Hill and Resident Evil type games are wonderful to watch as well. SSSB looks terrible when I watch it, but its great when I play it.

And when I play a game, I get immersed fully, or I try. I want the controls to be good, the graphics to suck me in (be it realistic or artsy, they need to be well done), the sound (Resistance or Uncharted are incredible) and atmosphere all need to be there. One wont work without the others.

And you cant judge games on gameplay without playing them and giving them a chance. Thats like me saying Wii Fit looks stupid from me watching someone for 10 minutes. I have not tried it, so I can't say its dumb. It does not interest me, it has not grabbed me from the trailers and descriptions, but I cant judge it fully without "playing" it for a while.

Staticneuron

04-28-2008, 23:58

And I could just as easily make an argument that Sony and Microsoft are not making a "natural progression" (what a ridiculous phrase) in gaming because their controllers are virtually the same as last generation.

Not only will Nintendo not be abandoning it, but I fully expect Sony and Microsoft to totally rip it off next gen. That is where your argument goes down in flames, K. Who is going to copy more next gen? Will Sony/Microsoft take more from Nintendo's model? Or vice versa. The answer is obvious whether you wish to admit it or not. So much for your "natural progression".

Complaining about controllers in the natural progression of consoles is like complaining about steering wheels in cars. The controllers are fine, and to tell you the truth in essence alot of the wii's and PS3 motion sensing could have been replaced with an anolog or button press. For the most part they are substitutions. It might be more fun to swing around the controller instead of pressing the button but nothing changes the fact that you could be able to do the same thing.

IMO, a progression of games is for the devs to create something that really couldn't have been done before or to do something extremely well. Think about it..... I mean seriously. Most of the wii games can be reduced down to the same patterns each respective titled has created over the years. In terms of problem solving, beating a stage or fighting a boss. I commend the more unique titles of each console but let us admit that they are few and far inbetween.

As a breath of freash air into the industry what is always needed is more unique games. But I don't fully see that on the wii. I see it more as a bid to grab and control the casual market (which they are doing very well).

Personally......... seeing how things are going down, I would not be surprised if sony abandons motion control next gen. The devs aren't that interested in it and when it is implemented it seems to be a nice touch but proves it really isn't needed.

I see the trend of both Sony and MS pushing the technological barrier next generation and I believe Nintendo will do whatever they want to in confidence. These companies haven't been around this long just to misunderstand their core demographic.

seebs

04-29-2008, 02:13

Ahh, but PES is on other consoles, quite successfully. Sure its not perfectly the same, but it is nonetheless. And one could argue that the Wii controls are weaker than the other consoles (as a matter of preference if nothing else).

There are games on the other systems named PES.

They are not the same game. There are many things you can do on the Wii version which cannot be done, at all, in any way on the other versions.

The Wii controls might be argued to be harder to use, but weaker? I don't think so -- it's more flexible across the board.

In the majority of Wii games though, the implementation of motion is not much different than presing a button.

This is true if we include shovelware. It's not true if we look only at the basically decent games.

And you cant judge games on gameplay without playing them and giving them a chance. Thats like me saying Wii Fit looks stupid from me watching someone for 10 minutes. I have not tried it, so I can't say its dumb. It does not interest me, it has not grabbed me from the trailers and descriptions, but I cant judge it fully without "playing" it for a while.

I somewhat agree. FWIW, I have Lair in my bag, and I'm gonna try it out sometime this week. :)

AndyD

04-29-2008, 17:28

There are games on the other systems named PES.

They are not the same game. There are many things you can do on the Wii version which cannot be done, at all, in any way on the other versions.

The Wii controls might be argued to be harder to use, but weaker? I don't think so -- it's more flexible across the board.

This is true if we include shovelware. It's not true if we look only at the basically decent games.

I somewhat agree. FWIW, I have Lair in my bag, and I'm gonna try it out sometime this week. :)

I agree on all accounts. Except you cant pick and choose your games and only look at the good ones, sure you can eliminate the say sub 60%-70% scoring ones, but otherwise you cant narrow it to a handful of greats.

With that, I hope we agree to go back OT.

seebs

04-29-2008, 17:32

AndyD

04-29-2008, 17:57

Why can't you just look only at good games? The question, after all, is whether games for one system can be implemented on another. The moment there are ANY Wii games which can't be implemented recognizably on the PS3 (and there's several), that side of the argument is done.

