Support NeoGAF

[Zerachiel]

I see what HK-47 is saying and I agreee with him.

One of the main reasons I want the Wii to be successful is so we can se developers create new and different gameplay experiences from what we're seeing now, not just the same things with waggle involved. This is part of the reason why I understand why 3rd party developers haven't been quick on the uptake for Wii: last gen efforts and mentality aren't going to make a blockbuster Wii game, and by extension, prettier graphics and waggle won't either. We shouldn't be crying for GTA IV Wii, we should be calling for something completely new and different, something befitting of the Wii.

This isn't to say that we can't look to what's already been done to move forward; part of the reason I love Godfather was because it took a last-gen idea and added a great gameplay mechanic to it. However, if I were to clamor for a sequel (which I am) I want them to make the effort with the Wii in mind instead of taking an existing product and waggling it up again. That only works so many times.

In a way, it's just like when the 360 first debuted; it's first titles were warmed over last gen efforts that were good at the time, but when devs got time with the system we were starting to see the 360's strengths showcased. Wii, in principle, should be no different.

I'm not sure if we should restrict wiimote usage to entirely new experiences, but we should restrict it to experiences which are better for the involvement of waggle. After all, both RE4 and MP3 were titles that either were or could have been done on last gen consoles with ease, but the games were greatly improved by the Wiimote.

 

[Pureauthor]

So you're saying console manufacturers no longer need to make improvements on their hardware because it will only increase the cost of development and turn people away? If that is the case, why bother releasing another console?

Because a new generation restarts the markets and allows all the manufacturers to be set back to a (more) equal footing. There's a reason why the losers are always the first to show their new console, you know.

 

[Zerachiel]

So you're saying console manufacturers no longer need to make improvements on their hardware because it will only increase the cost of development and turn people away? If that is the case, why bother releasing another console?

Outside of improvements to controls, like the Wii.... there isn't really a reason. Something I'd very much welcome, personally.

 

[SapientWolf]

Outside of improvements to controls, like the Wii.... there isn't really a reason. Something I'd very much welcome, personally.

But if that is the case, why would they ever need to release a new console just to improve the controls?

 

[Deku]

While the Wii is dominating hardware sales, this comment is a bit out of line when regarding the 360.

The system has the highest tie ratio in history relative to its lifespan. How are this busines model unsustainable? At least in the USA, Xbox 360 is making 3rd parties a ton more money than the Wii is.

A number of factors. Hardware subsidies and software subsidies. And I don't know what can be construed as a ton more money. With the software prices as they are, there will certainly be an increase in total revenue given the same number of unit sales, but unit costs also go up.

I'm not saying game's don't sell, I'm saying the cost structures, pricing structures relative to what actually sells and how much money is being pumped into these games directly from Microsoft and Sony gives a wonky picture. Games that would otherwise not be greenlit but were developed anyways might go on to sell a million copies, but just break even. Look at Motorstorm.

That is not sustainable in the long term because no company is going to keep doing that. Granted each hardware manufacturer will always have loss leaders on their portfolio of games, the scale of the project this generation is quite different than in previous cycles and they are taking a hit on both ends, and with much larger losses per unit. It used to be just losing money on hardware and maybe losing money on the premiere launch title because the installed base won't be big enough to support the scope and cost of the game. We're now in a situation where flagship games may not breakeven, 2-3 years into a cycle and people are using the 10 year plan to wish away the inevitability of the reaper coming to collect on the debts.

That said, third parties who by sheer volume have enough content on both the PS3 and 360 will make money but is it a higher return than they had previously? Can most other developers even have a reasonable chance of profitability? Or do we expect $10 to 15 million gambles each and every time for games to have a chance to chart?

That's not sustainable.

A lot of gamers have enjoyed their free lunches so far. Buying heavily discounted cutting edge hardware to play a subsidized title like Gears means someone will be paying for it. Right now Microsoft and Sony are biting the bullet. Do you sincerely expect this will last? And even when they start to pull into the black, they will also require a rate of return on their money. It's not so simple as 'oh they finally made fifty million last quarter, lets call it even. thanks for the 2 billion dollar lunch.'

I know the discussion has often come down to pro-HD or anti-Wii, but the right business model is the one Sony operated under for the PSone and PS2 which no one had a problem with until Sony decided they wanted to lose billions too with the PS3. If you look at the ecosystem for the DS, it's healthy because there's money on the table for everyone without the hardware manufacturer constantly interfering with game development by buying games from developers and it actually has the best variety and selection of games of any active platforms today.

 

[Neo C.]

So you're saying console manufacturers no longer need to make improvements on their hardware because it will only increase the cost of development and turn people away? If that is the case, why bother releasing another console?

You can improve your hardware on different aspects, adding more raw performance is just one of them.
I think the main focus in the next gen should be to make the job of the developer as easy as possible. For example the programming on the PS3 is quite difficult, therefore more tools are needed, bottlenecks should be eliminated etc. Also a faster blu-ray-drive is always a good thing. In short: Find ways to improve your hardware without causing higher development costs.

 

[_Alkaline_]

Someone said earlier that Metroid Prime 3 had surpassed the sales of MP1 and MP2, is this true? If so, can I get some numbers? Thanks

AFAIK, Prime 3 was surpassed Echoes and is around 1.4 million these days. But it won't reach Prime.

