What I hope Nintendo Does

[TheArsenal]

Jumps off the Sinking boat of motion controls. If Nintendo does so all will be forgiven in my eyes.

I do not hate motion controls, but I just found them on long term, a distraction from the main point of gaming. Simulation. While at first though swinging a light-saber seems like a cool Idea you realize that you are NOT a jedi knight and miss out on most of the cool parts OR it ends up being somewhat pointless.

So I hope that Nintendo realizes that it caught the attention of grannies to buy thier product, got rich and uses that money to develop just non gimmick games (Not that the Wii didn't have great games). Nintendo won (in the 90s) by NOT using bells and whistles to get the attention of gamers. It didn't go "Oooh look I have CD TECHNOLOGY! (The Sega CD did have good games)" to attract gamers. It missed out on the 64 because it thought that CDs still didn't reach their prime yet.

In terms of console sales, the Wii got allot of $ but nannies do not care about the next release of Wii Sports (Not even mentioning Zelda). For them its a cool gadget that after 3 months they place next to the movie glasses and the dancing phone. So yeah, I doubt that a Wii2 based on attracting Nannies will be as successful.

So the basic point: I hope that Nintendo drops (Or put much less focus on. Their great for navigating menus or aiming) motion controls and just focuses on a good engine. Not for graphics (Though thats a good idea), but for more powerful games.

Just my thoughts, because its the internet and I have nobody else to talk to.


Edit:
Sorry MY nannies.

[grimbold]

overall i agree with you, motion control does get repetitive and no game (that i know of) has yet taken it to an extremely interactive level, when it came out i expected to be able to buy a swordfighting game and have it mimic my movements, that did not happen, while the Wii does have some solid titles i think until it can improve its level of interactiveness many hard-core gamers will go Xbox and Play Station

[TheArsenal]

The Problem I find that EVEN if the connection was SPOT on the result is:

Worse Controlled FPS (Try turning around in the same time in takes a Joystick)

Boring Fighting games (Yeah, you TRY sitting down in the same time it takes Ryu)

Much more limits on all the possible games.

Weird and disorienting controllers (Which adds difficulty to NON-Motion controled games.....The B button annoyed me.)

Motion Controls are great for SELECTING things, and aiming. Those are Fantastic.

My Personal love would be a standard controller with a front that can be used to aim. So You can exploit the standard button control AND get better selection.

Again, just opinion.

[Haruki-kun]

I really dislike movement controls like those.

I was talking to a friend about this yesterday, and we came to the following conclusion: The Wii outsold their competitors by a lot, but the people who bought it are not using it at all. I bought the Wii 4 years ago (or so) and I only have like 4 games. And none of them have been played for a while. It's just sitting there gathering dust. :smallfrown:

[Tengu_temp]

I'm afraid you will have to wait for the new Sega console with that.

[Evil DM Mark3]

This seems to be the Wii 2. As such, it will be a Wii but with extra stuff. That means motion controls. If it is real, which it might not be.

[grimbold]

your suggestion is excellent
however i still would like a hack and slash game for fencers like me

[TheArsenal]

your suggestion is excellent
however i still would like a hack and slash game for fencers like me

And Im an Expert Dancer. But those should be ADD-ONS for people like us.

Edit:

Just get your stuff together, and Just give it your all. That kind of work gave us Super MarioWorld and Mario3. Just try to make a powerful console.

Edit:

Im a Nintendo whore. I love you, but I need a REASON to love you. Give me that reason and I will happily buy your products over and over.

[Fjolnir]

Wii 2 is going in the "better control & HD" direction. This seems is fine, as long as it is correctly backwards compatible with the current games.

[TheArsenal]

Wii 2 is going in the "better control & HD" direction. This seems is fine, as long as it is correctly backwards compatible with the current games.

NO! In my opinion, this will not cut it! I do not hate motion controls but im sick and TIRED OF THEM! Every gamer I asked (Not online) said they would happily loose motion controls in favor of just GOOD GAMES! Don't pull an Avatar on us again Nintendo! The hardcore fans will be pissed!

[Zevox]

I don't. The problem with the Wii isn't its motion controls, it's the lack of third-party support beyond mere shovelware. The motion controls can and have been been put to good use - MadWorld or The Force Unleashed, for instance. The trouble is that games other than Nintendo's first-party ones that are actually worth playing simply rarely get made for the Wii.

Perhaps it would help if people would realize that just because motion controls are a part of the console's controller does not mean you have to use them. Some of the best games on the Wii don't. Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn and Super Smash Brothers Brawl, for instance, make no use of them (okay, Brawl has the shake smash, but who actually uses that?). Monster Hunter Tri included both control schemes that did and a classic controller scheme that didn't, and I think I heard that Tatsunoko vs Capcom did much the same, though I haven't played that. I half wonder if developers got scared off by the thought that they'd have to incorporate motion controls into their game to put it on the Wii, when that's simply not true.

Incidentally, this should be in the Gaming (Other) forum.

Zevox

[Sipex]

Yar, I have to agree on some points.

I mean, look at the Wii's best games. All of them use motion controls for small things which, admittedly, a button could easily do (and would sometimes be better for) OR they use the Wii Mote as a pointer (ignoring the movement aspect but keeping the IR) OR they provide alternatives to the motion controls (ie: Just press the button if you prefer).

While it's a solid system, it's shown that the movement controls aren't even well favoured by Nintendo. That said, IR pointing is amazing (BUT NOT FOR EVERYTHING, STOP MAKING MENUS THAT NEED IT!).

I think Skyward Sword might be the first game to challenge me here, we'll see how it fairs.

[TheArsenal]

I don't. The problem with the Wii isn't its motion controls, it's the lack of third-party support beyond mere shovelware. The motion controls can and have been been put to good use - MadWorld or The Force Unleashed, for instance. The trouble is that games other than Nintendo's first-party ones that are actually worth playing simply rarely get made for the Wii.
Zevox

I still Disagree. I played Madworld-It was just another "Swing your sword" game. Nearly every single "Good" game on the Wii was just a "Swing your sword" game, or suffered from the controls (Metriod Prime *Cough*) or didn't use them. The Poor controller layout makes it Difficult and Unwieldy to hold when used as a classic controller, and its just gimmicky.

[Zevox]

I still Disagree. I played Madworld-It was just another "Swing your sword" game. Nearly every single "Good" game on the Wii was just a "Swing your sword" game, or suffered from the controls (Metriod Prime *Cough*) or didn't use them.
Metroid Prime 3 had very good motion controls (I still don't have trilogy to try 1 and 2 with them), and MadWorld did more with them than just swinging the chainsaw, including backflipping, throws, dunking containers on enemies, spinning things, and more, all of which worked quite well. So I cannot agree with you.


The Poor controller layout makes it Difficult and Unwieldy to hold when used as a classic controller, and its just gimmicky.
What are you talking about exactly? The classic controller is more or less a standard controller much like the 360 and PS3's. The basic Wii controller is not poorly layed out at all - it could use a few more buttons, but personally I find it more comfortable than a standard controller style. If you mean the Wiimote turned on its side to simulate an NES-style controller, that is somewhat awkward, but it works fine for the few circumstances it gets used.