The question was not if there are any. But if there are enough good ones that take advantage of the included remote and cannot be implemented through an addon controller. So if most Wii games made very good use of the controller, then you would need a Wii. If only say 3 did, then it would be possible to have them implemented with addon controllers and the rest would be easily ported to other consoles, and the Wii remote would remain a novelty isolated to a few good games, just like a Guitar Hero guitar is a novelty isolated to a few games on the other consoles.

The question of whether there are any PS3 or 360 games which can't be implemented recognizably on the Wii is harder. I'd guess that most of them could be graphically simplified and you'd end up with a game which felt and played the same, but didn't look as good.

This is tougher indeed. And it depends on person to person. If you had a PS3 version of Ratchet or Zelda with HD and surround sound and a Wii version with non HD visuals and just stereo, but otherwise virtually identical in gameplay, if you could pick either (owned both consoles)... which would you take?

Bringing it back on-topic: The epic guy's exemplifying fear of change. He's rejecting real change because it's not the familiar progression of similar things he's used to.

I dont think hes afraid of change. I think its mostly that the business model and mentality of his company is move forward in complexity at all times, and the Wii does not fit into their business model. It adds innovative control schemes to consoles, but its not something new to the engine, as PC mouse control is effectively the same as say Wiimote aiming control in their games. So the Wii brings effectively nothing to their drawing table. Their engine already handles what the Wii has and quite well, after all thats where they got their start.

seebs

04-29-2008, 18:23

The question was not if there are any. But if there are enough good ones that take advantage of the included remote and cannot be implemented through an addon controller.

Addon controller doesn't count unless the game is so amazing as to justify the cost of the controller for that one game alone.

So if most Wii games made very good use of the controller, then you would need a Wii. If only say 3 did, then it would be possible to have them implemented with addon controllers and the rest would be easily ported to other consoles, and the Wii remote would remain a novelty isolated to a few good games, just like a Guitar Hero guitar is a novelty isolated to a few games on the other consoles.

But it doesn't work that way! Unless those three games are all games like Guitar Hero or DDR, which people will pay $100 or so to play, NONE of them will be economically viable on other consoles.

And in any event, there's probably ten or more games which are fun to play and cannot be made for the PS3 or 360 already.

This is tougher indeed. And it depends on person to person. If you had a PS3 version of Ratchet or Zelda with HD and surround sound and a Wii version with non HD visuals and just stereo, but otherwise virtually identical in gameplay, if you could pick either (owned both consoles)... which would you take?

If they had identical gameplay, probably the better-looking one. However, "identical gameplay" isn't really on the table. Thus far, the Wii's had utter dominance in gameplay in my experience.

I dont think hes afraid of change. I think its mostly that the business model and mentality of his company is move forward in complexity at all times, and the Wii does not fit into their business model.

Well, exactly. Their business model is to say "look how incredible our progress is", when all they're doing is coasting on the fact that the underlying hardware got 10x faster between releases.

It adds innovative control schemes to consoles, but its not something new to the engine, as PC mouse control is effectively the same as say Wiimote aiming control in their games.

I disagree. I don't think it's the same; there are similarities, but the Wii can do all sorts of things that the mouse can't.

And that's the thing. To take advantage of it, they would have to rethink their product -- not just double all the numbers.

So the Wii brings effectively nothing to their drawing table. Their engine already handles what the Wii has and quite well, after all thats where they got their start.

Their engine doesn't even begin to address the Wii's controls. Look at the huge difference in play between early Wii shooter-type games and the recent MoH game. There's a lot of room here for guesture-based controls (which users consistently love), better integration of pointing, camera control, and so on... And they're ignoring it. Why?

I think it's because they've gotten focused on rendering engines, rather than game engines. They're essentially ignoring controls.

Baki

04-29-2008, 19:56

The question of whether there are any PS3 or 360 games which can't be implemented recognizably on the Wii is harder. I'd guess that most of them could be graphically simplified and you'd end up with a game which felt and played the same, but didn't look as good.

Really, because I really couldn't see MGS 4 being done on the Wii and I'd doubt it'd just look different. The scope and magnitude of the game would take a real hit.

Another one would be, GTA IV. This new one has been totally rebuilt from the beginning, again the intecracy, scope and magnitude would take a hit.

Oblivion, would be another candidate. Fable...the list goes on.