I haven't played my Wii since No More Heroes (and RE4 before that).

I bought a Wii and it hasn't been all that interesting/fun.

Nintendo is making a bunch of money. Heck, all game companies are making a bunch of money. Why do you care so much who makes the most money?

Shit dude, no Brawl, Okami or Boom Blox?

 

[gofreak]

You can improve your hardware on different aspects, adding more raw performance is just one of them.
I think the main focus in the next gen should be to make the job of the developer as easy as possible. For example the programming on the PS3 is quite difficult, therefore more tools are needed, bottlenecks should be eliminated etc. Also a faster blu-ray-drive is always a good thing. In short: Find ways to improve your hardware without causing higher development costs.

You need to justify the move to a new hardware and software platform for the customer too, though. Focussing just on developers or a faster BD drive won't do that.

Providing a new experience for the customer will usually mean a change for developers to get used to.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

He doesnt take into account physics and AI that affect gameplay

Actually, I do. But the vast majority of HD titles currently are just last gen games in a higher res, with additional post-processing effects and ragdoll physics.

If you were arguing for why something like Oblivion (with it's sometimes impressive and sometimes laughable radiant AI) or Portal (with it's incredible physics, even with their slight cheating with physics 'bubbles') weren't possible, you'd have a better point.

But most games aren't Oblivion or Portal. As I said, as long as HD games continue to be iterations of previous games and genres with merely aesthetic improvements, it becomes harder to really justify the budgets of HD only titles, and even harder for anyone but the biggst graphics whores to justify HD consoles.

Which is an opinion that sales seem to support. For the record, I own a Wii, a 360 and a PS3 and I would much prefer to see newer original gameplay types that blow me away technically than playing a game or genre I got bored with years ago but this time in higher res with some token ragdolls.

completely disagree

I don't dispute that physics can be a core gameplay component - I dispute that for the vast majority of games I've played, it is anything but salad dressing.

Hell, Boom Blox has more integral use of Physics than 99% of PS3 or 360 titles out there right now.

You're being excessively myopic here.

A game is an experience. You cannot reduce it to merely the input rendered by the player and the one rendered on-screen; you have to view the game holistically. The bottom line is that what makes a lot of games worthwhile is their immersion, and yes, their visual appeal. Could Bioshock's gameplay mechanics have been transferred to the Wii? Absolutely. Could its haunting atmosphere ad visceral violence that made the game worth playing? Some of it undoubtedly, but a lot of it came from technical improvements in the 360.

No, a game is a game. Taking your argument to its extremes, you are saying that SF2HD could not be done on anything except a 360 or a PS3, because they are the only consoles capable of displaying a 720p and upwards image.

Does that mean that Streetfighter 2 can not exist as the exact same game in lower res?

And yes, Bioshock could be done on a lower technically specced console, just not as it is now using UE3.

Bioshock is probably one of the worst examples you could have picked actually, as the vast majority of its atmosphere come from static non interactive props (which can be faked with pre-rendered backdrops and lowpoly models with higher res texture like REmake did on the GC) and from high quality writing (which is about the most platform agnostic piece of any game possible)

 

[Neo C.]

You need to justify the move to a new hardware and software platform for the customer too, though. Focussing just on developers or a faster BD drive won't do that.

Providing a new experience for the customer will usually mean a change for developers to get used to.

I'm aware of this, though I only answer his question about hardware improvement. Of course you need some systemsellers (either hardware or software) to justify the jump, like Nintendo did with the Wii.

 

[Arde5643]

Bioshock is probably one of the worst examples you could have picked actually, as the vast majority of its atmosphere come from static non interactive props (which can be faked with pre-rendered backdrops and lowpoly models with higher res texture like REmake did on the GC) and from high quality writing (which is about the most platform agnostic piece of any game possible)

Your comments about Bioshock is probably one of the most cynical hardcore gamer comments I've seen, which I unfortunately, have to agree so badly.

I think Bioshock is a good game, but compared with games like Thief, System Shock 2, and Deus Ex - it doesn't really revolutionize games in any way like some critics are saying.

And there's still a game called Planescape:Torment that until now no game (even the very lauded story of Bioshock) can reach the pinnacle greatness of its interactive storytelling.

There is 1 game that I will have to give as evolutionary of the genre - Portal. It's evolutionary not so much because of hardware limitation, but rather the experience developers have with physics engine.

Mario Galaxy arguably is also an evolutionary game in terms of gameplay and camera for 3D platformers.

PES:Wii is also without doubt can be considered either a big evolution or small revolution of how team based sports games should be played and controlled.

Other than that, I'm still waiting for an RPG that can emulate such a vibrant and breathing world of Ultima 7 - and no, Oblivion still doesn't come close to that IMO.

So yeah, the so-called HD generation hasn't been too impressive for the so called revolution or evolution of the gaming genres.

 

[Kunan]

vvv whoops vvv

 

[Kunan]

Still wont change. Look at how many 3rd party wii games are on the list. This is the reason why they will continue to not support the platform the way they support x360/ PS3.

So crappy ports and shovelware on the wii states that wii owners wont buy good games? Usually the only 3rd party wii games that chart are actually of quality, and 3rd parties will notice that. So if Hanna Montana for 360 didn't sell well, then that means that Call of Duty will be cancelled for 360? Cause that's the analogy you're making.