Zevox

[TheArsenal]

Metroid Prime 3 had very good motion controls (I still don't have trilogy to try 1 and 2 with them), and MadWorld did more with them than just swinging the chainsaw, including backflipping, throws, dunking containers on enemies, spinning things, and more, all of which worked quite well. So I cannot agree with you.

:smallannoyed: You know what I meant.


If you mean the Wiimote turned on its side to simulate an NES-style controller, that is somewhat awkward, but it works fine for the few circumstances it gets used.

Turned to side. Again, I Picked up a Playstation Controler again and......It just felt SO much smoother. Hell even the NES feels better than the Wii turned on its side.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Ultimately Nintendo would be rather stupid to abandon their current formula for an old formula that was leaving them loosing badly. The Wii succeeded because it changed the dynamics of gaming, by not playing by the old rules. Now you can rule it an aberration if you wish but going on five years old and with it rivals showing no sign of dethroning its sales lead... calling it a fad is hard.

Sure the idea won't last forever, but I think the current formula has life in it yet. Nintendo's competitors seem to agree though my experience with demos says they are still missing the point. We have not yet reached the most intuitive and flawless control scheme, but that control scheme will involve motion controls.

If I had to guess the only innovation that might dethrone the Wii approach would be the general media shift to 3D that is in progress. If it proved to demand more then taping Gamecubes together. Given the surprisingly fun use of it in the 3DS (though abysmal battery life let me tell you) while ditching the glasses says Nintendo is well aware of the way that wind is blowing. Yes 3D is an even bigger gimmick, but its done nothing but gain momentum so start getting over it too.

[Zevox]

:smallannoyed: You know what I meant.
Actually, I don't, if you didn't mean what you said literally.


Turned to side. Again, I Picked up a Playstation Controler again and......It just felt SO much smoother. Hell even the NES feels better than the Wii turned on its side.
*shrugs* And as I said, that is somewhat awkward, but it's rarely used. Mostly for old games downloaded off the Virtual Console, I believe, or Wii Ware games emulating them such as Mega Man 9 and 10.

Zevox

[Prime32]

Good thing Gamecube controllers work with the Wii, huh? :smallwink:

[TheArsenal]

Actually, I don't, if you didn't mean what you said literally.


Its core was just swinging. Sure you can chuck stuff but I believe it would be better executed on a button scheme.

Edit:

Super Paper Mario. Its a VERY good game. With Tacked on Wii Controls of course.

[Soras Teva Gee]

I personally have yet to find a Wii control problem that wouldn't have been solved by adding the Nunchuk to the controls. That particular setup is the best of all worlds for me, I can have a traditional controller if needed (ex: Brawl) with the option of motion control (ex: Zelda) and the simple joyous freedom of being able to spread my hands comfortably apart.

I will freely admit the Wiimote on its side is generally a bad idea.

[Zevox]

Its core was just swinging. Sure you can chuck stuff but I believe it would be better executed on a button scheme.
I don't. MadWorld's motion controls work very well. At best a button scheme might work equally well, but not better.


Super Paper Mario. Its a VERY good game. With Tacked on Wii Controls of course.
If memory serves, it changed perspectives based on whether you held the Wiimote straight or sideways, no? I though that was a pretty neat idea and fairly well executed. Though honestly I spent most of the game wishing it had its predecessors' combat system.

Zevox

[TheArsenal]

If memory serves, it changed perspectives based on whether you held the Wiimote straight or sideways, no? I though that was a pretty neat idea and fairly well executed. Though honestly I spent most of the game wishing it had its predecessors' combat system.


Nope. You just pointed the Remote at the Screen to activate the "Whats this" Flashlight. I Liked Tippy.

I never played the Predaser but I found the combat fun, lots of exploration, and fun bosses. But thats just me.

[Zevox]

Nope. You just pointed the Remote at the Screen to activate the "Whats this" Flashlight. I Liked Tippy.
Hm, it's been too long since I played it I suppose, as I don't remember what you're referring to. I only rented the game once, though in retrospect it would be worth actually purchasing.

Zevox

[Prime32]

I never played the Predaser but I found the combat fun, lots of exploration, and fun bosses. But thats just me.It's good, but generally considered inferior to the N64 and Gamecube games.

See also the Mario & Luigi series for handhelds, and Super Mario RPG on the SNES (kinda clunky, but it had Geno. GENO REDEEMS ALL).

[TheArsenal]

It's good, but generally considered inferior to the N64 and Gamecube games.

See also the Mario & Luigi series for handhelds, and Super Mario RPG on the SNES (kinda clunky, but it had Geno. GENO REDEEMS ALL).

I HAVE FURY! I HAVE PLAYED ALL THE GAME SIMULATORS! THE WHERE EXCELLENT!

[Frozen_Feet]

... or suffered from the controls (Metriod Prime *Cough*) ....

Wait, what? Since when did Metroid Prime 3 suffer from its controls? It had one of the best control scheme of all games I'd played to that point, and I strongly considered buying Metroid Prime Trilogy just to play the prior parts with the controls despite owning them on gamecube already. If anything, it's lack of games with MP3 level motion control that's hurting Wii. The controls did nothing but add to the experience, and were superior to the prior gamepad controls in every way.

[TheArsenal]

Wait, what? Since when did Metroid Prime 3 suffer from its controls? It had one of the best control scheme of all games I'd played to that point, and I strongly considered buying Metroid Prime Trilogy just to play the prior parts with the controls despite owning them on gamecube already. If anything, it's lack of games with MP3 level motion control that's hurting Wii. The controls did nothing but add to the experience, and were superior to the prior gamepad controls in every way.

Try Turning quickly and efficiently...But Its a choice thing I guess. The Shooting was spot on though.

[Lord Seth]

I've never had any problem with the "using the remote like an NES controller." I actually rather liked that feature, it replicates the feel of an NES controller pretty well, like how the Classic Controller replicates the feel of an SNES controller. Both of those are really good for the Virtual Console games.

[Evil DM Mark3]

The hardcore fans will be pissed!

Hardcore fans? Nintendo does not care about them, for they are a small demgraphic. Make things for the hardcore fans and they will fail. Make them for the mass market and they will succeed. Depending on who you ask about 60% of gamers are casual gamers, nearer 70% for Wii owners (I cannot cite I am afraid, but the exact numbers are not exactly important, the thrust of them is).

Here is another reason why an HD Wii would be a wise move, one that most people have not noticed. Kinect and Move are an attempt both to leapfrog the Wii and to create upgrade culture in consoles, allowing them to make money from hardware. If Wii 2 kills Kinect and Move stone dead then Sony and Microsoft will never be able to sell the idea of an upgrade for a console again, meaning that they will have to enter a new console generation, gobbling up money both in R&D and with every unit sold.

[ninja_penguin]

I do kind of feel that a lot of the motion control things end up feeling tacked on. However, I really like the wiimote and the nunchuck controller system for some reason, I think it lets me sit better when playing.

And for what it's worth, I adored Metroid Prime 3. This is after hating the original Metroid Prime with a passion because I can't aim worth anything in FPS games that use sticks.