Better Hardware =/= JUST better graphics. It allows legroom for the developers to code more intricate and better game design.

Bringing it back on-topic: The epic guy's exemplifying fear of change. He's rejecting real change because it's not the familiar progression of similar things he's used to.

I'll quote myself to answer this statement.

He's a software developer, so him saying we go forward and not back makes perfect sense.

The Wii it's a great system, but I can understand why Software Devs would see it as a step back. I mean anyone could've released a motion sensitive controller as a peripheral for a game. But they can't give you a stick of ram with the game, if you catch my drift.

Now on the other hand, if Nintendo wanted to offer the consumer a similar experience to PS3/X360 they couldn't.

More power gives the Developers more leg room. Not just graphically, but also the AI, the physics and the scope. People keep thinking more power just = better graphics. But what they don't understand is that it's so much more. Could Portal have been done on the Wii, I doubt it. Not with the same level of sophistication.

On the other hand, I do agree that because the Wii-Mote is standard, dev's are more inclined to use it. But that's just like with XBL voice chat, more games have it because a headset is packed in with the Xbox 360. Does that mean the PS3 can't offer something similar, No. And if they definitely want users to interact via a headset, then they can pack it in just like Warhawk.

Again, anyone can replicate an Input Device. But you can't replicate better hardware on an existing console.

If the developers really wanted to make game with motion sensitive controllers as part as the game design,

They could

A) Make it for the PS EYE
B) Pack in a 3rd Party Peripheral with the game.
c) Make it compatible with Six Axis.

AndyD

04-29-2008, 20:48

I think it's because they've gotten focused on rendering engines, rather than game engines. They're essentially ignoring controls.

Not true. A game engine does physics, AI, and a host of other things in addition to graphics. And that's where the Wii does not hold a candle to the capabilities of the 360 and PS3. It just lacks the raw processing power in addition to lacking the graphical prowess.

I am done with this though. I agree the Wii remote is good, and offers new things, but I am not yet convinced or satisfied that enough games take advantage of it as they should. And the advances of the other consoles far outweigh the advances of the Wii, for me and in my opinion.

Vulgotha

04-29-2008, 20:52

^ In total agreement with Andyd. +Rep.

Though ironically enough A wii shall be in my house relatively soon.... For SSBB only lol.

seebs

04-29-2008, 21:06

Baki

04-29-2008, 21:22

seebs

04-29-2008, 21:36

Really, because I really couldn't see MGS 4 being done on the Wii and I'd doubt it'd just look different. The scope and magnitude of the game would take a real hit.

Exactly how? Compare, say, Heavenly Sword to virtually anything; it's short and simplistic by comparison. Many old games have been absolutely huge in terms of "things to do and places to go", but been able to do this precisely because the graphics were small and simple.

Another one would be, GTA IV. This new one has been totally rebuilt from the beginning, again the intecracy, scope and magnitude would take a hit.

Why? I'm not aware of anything in it other than graphics that exceeds what you could run comfortably on a machine with 16MB of memory back in the day.

Oblivion, would be another candidate. Fable...the list goes on.

I don't know much about Fable, but Oblivion is absolutely trivial as a game. The complexity is ALL in the visual engine and the "AI" -- which is marginally more complicated than the AI in, say, Ultima 6 or so. Seriously, "shopkeepers have schedules" is not a new innovation, nor is "you can watch people going to work".

Better Hardware =/= JUST better graphics. It allows legroom for the developers to code more intricate and better game design.

It does, in theory.

In practice, though, with the costs of graphics going up exponentially, they tend not to. While they could, it's too expensive and projects are over budget already.

Again, anyone can replicate an Input Device.

Doesn't matter. If it doesn't ship with the system, it's irrelevant to the marketplace.

You cannot make a game that requires an addon controller unless it is so amazing as to justify buying the addon. Period.

What that means is that games which require the eye-toy will generally fail, so developers will make alternatives, so the games will end up using it as a purely optional gimmick. You can't design a game which really takes full advantage of a new input device, unless it's something like Guitar Hero, which is awesome enough to make people pay the extra $50. Merely conventionally-fun games can't do that.

But you can't replicate better hardware on an existing console.

And you don't need to, for the most part, as the game concepts people come up with are, by and large, games you could have implemented on the PS2 if you really cared.