Or maybe they won't, and they are as retarded as all the ridiculous "pure gaming"/"core gaming"/"hardcore gaming" self-proclaimed gaming blue-bloods that swamp the internet's message boards. God there are alot of people so far up their own ass they can see light again.

god this is so depressing...seriously us hardcore gamers are going the way of the dinosaurs. a couple hardware generations from now its gonna be a Nintendo dominated, casual saturated market. well ive enjoyed my hardcore games for the last few years, but soon all the games i love will give way to "casual" games for the dumbed down casual gamer. thanks alot moms of the world

edit: not really being serious here...but i want the hardcore market to be the most financially viable market, so that way we get the most attention.

umm if nintendo takes over, devs will just make their core games for the wii. I really wouldnt worry about those games ever dissappearing. Sure theres money in casual games, but developers will always make exactly what they want, and tons dont want to do that. Publishers may put the crunch on, but there's no way they'll go the way of the dodo. A lack of graphics would definently hurt a decent number of games, but it's not the end of the world. After all, we seemed to manage with it since 2000 didn't we?

pssst... I have a secret to tell you

Spoiler

No it's not

The fact that people can't realize that GTA is a casual-heavy series is because of their distorted stereotypes that casual games only involve training your brain. GTA 3/vice city/san andreas sold MASSIVELY to casual gamers, caught up in the hype, controversy and the exciting sandbox gameplay potential. But of course anything with guns and rated M gameplay equals instant-hardcore gaming? No way. Casual gamers bought the ps2 in droves JUST TO PLAY GTA, just like Wii Sports which followed it. People are just so short-sighted, seriously.

It can be treated as a hardcore game of course, but it's nowhere near being exclusively one.

So a mediocre Mario Kart outsold an amazing GTA game on the PS3?

Sad times these are.

Play it yet? Yes the graphics suck, but there's a lot that's new to it. Funny how you also use a game like GTA as your counter-argument; a game which lately has been all about the evolutionary and not about the revolutionary (just like mario kart).

Another win by the Playstation Fami...wait what?

Nintendo buying NA after Japan??

If it makes Sony stop this new Sony Family bull then I'm all for it


For all the mentions of GTA 4 being out only a couple days, it's gotta be pointed out that Mario Kart Wii was just out a total of 2 days earlier. Wii rode Mario Kart just as much as the 360 and ps3 rode GTA, not to mention the release of Wii Fit next month.



Fanboy disclaimer: I hate nintendo's underpowered-ness too, FYI. I'm also not a fan of it's horrendous online system. Mario Kart is a step in the right direction, but we need more of a massive leap, maybe with the aid of stilts, to get up to the standards I wish for. I respect the tools and environment that sony and microsoft provide to devs, and am soon to be the proud owner of a 360 as well (I want to explore XNA game development on it).

 

[Sir Alemeth]

The small circle which buys a ton of games and is non existant on the Wii.

I wouldn't say it's non existant. I have a Wii and owns over 25 games for it.

 

[Kunan]

I wouldn't say it's non existant. I have a Wii and owns over 25 games for it.

not to mention the attach rate for the wii is much higher than people give it credit for, excluding wii play.

 

[Arde5643]

I wouldn't say it's non existant. I have a Wii and owns over 25 games for it.

You're not part of the circle being discussed in the arguments here, friend.

Your kind of people is non-existant because we know the only ones who buy 3rd party games are Nintendo employees who have too much money to spend.

 

[Lord Error]

A lot of gamers have enjoyed their free lunches so far. Buying heavily discounted cutting edge hardware to play a subsidized title like Gears means someone will be paying for it.

Bad example to prove your point IMO. Gears was purchased by millions and millions of people, that game must have been hugely profitable for Epic. It actually goes to prove that big games with big budgets (and smart timing and marketing) can be really successful.

Also, earlier you've been saying that only a limited number of big studios and big games sell really well on PS360. Fine, those studios should keep making their big games that sell well - others that can't make such big selling games should either learn to do so, or start making other kinds of games that won't require as many resources and won't have as much risk involved.

I know the discussion has often come down to pro-HD or anti-Wii, but the right business model is the one Sony operated under for the PSone and PS2 which no one had a problem with until Sony decided they wanted to lose billions too with the PS3.

PS3 business models seems exactly the same to me as it was on PS2. Lose craploads of money upfront to make it up later on. Did you forget how much money they invested in PS2 R&D, and for how long it was discussed that it wasn't the right thing to do etc. PS3 was exact same thing, only this time Sony wasn't able to dominate market and make money hand over fist so soon like the last time, because of the competition they have this time around.

 

[Sir Alemeth]

You're not part of the circle being discussed in the arguments here, friend.

Your kind of people is non-existant because we know the only ones who buy 3rd party games are Nintendo employees who have too much money to spend.

My sarcasm detection is broke.

 

[Bending_Unit_22]

As for the third parties on the Wii debate, I think a key thing to remember is that many gamers this generation will only have a Wii. Of course that will vary by region and type of gamer, but it will largely remain true. GranTurismo, Smash Bros, Halo, GTA and so forth didn't get all or even most of their sales from the "hard core" gamer who currently owns all three next gen systems, dozens upon dozens of games on the million plus list last gen did so even less. The longer third parties ignore this reality, the longer they leave money on the table for Nintendo to collect.