Also, if you never play Okami on the Wii, you are a horrible horrible person. The entire system was worth it for that game.

[TheArsenal]

Well I guess Il just not buy the next console though. Thats the best thing I can do. Just kinda sad.'

Oh well, seems like other people like it so why am I complaining?

I still dislike motion controls though.

[Popertop]

I'm not really all that excited by motion controls either.

The main reasons being:

I don't think they ever get lightsaber combat right
I don't think they ever get force powers right
Motion controls in general feel very tacked on


I think the kinect actually has potential to be really interesting, we'll just see how it goes.

[Gnoman]

To be honest, I've found motion control to be far, far superior to a traditional controller in many ways (I won't play a FPS with a thumbstick unless you put a gun to my head), and rarely detracts in others.

[TheArsenal]

But now Im feeling kind of scared. What if Motioncontrol is the Next thing? Il be out of games I want to play =(.

[GloatingSwine]

I do not hate motion controls, but I just found them on long term, a distraction from the main point of gaming. Simulation.

The main point of gaming is not, and never has been, simulation.

The main point of gaming is interactive entertainment. Turns out Nintendo found a new way to sell that to a home audience and it made them helluva moneys.

[Weezer]

Then you'll just have to join the PC master race in the last true bastion of hardcore gaming :smalltongue:

[Prime32]

Also, if you never play Okami on the Wii, you are a horrible horrible person. The entire system was worth it for that game.I bought it, then gave up when it took me 30 minutes to draw a straight line. :smallannoyed:

[TheArsenal]

Then you'll just have to join the PC master race in the last true bastion of hardcore gaming :smalltongue:

I never pretend anything is a war....But I find myself wanting to PC game more than anything else recently.

[Mando Knight]

Try Turning quickly and efficiently...But Its a choice thing I guess.

...I never had a problem with that. In fact, by the time I finished Trilogy, I had it down so pat that I was basically some kind of hyper badass. Oh, wait. I was Samus. :smallcool:

In the end, though, I'm pretty much neutral on the current set of controller designs (except that the Move gets an Obvious Copypasta penalty). The Wii's controller technology is still a young one, much like the analog thumbstick was new back when the N64 introduced it, or touchscreen gaming back in 2004 when the DS was released. The big difference here is that the sticks were basically the next step up from D-pads and hand-sized joysticks, unlike the other two. If everyone had just stopped and learned from Nintendo's first-party games, the Wii wouldn't get much "waggle" flak.

"Wii2" (Or WII, or whatever you want to call it) is supposed to be what you get when you duct-tape an Xbox 360 or PS3 to a Wii. And use parallel processing to let the Wii's processors do the little stuff while the big boy processors crunch the big numbers.

[Fjolnir]

my problem with wii okami was the difficulty of chaining attacks...

[Frozen_Feet]

I bought it, then gave up when it took me 30 minutes to draw a straight line. :smallannoyed:

Pssst. There's a button that locks the brush to drawing a straight line. :smallwink:

[GloatingSwine]

"Wii2" (Or WII, or whatever you want to call it) is supposed to be what you get when you duct-tape an Xbox 360 or PS3 to a Wii. And use parallel processing to let the Wii's processors do the little stuff while the big boy processors crunch the big numbers.

Everything that's been rumoured so far about Project Cafe is that it's, well, it's an Xbox 360 with a slightly newer graphics card and a funky controller (3 core multithread PowerPC G5, ATi graphics, 512MB ram). The controller makes me worried, actually, a 6" touchscreen with buttons on does not sound like a paradigm of comfort, it sounds like it will be Xbox Hueg.

[Zevox]

I bought it, then gave up when it took me 30 minutes to draw a straight line. :smallannoyed:
Aye, I had the same problem when I rented Okami on the Wii. Apparently so did some friends of mine, as when I spoke to them about it, they said Okami was horrible on the Wii and recommended I get it for the PS2 instead. Haven't yet, but I intend to.


Pssst. There's a button that locks the brush to drawing a straight line. :smallwink:
And yet it never seemed to actually help. Strange that.

Zevox

[Prime32]

Fun fact: look at the box for the Wii version of Okami. Specifically in the corner of the picture. You'll see an IGN watermark.

Yes, the guys doing the port got the pic from IGN.

[ninja_penguin]

re: straight lines. Took me a little bit the first time, but after that I just did it in one smooth motion and it accepted it.

But yes, that is a point against it.

[Psyren]

MadWorld was okay. Force Unleashed... not so much.

The Escapist got some of its more articulate talking heads to opine on motion controls. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extraconsideration/8639-Extra-Consideration-Console-Gaming.3) (Well, they started with consoles in general, but the discussion evolved at around the point I linked.) I especially like Bob's separation of "Gesture controls" from the broader umbrella of "Motion controls." An interesting read I think.

[MoelVermillion]

I don’t think motion controls necessarily have to be bad. Ultimately motion controls are just another method of control for videogames and should be treated accordingly. Developers need to sit down long and hard in the development stage of their game and find which control scheme works best for their game, if it happens to be a mouse and keyboard they should use that, if it happens to be motion control than they should use that. Once they have decided on their control scheme they should be building the whole game to work with this controller, if they have to cut certain features to improve their control scheme then that’s what they should be doing. Ultimately as the controls are the way that the player gains access to every other aspect of the game they should be as refined as possible.

There is no reason why motion controls could not be made to work well with a game. For an example you said that the turn speed on the wiimote for FPS games will always be slower than a joystick but the same statement can be made in regards to the joystick when compared to the mouse. Does this mean that joysticks cannot be used to make good FPS games? Well, apparently not as you seem to be rather in favour of joystick control in FPS games. There was an interesting interview with the developers of Monday Night Combat where they talked about the differences between Mouse+Keyboard and Xbox Controllers and just how many changes they had to make to compensate for this when porting from the 360 to the PC. If the developer is well aware of the limitations of their chosen control scheme and develops with that in mind the way the Monday Night Combat team did then there is no reason why a motion control scheme cannot be great in an FPS game.

Now the problem is that currently we’re often not seeing this. Plenty of games are ported over or developed for the Wii to use motion controller when it either wasn’t the optimal control scheme for the game or wasn’t ported properly to compensate for this. As much as I didn’t like the game because I don’t really like Zelda I felt that the motion controls in Twilight Princess on the Wii were pretty good (at least in the parts I played), but then Nintendo went to length’s to make the game more intuitive for motion control including mirroring the entire game to make Link right-handed and more intuitive to the majority of the population. On the other hand we have games like Castlevania Judgment, a game that was nearly universally badly received with a aggregated score of 49% on Metacritic. One of the biggest complaints about this game was the horrid control scheme which is not a surprise when game designer Koji Igarashi had voiced concerns about how the controls weren’t working out when the game was still in development. What should have happened at this point was that they found a new control scheme, redesigned the game to better accomodate the Wiimote or scrapped the game entirely, but instead they pushed ahead and released a shoddy product. The problem is by all reports this kind of shonky made games where the motion control wasn’t really working but the game was released anyway don’t seem too uncommon on the Wii even before you get to shovel ware titles. This is a shame as most first party Nintendo games do actually control pretty well with the motion controls so it’s not like the controller is necessarily terrible. I’ve never played Okami on the Wii but would someone who had trouble controlling it please tell me, do you think that a game like Okami just could not work with motion controls like the Wiimote or if the people doing the port just didn’t do the job properly?

tl;dr Motion controls can be used well if the developer approaches the concept properly and designs the game accordingly.