If the developers really wanted to make game with motion sensitive controllers as part as the game design,

They could

A) Make it for the PS EYE
B) Pack in a 3rd Party Peripheral with the game.
c) Make it compatible with Six Axis.

A) Dead in the water, economically. You'll never make your money back.
B) Only if your game is awesome enough to justify the extra cost.
C) And if all you want is the very restricted range of motion sensing Sixaxis has, that's great, and works fine. (Indeed, I suspect I'll like Lair a lot more with those controls than with the bodged-on analog stick.)

But this does nothing at all for the 360, and nothing for the PS3 in the case where you want to sense a broader range of motions than you can perform while wearing handcuffs, or use a pointer device.

Nintendo did something that was apparently pretty much unthinkable at this point; they innovated. The N64 failed on being late to the market and the cost of cartridges, but neither the Saturn nor the PSX got a real supply of games which made effective use of analog sticks; that waited for Dreamcast and PS2, when both companies could bundle the analog controller with the system. The Gamecube tried to just compete on power, and failed; no one cared that the gamecube hardware was technically superior. The Wii's back to competing on control innovation, and is utterly dominating the market, because Nintendo got it out in time, at a reasonable price, without the crippling decision to rely on very expensive distribution media.

SharkOutofWater

04-29-2008, 21:53

I don't know much about Fable, but Oblivion is absolutely trivial as a game. The complexity is ALL in the visual engine and the "AI" -- which is marginally more complicated than the AI in, say, Ultima 6 or so. Seriously, "shopkeepers have schedules" is not a new innovation, nor is "you can watch people going to work".

Ok, I dont think he was talking about the schedules and that in this game, but rather theouside world in that game, with how few loadtimes it actually has while walking around. There are a ton of objects on the screen at once, and I think this is where the wii shows its weakness.

I have not seen a game that can compare to the 360/ps3 when it comes to actual objects on the screen and the physics of all those said items (I dont care about the graphics).

I have rented many games for my wii, and while it is a fun system, I dont believe that it really is a step forward, as games on it just dont have the replay value of even previous generations (hopefully this will change)....bah nevermind, I didnt see who I was quoting I surrender now, I want to actually accomplish something tonight outside of the forum instead of hearing the same constant comments that go in circles..

Short form: Wii with ps3/360 hardware = moving forward
Wii as it is, is simply a gamecube with a new controller (and very weak development so far). Great for the casual market.

Baki

04-29-2008, 22:06

Exactly how? Compare, say, Heavenly Sword to virtually anything; it's short and simplistic by comparison. Many old games have been absolutely huge in terms of "things to do and places to go", but been able to do this precisely because the graphics were small and simple.

Why? I'm not aware of anything in it other than graphics that exceeds what you could run comfortably on a machine with 16MB of memory back in the day.

I don't know much about Fable, but Oblivion is absolutely trivial as a game. The complexity is ALL in the visual engine and the "AI" -- which is marginally more complicated than the AI in, say, Ultima 6 or so. Seriously, "shopkeepers have schedules" is not a new innovation, nor is "you can watch people going to work".

So Wii could've had a massive world like Oblivion load seamlessly? I don't think so.

There's also the fact that everything was dynamic in the sense that the enemies levelled up when you did etc...

It does, in theory.

In practice, though, with the costs of graphics going up exponentially, they tend not to. While they could, it's too expensive and projects are over budget already.Instead of utilising the CPU power for graphics, they could concentrate on the AI, physics etc... The argument works both ways.

And this still doesn't negate the fact that "More Power = More Leg Room For Developers"

Doesn't matter. If it doesn't ship with the system, it's irrelevant to the marketplace.

You cannot make a game that requires an addon controller unless it is so amazing as to justify buying the addon. Period.How about Singstar which is now at 12M in PAL alone? Amazing? Well it did get 8's across the board.

Wii Fit?

What that means is that games which require the eye-toy will generally fail, so developers will make alternatives, so the games will end up using it as a purely optional gimmick. You can't design a game which really takes full advantage of a new input device, unless it's something like Guitar Hero, which is awesome enough to make people pay the extra $50. Merely conventionally-fun games can't do that.The point I'm trying to make is, that you could get a similar experience on the PS3/Xbox 360 if the developers wanted to.

And you don't need to, for the most part, as the game concepts people come up with are, by and large, games you could have implemented on the PS2 if you really cared.