Since 3rd parties essentially have to make an entirely new game on the Wii anyways, I think one thing they should do more is make an entirely different Wii version that is connected in some way.

Since I know the story, I'll use RE4 as an example. RE4(a) on the PS360 would be the game we know. RE4(b) on the Wii would be played as Ada doing whatever she did, with both having story elements that expand upon each other. Then people who only own one system or who don't care about the franchise that much and have a system of choice are both happy and the die hard fans would buy both games making them and the 3rd party happy.

Another example would be 2 Castlevania games set in different time frames but again with links. So as the playing the PS360 game set in 2300, you'd be finding out about events that occurred in 1300. The Wii game would be in 1300 and portend events in 1000 years later. So again, both games would be full stand alone games that owners of one system or gamers who only care enough to buy 1 copy would be happy about, while dedicated fans would get a bigger experience by playing both.

Of course there are plenty of other ways to link two seperate games, but I do think though that a lot of games could be largely straight ported to the Wii (which is good since not every franchise is popular enough to make 2 seperate games worthwhile). Some could see a big improvement thanks to controls as PES08 shows for sports games, Zack&Wiki/BoomBlox for puzzlers, and Mario Galaxy for platformers. There are more genres that could benefit though, wheres an RTS? or a plain simulation/strategy game? a tactical squad based shooter (how I'd like to direct a squad with the wiimote in Rainbow6)? A good online shooter?

Then of course they could do exclusive games that the wiimote really enhances. How about a helicopter/millenium falcon game now that the target reticule is completely free. The tactical squad based concept could be expanded to a platoon sized affair. An action/platformer that made full use of analog/motion/IR at the same time (Mario Galaxy kind of did that a little). Another game could be a freakishly difficult schmup where the ships position is handled via IR, or where you have a ship and an IR controlled shield with even more freakish difficulty. I could go on, but you get the idea, something original.

 

[Mr Epic]

All I hear is a lot of whining by many of you because Wii is mopping the floor with your console of choice. Get over it! Wii is number one, will continue to be, and MS/Sony are in some real trouble.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

But even Godfather, which I hear has decent waggle controls, is just a PS2 game with them tacked on. You should want new experiences, cause isnt that the mantra of the Wii?

It can do the old. It can do the new. It can do the old in a new way. It can directly emulate the especially old. Pigeonholing it into one thing as what it's supposed to discredit the rest as superfluous is silly.

 

[RJT]

As for the third parties on the Wii debate, I think a key thing to remember is that many gamers this generation will only have a Wii. Of course that will vary by region and type of gamer, but it will largely remain true. GranTurismo, Smash Bros, Halo, GTA and so forth didn't get all or even most of their sales from the "hard core" gamer who currently owns all three next gen systems, dozens upon dozens of games on the million plus list last gen did so even less. The longer third parties ignore this reality, the longer they leave money on the table for Nintendo to collect.

Since 3rd parties essentially have to make an entirely new game on the Wii anyways, I think one thing they should do more is make an entirely different Wii version that is connected in some way.

Since I know the story, I'll use RE4 as an example. RE4(a) on the PS360 would be the game we know. RE4(b) on the Wii would be played as Ada doing whatever she did, with both having story elements that expand upon each other. Then people who only own one system or who don't care about the franchise that much and have a system of choice are both happy and the die hard fans would buy both games making them and the 3rd party happy.

Another example would be 2 Castlevania games set in different time frames but again with links. So as the playing the PS360 game set in 2300, you'd be finding out about events that occurred in 1300. The Wii game would be in 1300 and portend events in 1000 years later. So again, both games would be full stand alone games that owners of one system or gamers who only care enough to buy 1 copy would be happy about, while dedicated fans would get a bigger experience by playing both.

Of course there are plenty of other ways to link two seperate games, but I do think though that a lot of games could be largely straight ported to the Wii (which is good since not every franchise is popular enough to make 2 seperate games worthwhile). Some could see a big improvement thanks to controls as PES08 shows for sports games, Zack&Wiki/BoomBlox for puzzlers, and Mario Galaxy for platformers. There are more genres that could benefit though, wheres an RTS? or a plain simulation/strategy game? a tactical squad based shooter (how I'd like to direct a squad with the wiimote in Rainbow6)? A good online shooter?

Then of course they could do exclusive games that the wiimote really enhances. How about a helicopter/millenium falcon game now that the target reticule is completely free. The tactical squad based concept could be expanded to a platoon sized affair. An action/platformer that made full use of analog/motion/IR at the same time (Mario Galaxy kind of did that a little). Another game could be a freakishly difficult schmup where the ships position is handled via IR, or where you have a ship and an IR controlled shield with even more freakish difficulty. I could go on, but you get the idea, something original.

Too much wisdom for GAF.

 

[Cheez-It]

A number of factors. Hardware subsidies and software subsidies. And I don't know what can be construed as a ton more money. With the software prices as they are, there will certainly be an increase in total revenue given the same number of unit sales, but unit costs also go up.

I'm not saying game's don't sell, I'm saying the cost structures, pricing structures relative to what actually sells and how much money is being pumped into these games directly from Microsoft and Sony gives a wonky picture. Games that would otherwise not be greenlit but were developed anyways might go on to sell a million copies, but just break even. Look at Motorstorm.