EDIT: It turns out the Monday Night Combat stuff I was thinking about was actually on Penny Arcade (http://www.penny-arcade.com/2011/1/24/new-world-record/). Its a good read if you want to get a read on what a development team have to consider when porting their game from one control scheme to another.




Moving a shooter from the console to the PC has had some interesting challenges. Monday Night Combat is still the same game from a gameplay mechanics point of view. However, since the input mechanism has changed I have found some challenges in getting the game to a balanced state.

Now, ask any gamer who has played a shooter on both the PC and a console and they will tell you that mouse and keyboard is infinitely better than a console controller. PC players long for a game that they can play on a PC versus people playing on a console just for the pwnage of console newbie meat. We accept this as a universal truth. But why? Why is a mouse and keyboard so much better than a controller? Here’s my theory and analysis.

It all comes down to how each input mechanism affects your ability to turn. On a console, the angle in which a player can turn is a function of both time and displacement of the thumb stick. No matter how far players want to turn, they have to pay a time cost. Even at the highest controller sensitivity, there is a time cost to be paid. On a PC the angle of turn is a direct mapping of how far you move the mouse. The time cost is variable and the better players get that time cost to approach zero.

Now, on consoles we use an array of aim helping mechanisms all in an attempt to help with this time cost. View acceleration allows that time cost to not be linear from distance the thumb stick is moved. It’s an attempt to guess that if players jam their thumb stick to one side and hold it they want to spin quickly, but if they slam it to one side and release they want to make a fast minor adjustment. So at the beginning of the time cost the rate of turn is slower and it speeds up exponentially, to a cap, as time goes by.

View friction slows down the player’s turn speed when an enemy passes in front of their cursor. This makes it so they can shortcut that time cost by allowing players to turn up the sensitivity, thus lowering the time cost, but make it so that the turn rate slows down when you have an enemy in their sights. Hopefully, this makes it easier to get a target in the crosshairs.

View adhesion, which will cause the player’s cursor to adhere to enemies passing in front of the player, is an attempt at taking the time cost away. This mechanic tries to match the player’s turn rate to a target moving in front of the player. Thus trying to remove the time cost for moving targets that should be easily hit.

Aim attraction is the last console helping mechanism. This is a system that takes a shot you make, sees if it’s going to be close to a target, and adjust that shot ever so slightly so that it hits. This doesn’t directly affect the time cost but does give some perceived precision to shooting on a console.

Now, all these systems sound like cheating but they all revolve around the same concept; make the time to aim as small as possible. None of these systems are needed on the PC because that time can get to be nearly zero by sheer player skill.

With all that said, how does this affect Monday Night Combat from console to PC? Well, I take all the skills and abilities that are very aim dependent and look at them. The sniper is the most obvious example: a one shot, one kill class that is very powerful if their time to aim can be nearly zero. The first thing I did was drop the clip size of the sniper rifle by 60% (from 10 to 4). Why? Because now I’m forcing the sniper to be more accurate. On console I allowed for a little ‘slop’ and gave some extra ammo. But on PC the shots have to count or the player will find themselves vulnerable again while reloading. This may even get lower, since there is no kickback on our sniper rifle there’s even been talk of making it a bolt-action rifle.

The sniper was the first fix. The Tank charge was not as obvious at first. The skill is a one second forward run that damages, knocks back, and stuns anything it hits. On the console it works fine. Good players can use it to kill one other player. But now that there is a near-zero cost of aiming I found that good tanks can zig-zag to hit players or even easily charge around corners. So I dropped the damage of the level 3 Tank charge, which also does the stun, because I found that when players can aim that fast it becomes nearly impossible to avoid. With the damage so high it assured multiple kills. With the high damage the Tank Charge best use case on the console would be one kill but the best use case on the PC would be two or three kills.

Another subtle PC induced nerf was the Firebase. When a support player throws one out other players have three seconds to destroy it before it deployed and started attacking them. On the PC Firebases were dying much more often simply because players can focus on them so much faster. So to counter act this effect I reduced the amount of bonus damage they take while deploying. This forced players to focus on the Firebase for longer. This still make Firebases destroyable before they fully deployed but made it so it wasn’t so trivial.

Another interesting thing popped up recently. We were in the process of tweaking how the Gunner and Tank jump jets work. Why? Because with a mouse and keyboard, you can now jump and aim at the same time. With the console controller there's an additional time penalty to be paid to move your thumb off the jump button and back onto the right thumb stick in order to aim while jumping. This is no longer an issue on the keyboard so we looked at ways to slightly change the mechanic so the best move for the two heavy chassis was to always be in the air.

I’m sure as the Monday Night Combat beta goes on there will be more and more things I find that are affected by the precision of the mouse and keyboard controls. As I find them, we will fix them up and get them out to the fans as soon as possible.

[Triaxx]

I've got to say, RE4 Wii is kind of the pinnacle of ports. The way it incorporates motion control simply in place of the aiming, and then uses it only for things like controlling the knife, or using it to crank cranks is a great balance between. Of course since it had the original GC controls you could see the difference between having, and not having motion controls.

Force Unleashed... I never could quite get the hang of lightsabering. So I'd use them mainly to perform the cooler force powers, like Maelstrom or Force Choke.

Okami... yes, chaining attacks was a supreme pain. Especially with reflectors since the timing was at the end of the stroke, rather than down the middle with the rosaries. And it was a sufficiently long stroke that it completely negated the greater power of the reflector over the rosary or sword.

The various Lego games could have benefitted from some more motion controls. Frankly, Batman took better advantage than the Star Wars games. Which is kind of sad, though I've not played the third Lego game yet.

Now, as for the motion controls not turning as fast as a joystick, that's fine. Why? Because they turn the same as a mouse. Which means either in short spurts before being reset, or in a continuous smooth motion. In either case it's far superior for aiming than a joystick.

[Zevox]

I’ve never played Okami on the Wii but would someone who had trouble controlling it please tell me, do you think that a game like Okami just could not work with motion controls like the Wiimote or if the people doing the port just didn’t do the job properly?
I didn't get far enough in it to say for sure, but if I had to guess, I'd say the port wasn't properly done. The problem seemed to be that the game wanted the symbols you draw done way too precisely for what I was able to do with motion controls, so it simply didn't work most of the time. More leeway in getting the game to recognize the symbols I was drawing would have helped a lot.

Zevox

[TheArsenal]

Anyway I noticed that motion controls arent realy motion controls: Thier pointing controls. Thats what they involve. Pointing. Not realy that much motion. I have no idea what this means anyway.

[Terazul]

I don't. The problem with the Wii isn't its motion controls, it's the lack of third-party support beyond mere shovelware. The motion controls can and have been been put to good use - MadWorld or The Force Unleashed, for instance. The trouble is that games other than Nintendo's first-party ones that are actually worth playing simply rarely get made for the Wii.