Why stop at PS2, we could implement them as text games. That takes 0 power. :p

A) Dead in the water, economically. You'll never make your money back.
B) Only if your game is awesome enough to justify the extra cost.
C) And if all you want is the very restricted range of motion sensing Sixaxis has, that's great, and works fine. (Indeed, I suspect I'll like Lair a lot more with those controls than with the bodged-on analog stick.)

But this does nothing at all for the 360, and nothing for the PS3 in the case where you want to sense a broader range of motions than you can perform while wearing handcuffs, or use a pointer device.

Nintendo did something that was apparently pretty much unthinkable at this point; they innovated. The N64 failed on being late to the market and the cost of cartridges, but neither the Saturn nor the PSX got a real supply of games which made effective use of analog sticks; that waited for Dreamcast and PS2, when both companies could bundle the analog controller with the system. The Gamecube tried to just compete on power, and failed; no one cared that the gamecube hardware was technically superior. The Wii's back to competing on control innovation, and is utterly dominating the market, because Nintendo got it out in time, at a reasonable price, without the crippling decision to rely on very expensive distribution media.I agree, that making the controller standard makes it more economically viable for a developer to use that controller. But that's not really the point I was trying to make, :mrgreen:

Now regarding the Wii, it was a safe bet for Nintendo to make it low powered. It was a low risk high return strategy. Worst case scenario, Nintendo loyalists would've bought the system.

The Wii being low powered had nothing to do with Dev costs for games. They needed it cheap, cheap so that their plan worked and cheap so that there's low risk.

Vulgotha

04-30-2008, 00:13

Well this discussion seems freakishly familiar to me.

w_axon

04-30-2008, 00:53

I'm a pretty hardcore Sony fan who hated Nintendo with a passion but times have changed and I love what they're doing right now. My expectation from PS4 will be extremely high with a nice price tag and thats all thanks to Nintendo.

Need0fOne

04-30-2008, 12:02

Not true. A game engine does physics, AI, and a host of other things in addition to graphics. And that's where the Wii does not hold a candle to the capabilities of the 360 and PS3. It just lacks the raw processing power in addition to lacking the graphical prowess.

I am done with this though. I agree the Wii remote is good, and offers new things, but I am not yet convinced or satisfied that enough games take advantage of it as they should. And the advances of the other consoles far outweigh the advances of the Wii, for me and in my opinion.

AndyD, I'm also not convinced\satisfied with the "wiimote's way". From what I have played so far, it seems apparent to me that "new" control doesn't necessarily mean "better" control or one-fits-all "control" to be applied everywhere.

Both on the PS3 (sixaxis) and the Wii (wiimote), I have been unimpressed with the "contribution" of motion control to my enjoyment of games. On the PS3, I would say that 90% of the times I turn the motion sensing off and use the buttons\thumbsticks instead. For the Wii, the games I've enjoyed the most so far Zelda Twighlight Princess, Resident Evil 4, Okami (all ports\remake of previous gen games...) had waggle added for some action and while it didn't stop me from enjoying the games, I would have turned it off if I could have. To me, to require waggling to launch an attack that used to be done by just a button push is much less precise (since waggling detection is not 100% but the button press is). Same with replacing QTE with waggling motions, it's just silly and prevents me from enjoying games like Resident Evil Umbrella Chronicles where it is overused.

I really wish that Wii developers would get their head straightened out and offer a choice of control and not show Lair-style stubborness. I really like for example how in GTA IV on the PS3 you can enable\disable sixaxis for each function. Alternative control mapping has been done for many generations, why stop now? I'm sure most Wii games could be done with two control layouts if they put a little effort into it. More options mean you catter to more players. They can make waggling the default as long as it's not the only option.

Now the second part of the wiimote which is great is the pointer function. If Sony\Microsoft were to add any wii-functionality to their console, it should be the pointing function: great for FPS, RTS and unique games like Okami and The World Ends With You.

As for the subject of graphics\physics engine, each console is inline with the two different markets that they aim for. That's why going back to the start of this thread, that it makes sense for a developper (Epic here) whose games target teens and young adults to prefer the consoles that sport the high-res graphics that this audience craves for. In reality, there's probably just as many developers that would say they only want to make PS2\Wii games and will "never" make 360\PS3 games; it might just not address their targeted customer base. Neither side is wrong, they just have different point of view.