That is not sustainable in the long term because no company is going to keep doing that. Granted each hardware manufacturer will always have loss leaders on their portfolio of games, the scale of the project this generation is quite different than in previous cycles and they are taking a hit on both ends, and with much larger losses per unit. It used to be just losing money on hardware and maybe losing money on the premiere launch title because the installed base won't be big enough to support the scope and cost of the game. We're now in a situation where flagship games may not breakeven, 2-3 years into a cycle and people are using the 10 year plan to wish away the inevitability of the reaper coming to collect on the debts.

That said, third parties who by sheer volume have enough content on both the PS3 and 360 will make money but is it a higher return than they had previously? Can most other developers even have a reasonable chance of profitability? Or do we expect $10 to 15 million gambles each and every time for games to have a chance to chart?

That's not sustainable.

A lot of gamers have enjoyed their free lunches so far. Buying heavily discounted cutting edge hardware to play a subsidized title like Gears means someone will be paying for it. Right now Microsoft and Sony are biting the bullet. Do you sincerely expect this will last? And even when they start to pull into the black, they will also require a rate of return on their money. It's not so simple as 'oh they finally made fifty million last quarter, lets call it even. thanks for the 2 billion dollar lunch.'

I know the discussion has often come down to pro-HD or anti-Wii, but the right business model is the one Sony operated under for the PSone and PS2 which no one had a problem with until Sony decided they wanted to lose billions too with the PS3. If you look at the ecosystem for the DS, it's healthy because there's money on the table for everyone without the hardware manufacturer constantly interfering with game development by buying games from developers and it actually has the best variety and selection of games of any active platforms today.

Excellent post. I really wonder how someone with even a minimal understanding of what goes on behind the scenes would not understand or agree with this.

You also have to factor on top issues that arise from these games like employee satisfaction. How would you like it if you were assigned to realistically render the sweat on some big name sports title?

 

[manueldelalas]

I haven't played my Wii since No More Heroes (and RE4 before that).

I bought a Wii and it hasn't been all that interesting/fun.

Why don't you buy a new game then?

 

[Anth]

You're being excessively myopic here.

A game is an experience. You cannot reduce it to merely the input rendered by the player and the one rendered on-screen; you have to view the game holistically. The bottom line is that what makes a lot of games worthwhile is their immersion, and yes, their visual appeal. Could Bioshock's gameplay mechanics have been transferred to the Wii? Absolutely. Could its haunting atmosphere ad visceral violence that made the game worth playing? Some of it undoubtedly, but a lot of it came from technical improvements in the 360.

I see your point and raise you System Shock 2.

There have been relatively few games that absolutely need the advances of this gen, both in terms of power, as in terms of control.

There is Half Life 2, which needs its physics (mostly because it introduced them), Wii Sports, which has really only the control scheme and nothing else going for it, and ... well, I cannot think of any other stand-out game, honestly.
There are scenes and features that couldn't have been done, but for most big new games, I believe a less visually impressive version last gen would have worked and been popular. Bioshock to System Shock 2 is the best example. Even Supreme Commander could probably have been done, if it weren't so pretty (which doesn't do anything anyway, because most people see their units as icons during most of the gameplay).

edit: Thinking about it, this may be a bit too harsh. Many Wii games benefit from new control schemes, and of course every game benefits from being prettier. It's just that, seeing how most of us can go back to playing DS games easily, I don't think the "next-gen" is really all that different from "last-gen".

 

[Weisheit]

Why don't you buy a new game then?

Cause then he couldn't use that stupid "Wii has no games" argument.

 

[bigmakstudios]

The fact that people can't realize that GTA is a casual-heavy series is because of their distorted stereotypes that casual games only involve training your brain. GTA 3/vice city/san andreas sold MASSIVELY to casual gamers, caught up in the hype, controversy and the exciting sandbox gameplay potential. But of course anything with guns and rated M gameplay equals instant-hardcore gaming? No way. Casual gamers bought the ps2 in droves JUST TO PLAY GTA, just like Wii Sports which followed it. People are just so short-sighted, seriously.

I'm pretty sure we aren't talking about the target audience here, but rather, the depth of the game play itself. GTA 4 is a game in which you could directly influence the character's movement and a variety of other gameplay elements like shooting, hand to hand combat, carjacking, driving, etc, at any given time. Furthermore, it's a story based, goal oriented game. Wii Sports, on the other hand, allows you to hit tennis balls if you waggle at the right time.

 

[Nocebo]

[...]

I think what can be concluded is that perhaps tech doesn't have to advance as fast as possible. There only reason why certain people don't accept Wii visuals is because it's been the standard to increase tech in fairly big leaps over last gen.

I agree with others that tech doesn't help gameplay as much as it should for most games. Is FF XIII really millions of dollars more fun than FF VI? I enjoyed Half life 1 more than Half Life 2, even though 2 had fancy physics tech. I probably got more enjoyment out of phoenix wright than Crysis.
This is all relative of course, but what I'm trying to say is: better tech doesn't have to equal more fun and big leaps in tech aren't required to keep games interesting. New ideas should be used to make games interesting.

What better tech (visuals/cosmetic physics/etc.) actually does is trick your brain into thinking that buying the same game you played last gen is worth your money... again.