Perhaps it would help if people would realize that just because motion controls are a part of the console's controller does not mean you have to use them. Some of the best games on the Wii don't.

Yeah, basically. There are plenty of good motion control games for the Wii. The problem is most of them are first-party, between Zelda, Smooth Moves, etc. Metroid Prime 3 was FANTASTIC control, and now I need to get the Trilogy just so I can play it again and try with the other two.

I personally like the things where the wiimote is integrated but you don't have to use it all the time or it's at clutch moments, such as in the case with MonHun Tri, or No More Heroes 1 and 2, or Resident Evil 4, or just completely optional, and if you really want you can plug in a gamecube or classic controller if you like, such as for Tatsunoko or Smash. The sideways (with shaking!) controller has always been fine for me in games like Super Paper Mario, Kirby's Epic Yarn, Donkey Kong Returns, or New Super Mario Bros. Okami... was legitimately a bad port, requiring a bit too much precision I noticed, having played the PS2 version beforehand.

As for "pointing controls", there's pointing, tracing, shaking, balancing, swinging, rotating, thrusting, pulling, and multidirectional movement (wrestling moves in NMH!) that I can think of off the top of my head. And then stuff like bowling on wii sports (which is technically swinging) which translates really well. I guess you could say they're all derivatives of pointing, but wouldn't anything involving a remote be? I don't think it's saying much.

Basically the problem I'm seeing here isn't the motion control itself, just many games that are poorly designed to use them, i.e. Shovelware.

[TheArsenal]

I guess you could say they're all derivatives of pointing, but wouldn't anything involving a remote be? I don't think it's saying much.
.

Pressing Buttons?

[Suicide Junkie]

While it's a solid system, it's shown that the movement controls aren't even well favoured by Nintendo. That said, IR pointing is amazing (BUT NOT FOR EVERYTHING, STOP MAKING MENUS THAT NEED IT!).Speaking of which, is there any way to actually start a game without the pointing?

At one point we wanted to play smash, but a cat had chewed the IR receiver cable.

Its not needed by the game, but we couldn't find a way to *start* the game without it. Argh!

[Mikhaelsan]

Pssst. There's a button that locks the brush to drawing a straight line. :smallwink:

Crap! I even know that! I have Okami for years, and stopped playing and buyed one for PS2. Believe it, it's a lot easy.

---

Well, I WANTED to buy Phoenix Wright from WiiShop, but I don't have any money. Crap. I wished maked a objection in ultra cool style with my Wii control. :smallfrown:

[Triaxx]

You can in fact use birthday candles to simulate the IR bar. Yes I've done it, no, I won't explain. It's not the sort of story you ever want to share.

[Mando Knight]

Speaking of which, is there any way to actually start a game without the pointing?

At one point we wanted to play smash, but a cat had chewed the IR receiver cable.

Its not needed by the game, but we couldn't find a way to *start* the game without it. Argh!

Get a Classic Controller, and you can navigate the menu using that.

Alternatively, you get an alternate IR source (the bar is a pair of IR sources, not a receiver: the detection system is housed in the Wiimote, which is why it can be fooled by pointing it at any other object that emits a significant amount of that band of IR radiation) and mount them somewhere.

[MoelVermillion]

Perhaps it would help if people would realize that just because motion controls are a part of the console's controller does not mean you have to use them. Some of the best games on the Wii don't.

The problem with this though is that the Wii doesn't offer much incentive to develop a game on it if you're not going to use motion controls. If we assume that the nunchuck is standard then when you develop for the Wii you're still using a controller that has less sticks and buttons than the competition. The simplicity of the controller can be good, particularly if you're going to be having motion control for a lot of functions, however it can also be extremely limiting for what you can do as a designer. At the very least for a lot of genres they'll have to work to create a new control scheme when developing a game that when on another console there would already be a standardized and tested one to use. This problem is alleviated by using the Classic Controller or Gamecube Controller but I'm not sure if Nintendo even let developers make games without Wiimote support (the only place I've seen this is in Virtual Console emulations of old games, please correct me if I'm wrong here though) and even if they do, forcing players to buy extra peripherals just to play your game is something you want to avoid if at all possible.

After the control scheme issues there is still the fact that the Wii has lackluster storage, processing, graphics and online compared to the competition. While it can be cheaper to work for a lower specifications console (you don't have to work to create such stellar graphics) there are also a lot of limitations that come with it too. With it being completely out-teched in most apsects one of the big draws the Wii ended up having over its competition was the Motion Control (though I guess its lost this one now?) and if you're not using it you have to ask yourself if you really should be developing on the Wii.

The other big draw that the Wii has is that at this point in time it has sold the most consoles out of anything in this generation. This could potentially be a big draw for developers to develop on the Wii. The problem here is that a lot of the Wii's sales are attributed to the casual market and developers of a lot of traditional games are not sure they could sell their games to the bulk of the Wii's market. The combined market of the 360 and PS3 is also larger than the Wii's (at least by all figures that I can find) and its quite possible to make multi-platform games for both the 360 and PS3 (and sometimes even PC!) but the tech gap makes it quite hard for the same thing to be done with the Wii. The closest the Wii usually get to a multi-platform game is a highly edited port or a completely new game with the same title as a game on another console. This means that for a lot of developers the largest market share will be the combined 360 and PS3 market rather than the Wii market.

So basically its quite possible to develop on the Wii without motion controls, its even quite possible to make a good game this way but... there isn't really that much incentive for the third party developers to do that.

[Suicide Junkie]

Haha! That's great :)
I'll be able to save a couple of people a lot of money with that tidbit. Thanks!

[Triaxx]

Graphics mean nothing if the game is not worth playing. There are several games on the 360, and even PC that look great, but are uncontrollable, and thus NO FUN.

[Sipex]

You know a feature many games don't use effectively enough these days? The Wiimote's ability to detect it's tilt in relation to gravity.

Usually it just gets used for crappy aiming systems and such but I've seen it used well. For reference, look up Fluidity. It's a Wiiware game controlled by tilting the remote and shaking it and it works very well.

[warty goblin]

Graphics mean nothing if the game is not worth playing. There are several games on the 360, and even PC that look great, but are uncontrollable, and thus NO FUN.

On the other hand, between two playable versions of the same game, you bet I'll be going for the better looking one.

[Sipex]

On the other hand, between two playable versions of the same game, you bet I'll be going for the better looking one.

You mean the one with achievements, right? :smallbiggrin:

Achievements/Trophies are the best and worst idea ever. I love them, they encourage me to do things in games I wouldn't do and give me abstract goals to strive for (despite being pointless, I know this) and they're an excellent marketing tool too which I why I hate them.

Really, am I going to get the Lego Star Wars which has a potential 1000 points attached to it or the Lego Star Wars on the Wii?

[warty goblin]

You mean the one with achievements, right? :smallbiggrin:

Achievements/Trophies are the best and worst idea ever. I love them, they encourage me to do things in games I wouldn't do and give me abstract goals to strive for (despite being pointless, I know this) and they're an excellent marketing tool too which I why I hate them.