 

[Chû Totoro]

I didn't take the time to read the NPD threads for a long time but i'm surprised to see how it turned. There's a lot of good, interesting posts here.
I'm not a really big fan of sales (even if I always found it fun when everybody was doing troll fights) but the market analysis that some are doing is very nice to read.
I'm happy to see some good quality GAF.
Thanks !

 

[jarrod]

I'm pretty sure we aren't talking about the target audience here, but rather, the depth of the game play itself. GTA 4 is a game in which you could directly influence the character's movement and a variety of other gameplay elements like shooting, hand to hand combat, carjacking, driving, etc, at any given time. Furthermore, it's a story based, goal oriented game. Wii Sports, on the other hand, allows you to hit tennis balls if you waggle at the right time.

Wii Sports is goal oriented too (as are any competitive sports games), and it also includes a variety of gameplay mechanics... in the "hit tennis ball if you waggle at the right time" subgame there's five different types of swings depending on how you move the remote, timing and angles come hugely into play, there's different types of serves... and then there's also 4 different other subgames (Boxing, Golf, Baseball, Bowling) each with their own curves and complexities. Wii Sports most often gets discounted by those who've barely touched it, but there's a deeper game in there than usually given credit for.

The only real difference you've drawn here between GTA4 and Wii Sports is the "story based" caveat... though I'm not sure what that really has to do with depth of gameplay? Is Tetris not deep because it lacks a convincing narrative? Is Chess? :lol

 

[Redd]

The last few pages have been well thought out posts for the most part. Was kind of hoping for more breakdowns, but this is good too.

 

[Pureauthor]

I didn't take the time to read the NPD threads for a long time but i'm surprised to see how it turned. There's a lot of good, interesting posts here.
I'm not a really big fan of sales (even if I always found it fun when everybody was doing troll fights) but the market analysis that some are doing is very nice to read.
I'm happy to see some good quality GAF.
Thanks !

That's usually the way the threads go. The first 2000 or so posts are pure nerd rage and fanboy gushing. When emotions have settled a bit some decent discussion can be had.

 

[Zerachiel]

No, a game is a game. Taking your argument to its extremes, you are saying that SF2HD could not be done on anything except a 360 or a PS3, because they are the only consoles capable of displaying a 720p and upwards image.

Does that mean that Streetfighter 2 can not exist as the exact same game in lower res?

And yes, Bioshock could be done on a lower technically specced console, just not as it is now using UE3.

The question is whether the experience of playing the game is significantly enhanced by making the graphics better, and in the case of SF, I have to say no, to the point where the experience of playing each one is similar enough that one could call them the same game.

Bioshock is probably one of the worst examples you could have picked actually, as the vast majority of its atmosphere come from static non interactive props (which can be faked with pre-rendered backdrops and lowpoly models with higher res texture like REmake did on the GC) and from high quality writing (which is about the most platform agnostic piece of any game possible)

We'll just have to agree to disagree here, but are you really of the opinion that no advances in technology can help developers establish a tone or a modd for their games which makes the overall game better?

But if that is the case, why would they ever need to release a new console just to improve the controls?

Because it will sell. I think the Wii vs. gamecube sales have amply demonstrated that an improvement in control scheme can sell quite as many consoles as an improvement in graphics.

 

[beef3483]

Wii Sports is goal oriented too (as are any competitive sports games), and it also includes a variety of gameplay mechanics... in the "hit tennis ball if you waggle at the right time" subgame there's five different types of swings depending on how you move the remote, timing and angles come hugely into play, there's different types of serves... and then there's also 4 different other subgames (Boxing, Golf, Baseball, Bowling) each with their own curves and complexities. Wii Sports most often gets discounted by those who've barely touched it, but there's a deeper game in there than usually given credit for.

The only real difference you've drawn here between GTA4 and Wii Sports is the "story based" caveat... though I'm not sure what that really has to do with depth of gameplay? Is Tetris not deep because it lacks a convincing narrative? Is Chess? :lol

Excellent point. The influence of Wii Sports is really undervalued by many on Neogaf. It's not just "waggle at the right time".

 

[dionysus]

It's not sustainable because the tech race will lead to ballooning software dev costs, with no significant increase in people buying them, which either leads to massive revenue dropoffs, or increased game prices, which would turn off more people anyway.

And for all the 360's much vaunted software sales realize that these sales belong to a relatively small circle of 'big' games and devs.

I'd agree that as long as hardware advancement outpaces software advancement you will get ballooning costs on the software side.

However, software development is not a static technology. Improvements in tools, processes, and the fundamental math and code underlying it all happen all the time. (Think procedural asset generation as an example.) Therefore, if hardware remained static, software development would get cheaper as software tech improved. I agree that pushing the bleeding edge (consoles really don't push the bleeding edge but whatever) as a business model for consoles is probably not sustainable, but there is definitely room in the industry for moderate hardware spec growth along side the software tech growth that would not necessitate software cost inflation.

 

[Pureauthor]

I'd agree that as long as hardware advancement outpaces software advancement you will get ballooning costs on the software side.

However, software development is not a static technology. Improvements in tools, processes, and the fundamental math and code underlying it all happen all the time. (Think procedural asset generation as an example.) Therefore, if hardware remained static, software development would get cheaper as software tech improved. I agree that pushing the bleeding edge (consoles really don't push the bleeding edge but whatever) as a business model for consoles is probably not sustainable, but there is definitely room in the industry for moderate hardware spec growth along side the software tech growth that would not necessitate software cost inflation.