Really, am I going to get the Lego Star Wars which has a potential 1000 points attached to it or the Lego Star Wars on the Wii?

Actually, no. Achievements are something I care about extremely little to not at all. Except when that stupid window pops up in the middle of a game, in which case I'm annoyed by the distraction and immersion break. Other than this slight negative, they add exactly nothing to the experience for me; if I want to feel I've achieved something a game is really the wrong place to be spending my time.

[Sipex]

Ah, you're in that camp. Sorry to hear.

Still, it's two strikes against the console if you look at the two of us respectively. You go for the better graphics and I go for the points.

[Karoht]

Jumps off the Sinking boat of motion controls. If Nintendo does so all will be forgiven in my eyes.

I do not hate motion controls, but I just found them on long term, a distraction from the main point of gaming. Simulation. While at first though swinging a light-saber seems like a cool Idea you realize that you are NOT a jedi knight and miss out on most of the cool parts OR it ends up being somewhat pointless.

So I hope that Nintendo realizes that it caught the attention of grannies to buy thier product, got rich and uses that money to develop just non gimmick games (Not that the Wii didn't have great games). Nintendo won (in the 90s) by NOT using bells and whistles to get the attention of gamers. It didn't go "Oooh look I have CD TECHNOLOGY! (The Sega CD did have good games)" to attract gamers. It missed out on the 64 because it thought that CDs still didn't reach their prime yet.

In terms of console sales, the Wii got allot of $ but nannies do not care about the next release of Wii Sports (Not even mentioning Zelda). For them its a cool gadget that after 3 months they place next to the movie glasses and the dancing phone. So yeah, I doubt that a Wii2 based on attracting Nannies will be as successful.

So the basic point: I hope that Nintendo drops (Or put much less focus on. Their great for navigating menus or aiming) motion controls and just focuses on a good engine. Not for graphics (Though thats a good idea), but for more powerful games.

Just my thoughts, because its the internet and I have nobody else to talk to.


Edit:
Sorry MY nannies.

Well, it's not really up to Nintendo per se. The game companies who create content for the Wii have every option to ignore the motion controls. Same with content created for the Xbox and PS3.

I do agree though, that the motion controls are sort of mis-aimed as far a demographics go. It's oriented towards small children and casual players, and the niche group who just 'want something, anything, different from the norm' of your standard controls. All 3 of which are not normally the type to really spend money on games. Sure, everyone else who doesn't fall into those demographic categories also want something different from time to time, but this is still a niche market right now.

Motion controls really are just baby steps to bigger and better things, or so I hope. Plenty of games just are not using the motion controls to their potential, or are shoehorning the motion controls on at the wrong stage of development, and that makes the motion control mechanics in game just feel gimicky or tacked on. This is more of a development and design issue, less so an issue entirely revolving around the controls themselves.

There are also a few games I figured would be natural fits for the wii motion controls. A Harry Potter game for example with different wand motions for different spells. On the surface, that sounds like a good idea. Until you realize how cumbersome and clunky that actually would feel once implimented. Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, I was told did very well with the bow using motion control. But, I should also point out that LoZ also has the option of going with a gamecube controller, with no true loss of functionality. Which would probably be the better way to go forward with these games. Keep the motion controls integral to gameplay if you chose to use them, and make the game 100% playable AND STILL a quality game if you choose not to use them.


What should never happen is a situation where you have a horrible game but amazing motion controls. Just no. The ideal case is, you have an amazing game, and if you choose to use the motion controls, the gameplay should either be just as good, or dramatically improved, when using the motion controls.

But try telling video game companies these things. These are the people who thought Shadow Hedgehog needed a gun to be cool, or that Mario needed to run around and clean up graffiti with a water gun, or that Sonic the Hedgehog should turn into a Werewolf, or that Samus Aran (insert rant about latest Metroid "game"). Try telling them that the motion controls shouldn't be THE selling feature of a game, that maybe, just maybe, the GAME should be the selling feature of the game... I dunno, that might just be too much for those people.

[Mewtarthio]

But try telling video game companies these things. These are the people who thought Shadow Hedgehog needed a gun to be cool, or that Mario needed to run around and clean up graffiti with a water gun, or that Sonic the Hedgehog should turn into a Werewolf, or that Samus Aran (insert rant about latest Metroid "game"). Try telling them that the motion controls shouldn't be THE selling feature of a game, that maybe, just maybe, the GAME should be the selling feature of the game... I dunno, that might just be too much for those people.

You are aware you're talking about a group of people whose jobs revolve around making games sell, right? And that their employers are generally staking truly ungodly amounts of money on their ability to make games sell? Assuming that they don't know anything about games strikes me as bit of a stretch. Okay, they make mistakes, but that does happen from time to time.

[Triaxx]

Not necessarily true. All versions of Force Unleashed were playable, but I much, much prefer the Wii Version to the 360, or PS3 versions.

No, it didn't look as good, but it was way more fun.

[Karoht]

You are aware you're talking about a group of people whose jobs revolve around making games sell, right? And that their employers are generally staking truly ungodly amounts of money on their ability to make games sell? Assuming that they don't know anything about games strikes me as bit of a stretch. Okay, they make mistakes, but that does happen from time to time.

Oh I'm sure they know plenty about making games. And yet they still make bad ones. The bad games greatly outnumber the good, even among new releases. Skipping the obvious canon issues with some titles I've mentioned, controls are STILL cited as a serious concern with many games, motion controls aside. You'd think we would be past all this by now. And I can cite older games like Devil May Cry 3 (even Devil 1) or anything from the the Metal Gear Solid lineup which beat the everlovin stuffing out of new games in terms of smooth responsive and intuitive controls.


Then motion controls come along. And you know that there are plenty of games out there where motion controls very much have that 'shoehorned on' feeling, like they were an afterthought, not a core design element from the get go. There's actually a term for it called feature creep. And fact of the matter is, it's very clear that this feature isn't getting the love it deserves from the start with many games.


Google the words 'zero punctuation' and you will quickly see what I mean.

[Triaxx]

Seriously, I loved Forced Unleashed, but the Wii version was equally playable to the other, but it was way, way more fun.

[warty goblin]

Oh I'm sure they know plenty about making games. And yet they still make bad ones. The bad games greatly outnumber the good, even among new releases. Skipping the obvious canon issues with some titles I've mentioned, controls are STILL cited as a serious concern with many games, motion controls aside. You'd think we would be past all this by now. And I can cite older games like Devil May Cry 3 (even Devil 1) or anything from the the Metal Gear Solid lineup which beat the everlovin stuffing out of new games in terms of smooth responsive and intuitive controls.

Games aren't uniform in quality and controllability, simply because not all people who make games are equally talanted, have access to the same resources, or have the same priorities. Furthermore, more games have been released in the past than in the last year or so. It's not at all surprising - even probable - that a lot of standout games are old, simply because there are more old games. Add in nostalgia, selection bias against recalling terrible old games, and your conclusion is a certainty that no way means modern game makers are worse than they used to be. Hell, they could on average be better and your observation is likely to still be true.


Then motion controls come along. And you know that there are plenty of games out there where motion controls very much have that 'shoehorned on' feeling, like they were an afterthought, not a core design element from the get go. There's actually a term for it called feature creep. And fact of the matter is, it's very clear that this feature isn't getting the love it deserves from the start with many games.

The key word here is 'feeling' which is to say an impression based on limited and inconclusive evidence. I'm going to guess you aren't a game designer, producer, artist or programmer, and thus are going off of the impression of the finished product. It could be that motion controls are very difficult to do well, and unless done by a company like Nintendo, with a lot of money and incentive to get it right along with intimate familiarity with the software, it's unlikely that a team can pull them off even with a lot of work.

We simply don't know what it like to implement motion controls, so we cannot meaningfully or accurately speculate about whether they are tacked on 'feature creep' or not.

(And the fact 'feature creep' is a term is irrelevant. Phlostigen is also a term, doesn't mean it exists or provides an accurate causal explanation.)

[Alchemistmerlin]

You mean the one with achievements, right? :smallbiggrin:

Achievements/Trophies are the best and worst idea ever. I love them, they encourage me to do things in games I wouldn't do and give me abstract goals to strive for (despite being pointless, I know this) and they're an excellent marketing tool too which I why I hate them.

Really, am I going to get the Lego Star Wars which has a potential 1000 points attached to it or the Lego Star Wars on the Wii?

I actively avoid achievements. If given the option I will buy the version that doesn't have them.

A while ago there was a rumor from Microsoft that you would be able to disable/hide your Xbox achievements and I was quite excited for that feature.




As for motion controls...*Sigh* I really WANT to like them, I've experienced some very interesting theme-park VR rides and things that are absolutely astonishing proof-of-concept tech demos, but the home consoles just aren't doing it. Just give me my controller back I guess.


As long as the rumor about each wii controller having a tiny touch screen on it doesn't turn out to be true, I can't afford that. Literally, can you imagine how expensive that would be per controller?

[Morph Bark]

Jumps off the Sinking boat of motion controls. If Nintendo does so all will be forgiven in my eyes.

I do not hate motion controls, but I just found them on long term, a distraction from the main point of gaming. Simulation. While at first though swinging a light-saber seems like a cool Idea you realize that you are NOT a jedi knight and miss out on most of the cool parts OR it ends up being somewhat pointless.

So I hope that Nintendo realizes that it caught the attention of grannies to buy thier product, got rich and uses that money to develop just non gimmick games (Not that the Wii didn't have great games). Nintendo won (in the 90s) by NOT using bells and whistles to get the attention of gamers. It didn't go "Oooh look I have CD TECHNOLOGY! (The Sega CD did have good games)" to attract gamers. It missed out on the 64 because it thought that CDs still didn't reach their prime yet.

In terms of console sales, the Wii got allot of $ but nannies do not care about the next release of Wii Sports (Not even mentioning Zelda). For them its a cool gadget that after 3 months they place next to the movie glasses and the dancing phone. So yeah, I doubt that a Wii2 based on attracting Nannies will be as successful.

So the basic point: I hope that Nintendo drops (Or put much less focus on. Their great for navigating menus or aiming) motion controls and just focuses on a good engine. Not for graphics (Though thats a good idea), but for more powerful games.

Just my thoughts, because its the internet and I have nobody else to talk to.


Edit:
Sorry MY nannies.

To note: Nintendo actually did try to get CDs in the 90s, but stopped their cooperation with Sony, who went on to develop the Playstation from what they already had.

All companies use gimmicks, but Nintendo does so in a different way. Nintendo does it more innovatively. Remember, it was they who introduced the motion controls, with other companies only following years later. Instead Sony and Microsoft put in DVD players and the like into their consoles, trying to turn them into "home media centers" rather than solely gaming consoles. The Wii has some capabilities to go on the internet and such, but gaming is definitely its primary focus, whilst the line is much more blurred for the other consoles.

Plus, Nintendo sets a standard for their games. In the early gaming days they set a limit to the amount of games they'd allow companies to produce for their consoles so that the companies were forced not to pump out tons of games every year and thus focus on a few, putting more effort into each. (Of course, some companies found ways around this.) Later on, Miyamoto Shigeru made it so a game's release would sometimes be postponed so that it could be made better.

...not that that last paragraph really has any relevance to the OP, but eh. :smalltongue:

[Sipex]

@Morph: Not a problem, you feel like you need to defend Nintendo a bit and I can understand that. This topic does feel kind of 'against Nintendo'.

I will add that I have nothing against Nintendo, I love their stuff, I still play my Wii and when a quality Wii game comes out you bet I'm up there buying it and recommending it to my friends who all think the Wii sucks because Halo isn't on it. I'm just of the opinion that motion controls are rarely used well.

[TheArsenal]

Nothing against Nintendo. Their one of the only companies I think that can do outright "Miracles". I just dislike motion controls. Touchscreen I LOVE! Its Great because most of the games have it as a select option, additional option, or mouse-pad like.

[Zevox]

Ah, you're in that camp. Sorry to hear.

Still, it's two strikes against the console if you look at the two of us respectively. You go for the better graphics and I go for the points.
I'm in a third camp still: I don't care about graphics or achievements. I've been basically content with what graphics look like for a at least a decade, and find achievements totally pointless. If the Wii had been getting more of the games the 360 and PS3 did, like Bioware's titles or Tales of Vesperia, I'd never have had a reason to get a 360 at all.

Zevox

[Morph Bark]

Nothing against Nintendo. Their one of the only companies I think that can do outright "Miracles". I just dislike motion controls. Touchscreen I LOVE! Its Great because most of the games have it as a select option, additional option, or mouse-pad like.

That makes me wonder: how many games for the Wii require use of the Wiimote (and can't be played with a Gamecube controller) that don't actually need it for its purpose? For instance, Wii Sports' concept prettymuch needs the use of the motion controls, but Twilight Princess doesn't. I don't know if Twilight Princess on the Wii can be played with a Gamecube controller though - I played it on the Cube.

[Mando Knight]

If the Wii had been getting more of the games the 360 and PS3 did, like Bioware's titles or Tales of Vesperia, I'd never have had a reason to get a 360 at all.

Which is probably why they're releasing the new console: if it is going to have 1080p compatibility and 360/PS3+ graphics, it's likely going to need larger-capacity disks than the (potentially dual-layered) DVDs that the Wii uses. Which along with total available processing power, is one of the big reasons why the Wii didn't get most of those titles.

That makes me wonder: how many games for the Wii require use of the Wiimote (and can't be played with a Gamecube controller) that don't actually need it for its purpose? For instance, Wii Sports' concept prettymuch needs the use of the motion controls, but Twilight Princess doesn't. I don't know if Twilight Princess on the Wii can be played with a Gamecube controller though - I played it on the Cube.Wii-TW needs the Wiimote because that was how it was ported, though nearly all the games could conceptually be done with Classic/GC controller compatibility. So far, the only things that I've seen the Wii's motion controls do (almost strictly) better are sports games and Metroid Prime. For everything else, it's about as good when done right, but not much better.