That aside, the average cost of software has risen (and risen sharply) each generational increment. If we really need to take a couple of generations off to let the software development tech catch up, I say so be it.

 

[brain_stew]

I'd agree that as long as hardware advancement outpaces software advancement you will get ballooning costs on the software side.

However, software development is not a static technology. Improvements in tools, processes, and the fundamental math and code underlying it all happen all the time. (Think procedural asset generation as an example.) Therefore, if hardware remained static, software development would get cheaper as software tech improved. I agree that pushing the bleeding edge (consoles really don't push the bleeding edge but whatever) as a business model for consoles is probably not sustainable, but there is definitely room in the industry for moderate hardware spec growth along side the software tech growth that would not necessitate software cost inflation.

Isn't that what Nintendo did with the Wii? They got rid of its two key technical drawbacks (lack of memory and the speed of the A-RAM) and also bumped up the clockspeeds and tuned down power consumption and overall size. All while adding bluetooth, wifi, onboard flash and USB ports.

The Wii's route of hardware improvement is a model of things to come, where technical innovations outside of raw clock speed become more important

 

[Vinci]

What better tech (visuals/cosmetic physics/etc.) actually does is trick your brain into thinking that buying the same game you played last gen is worth your money... again.

It's not a perfect analogy, but this reflects what happened (to some extent) in the comics market: Companies would release issues with a variety of different, extra special covers that were prettier than the normal one and folks would buy them in droves, not realizing (or not caring) at first that they were buying the exact same thing.

But then comic prices went up due to the increased cost of production and all the people who used to buy every single one started having to pull back since it became financially dangerous to continue being so extravagant. Plus, many were growing up, having kids, etc. Once they realized the excess of this, they left. Entirely.

This caused a giant collapse in the comic market and it's currently the reason why Marvel Comics, for example, sees their monthly issues as basically promotion of their brand and advertising for their films (where the real interest and money lies).

Again, not exactly the same, but your comment about buying the same thing again got me thinking about it.

 

[milanbaros]

As for the third parties on the Wii debate, I think a key thing to remember is that many gamers this generation will only have a Wii... I could go on, but you get the idea, something original.

This makes perfect sense and is a really exciting concept. The games would be different but connected and could be played stand alone or together. Why can't 3rd parties just try this once on a big budget game and see if it works?

 

[Version 3.0]

You're being excessively myopic here.

A game is an experience. You cannot reduce it to merely the input rendered by the player and the one rendered on-screen; you have to view the game holistically. The bottom line is that what makes a lot of games worthwhile is their immersion, and yes, their visual appeal. Could Bioshock's gameplay mechanics have been transferred to the Wii? Absolutely. Could its haunting atmosphere ad visceral violence that made the game worth playing? Some of it undoubtedly, but a lot of it came from technical improvements in the 360.

What you say sounds logical, but in fact, it isn't true. Doom trumps Bioshock in "haunting atmosphere and visceral violence", and it's from 2+ generations ago. I'm enjoying GTA IV a lot, but San Andreas was better in most ways. Better visuals are preferable, but not the most important thing.

Please note that I'm not saying GTA IV should be a Wii game, at all. I'm very pleased to finally be playing GTA with good graphics. But if there were a Wii GTA game, I don't see any reason that anything but visuals would have to be sacrificed. That's not because the Wii can do everything the PS3/360 can do other than visuals, though, it's because the Wii can do everything GTA IV is doing on those platforms, minus the visuals. I've been pretty disappointed at the things that I expected to be upgraded that weren't, particularly the "everyone else has the same car as me" and "that was/wasn't there a second ago" problems. It seems to me that the game's 'systems' have not been upgraded, and that being the case, should run fine on the Wii.

 

[Vinci]

Please note that I'm not saying GTA IV should be a Wii game, at all. I'm very pleased to finally be playing GTA with good graphics. But if there were a Wii GTA game, I don't see any reason that anything but visuals would have to be sacrificed. That's not because the Wii can do everything the PS3/360 can do other than visuals, though, it's because the Wii can do everything GTA IV is doing on those platforms, minus the visuals. I've been pretty disappointed at the things that I expected to be upgraded that weren't, particularly the "everyone else has the same car as me" and "that was/wasn't there a second ago" problems. It seems to me that the game's 'systems' have not been upgraded, and that being the case, should run fine on the Wii.

Plus, there are many things done in GTA IV that, gameplay-wise, might have been helped by the nunchuck and wiimote.

 

[Version 3.0]

Plus, there are many things done in GTA IV that, gameplay-wise, might have been helped by the nunchuck and wiimote.

I actually don't really think that's true. GTA is very shallow, gameplay-wise, outside of driving vehicles. It's a content-driven game. The gameplay isn't good, it's the amount of things you can do that provides the fun.
The shooting and fighting are poor, and I only see them being better on the Wii if they put more effort into them--which would also be the case on the other consoles. The mini-games might benefit, I suppose, but they'd still be bland.

In other words: there's not much reason to think they'd improve things for the Wii that they don't care about now.

 

[Vinci]

In other words: there's not much reason to think they'd improve things for the Wii that they don't care about now.

This is sadly true, but I'm imagining what they could do with it if they cared. A combat system like RE4 Wii, the stupid bowling game could be played like the Wii Sports version, possibly some other additions. Yes, it'd still be shallow to some extent -- but not feel like it quite so much.

 

[jetjevons]

I don't see any reason that anything but visuals would have to be sacrificed.

One of the things I like most about GTAIV vs. say, San Andreas is the amount of pure vehicle variety in any given scene. I remember how ridiculous it was to see a convoy of the same 3 vehicles driving by all the time in SA (particularly in the countryside bits). I assume that's a memory constraint issue.

 

[Gamer @ Heart]

The last 2 or 3 pages have had some great discussion. This is true sales age.

 

[liuelson]

...Nintendo realized that the most difficult consumers to target, would be the people who don't consume video games at all. And that the industry itself is a pyramid, with the most consumers (non-gamers) residing in the bottom tier. Therefore, the challenge for the Wii and DS would be to successfully crack into an untapped market that had no historical data, sales trends, or any other predictor of how it would react. But if non-gamers could be reached, then the Wii and DS could travel up the market. If you were to win over the largest strata first, you would provide third parties with a temptingly large user base to develop for.

The strategy you describe runs counter to the traditional model of technology adoption (as I understand it): get early adopters early, get a critical mass of marketshare, and use the network effect to drive adoption up the saturation curve.

If your description of Nintendo's strategy is true, then it is no wonder that 3rd party publishers are reluctant to jump on board, if indeed there is "no historical data, sales trends, or any other predictor of how ['non-gamers'] would react." Even with traditional games pursuing traditional markets, with all that historical data to use, how many industry professionals correctly predicted what GTA would do for X360/PS3 hardware sales in April?

I'm not sure I agree that Nintendo's technology adoption strategy is completely inverted, but I do believe the Wii is more innovative in philosophy than in technology. Therein lies the difficulty for 3rd parties - it's harder to change your philosophy than it is to change your assets, engines, and allocation of resources. Therein also lies the difficulty, apparently, for many, many posters on GAF.

 

[Woo-Fu]

Because a new generation restarts the markets and allows all the manufacturers to be set back to a (more) equal footing. There's a reason why the losers are always the first to show their new console, you know.

A new generation that didn't advance the hardware significantly would be stillborn. There would be no reason for gamers or developers to transition to a new platform that wasn't in some way better than the one they already had.

We can complain about the Wii's graphics but it is still a console that advanced console hardware.

 

[unomas]

Congrats to the Wii for winning the sales war again for the month. I'm perfectly content getting the games I want to play on the 360 as many others are as well via PS3 or 360. The problem with the Wii is that even if the Wii had many of the hits that are on the 360 or PS3 many people would still choose the other versions because of the graphical superiority or online services being offered. Call me a graphics whore, I don't care I forked out $400 it better look good when I play it If the Wii wasn't graphically underpowered they would be in a perfect position to steal the 360/PS3 gamers, but they obviously went a different route. Sony and Microsoft should have put waggle on their machines a year ago, but I think at this point it's just stubborness preventing that.

Microsoft could have bundled a waggle remote with Halo 3, Gears, or Grand Theft Auto IV and that would have insured that it got to a high percentage of the userbase, but it's all hindsight. So until something like that happens it seems the majority will pick up a Wii for the unique controls, but certain types of games will primarily debut or appear exclusively on HD consoles because of the lack of graphical horsepower of the Wii and or lack of online play/services.

So each month this conversation will continue on and on like it does every month with all the same answers until the numbers start to change or we reach next gen again.

 

[Scrubking]

One of the things I like most about GTAIV vs. say, San Andreas is the amount of pure vehicle variety in any given scene. I remember how ridiculous it was to see a convoy of the same 3 vehicles driving by all the time in SA (particularly in the countryside bits). I assume that's a memory constraint issue.

I believe it was done on purpose so you could easily find another of the same car should yours blow up or something.

 

[Cheez-It]

The strategy you describe runs counter to the traditional model of technology adoption (as I understand it): get early adopters early, get a critical mass of marketshare, and use the network effect to drive adoption up the saturation curve.

Isn't that what he posted? The typical strategy being more top-down, and following the gist of your understanding?

If your description of Nintendo's strategy is true, then it is no wonder that 3rd party publishers are reluctant to jump on board, if indeed there is "no historical data, sales trends, or any other predictor of how ['non-gamers'] would react." Even with traditional games pursuing traditional markets, with all that historical data to use, how many industry professionals correctly predicted what GTA would do for X360/PS3 hardware sales in April?

The problem here is that this would be an issue at launch, but by now there is plenty of data suggesting that games targeted at 'upper levels' can be quite successful.

I'm not sure I agree that Nintendo's technology adoption strategy is completely inverted, but I do believe the Wii is more innovative in philosophy than in technology. Therein lies the difficulty for 3rd parties - it's harder to change your philosophy than it is to change your assets, engines, and allocation of resources. Therein also lies the difficulty, apparently, for many, many posters on GAF.

I agree. This is why we're seeing so many "oh, lets just port over the tech and slap on some waggle," attempts, rather than games developed from the ground up with the Wii and unique input method. Boom Blox and LostWinds are two excellent ideas of the latter, and hopefully we see more imaginative ideas replacing the cash-ins.