[Karoht]

Add in nostalgia, selection bias against recalling terrible old games, and your conclusion is a certainty that no way means modern game makers are worse than they used to be. Hell, they could on average be better and your observation is likely to still be true.Okay, we will compair a newish game. Metal Gear Solid 4. Name any motion control based game where you feel the controls are as good or better.




I'm going to guess you aren't a game designer, producer, artist or programmer, and thus are going off of the impression of the finished product.Your right, I'm not a game designer. I'm a customer. I'd say it's safe to wager that most customers judge the quality of a game and it's controls by the finished product. That's just common sense. And since it is the customer and their wallet that (typically) ultimately determines the success of a game, as the mighty dollar tends to be the most relevant metric.




We simply don't know what it like to implement motion controls, so we cannot meaningfully or accurately speculate about whether they are tacked on 'feature creep' or not. We can quite easily estimate however. If a game would have been perfectly fine or playable without motion controls, odds are the game was not built with motion controls as part of the core design focus, especially easy to extrapolate when the mechanic just plain doesn't work as required. On the other hand, if they are integral to the game, odds are they were part of the core design focus.

And even if it is just 'feeling' or speculation, if a game comes across as shoddy, the game comes across as shoddy, bottom line. I don't have to be a programmer to know if I'm enjoying the mechanics of the game or not. And ultimately, if you or I are not enjoying a mechanic (like the poorly implimented motion controls in game X) that is really the only relevant aspect.

[warty goblin]

Okay, we will compair a newish game. Metal Gear Solid 4. Name any motion control based game where you feel the controls are as good or better.

Again, sample bias. A single data point is meaningless. Motion controlled games could generally be as easy to control as non-motion controlled games, that says nothing about the ability to pick and compare single titles.

(Incidentally I'm willing to bet the controls of something like ArmA II or the DCS games using Track IR are, in fact, better. Can't be sure, but what I've seen of Track IR makes it a pretty convincing and naturalistic form of control.)



Your right, I'm not a game designer. I'm a customer. I'd say it's safe to wager that most customers judge the quality of a game and it's controls by the finished product. That's just common sense. And since it is the customer and their wallet that (typically) ultimately determines the success of a game, as the mighty dollar tends to be the most relevant metric.
Judging by whether the controls are enjoyable to use is a different thing than speculating about the development process. The first is a judgement anybody playing the game is qualified to make, the second is not.




We can quite easily estimate however. If a game would have been perfectly fine or playable without motion controls, odds are the game was not built with motion controls as part of the core design focus, especially easy to extrapolate when the mechanic just plain doesn't work as required. On the other hand, if they are integral to the game, odds are they were part of the core design focus.
Sure you can easily estimate, that doesn't make your estimation useful or accurate. Without knowing how games are developed, what the APIs are like to work with, what sort of support and documentation is available, or what the original intent of the designers is, all you've got to go on is a gut feeling, and gut feelings are not good estimators. They certainly should not be confused with actual knowledge or information.


And even if it is just 'feeling' or speculation, if a game comes across as shoddy, the game comes across as shoddy, bottom line. I don't have to be a programmer to know if I'm enjoying the mechanics of the game or not. And ultimately, if you or I are not enjoying a mechanic (like the poorly implimented motion controls in game X) that is really the only relevant aspect.
Again, assessing the end usability is something anybody using the product can legitimately do. Unless they've got some sort of inside track on the design process however, they are not qualified to assess that, simply because they have no information or expertise in the field. I can determine whether or not a mechanic fixed the steering in my car, but unless I'm a mechanic, I'm really not qualified to speculate on how they did so.

[Erloas]

Your right, I'm not a game designer. I'm a customer. I'd say it's safe to wager that most customers judge the quality of a game and it's controls by the finished product.
I think the point was that all you know is what it ended up as, you don't know how much worse it could have been. They may have worked on the controls during the entire development cycle and that was all the better they could get them.

I think a big part of game control comes down to the engine the game is built with. Asynchronous operations like player inputs are a very technically difficult challenge in any system. And most game companies don't write their own engines and even the ones that do don't write that many of them. Licensing a game engine is really expensive. Learning the intricacies of a game engine is difficult and time consuming so one studio is going to focus on one, maybe 2 engines for everything they do. If the game engine(s) they work with don't respond well to motion control inputs (or even input schemes that work for one genre of game but not another) then things get tricky. They probably don't have the budget or the time to invest in a new engine, and unless its something they can use a lot its probably not worth it.

And given how specific the Wii controls are designed, there probably aren't many engines designed specifically to work with them. Nintendo obvious has some but I don't even know if they lease it and it seems that most of the 3rd party engine designers haven't found it all that appealing. So companies use their existing engines and fit the controls to it as best as they can.

[Karoht]

I think the point was that all you know is what it ended up as, you don't know how much worse it could have been. They may have worked on the controls during the entire development cycle and that was all the better they could get them.Which still doesn't change the fact that they did or did not release a bad product. Again, I don't need to know every step of the design process to know that bad product is bad.



And given how specific the Wii controls are designed, there probably aren't many engines designed specifically to work with them.I recall programmers saying that the 3rd party support is awesome, and it's a dream to work with. Article on IGN about 2 years back.



So companies use their existing engines and fit the controls to it as best as they can.Which is basically like saying they are shoehorning the motion controls in, which is what I already said.

Even if it is only speculation, if the controls feel like they don't fit or were added in unnecessarily, thats the feeling the player is going to get, which game designers clearly aren't aware of. I'm not the only person getting that feeling.

[Erloas]

Which is basically like saying they are shoehorning the motion controls in, which is what I already said.
I think its mostly a matter of options. One option might be: create this game with the engine we have and get the motion controls to work as best we can for 30M and 18 months of development, or lease this new engine and learn it and have a budget of 50M and a development time of 30 months. Changing the engine a development team works with really is that big of a change.

And from everything I've seen, there isn't a whole lot of 3rd party development on the Wii. Not having the article its hard to say if they said there is a lot of 3rd party support for the Wii or if Nintendo's support for 3rd party developers is good, because while they sound similar it is two completely different things.

And I do agree that all that really matters is what the finished product feels like. Which is why I think so many big named 3rd party games never made it to the Wii and even the ones that did were almost completely different games then their 360/PS3/PC counterparts.

[Lord Seth]

Your right, I'm not a game designer. I'm a customer. I'd say it's safe to wager that most customers judge the quality of a game and it's controls by the finished product. That's just common sense. And since it is the customer and their wallet that (typically) ultimately determines the success of a game, as the mighty dollar tends to be the most relevant metric.Well, if that's the logic, then what Nintendo's been doing is good because lots of people are buying their games and systems. That seems to solve the whole debate right there!

[Sipex]

Well, if that's the logic, then what Nintendo's been doing is good because lots of people are buying their games and systems. That seems to solve the whole debate right there!

LOGIC

MY ONLY WEAKNESS

*dies*

[Karoht]

Well, if that's the logic, then what Nintendo's been doing is good because lots of people are buying their games and systems. That seems to solve the whole debate right there!
Tell that to the horrible sales and scathing reviews of the newest metroid game which utilizes motion controls.

[Sipex]

I think that had more to do with the poor design than the movement controls. If the game had still been designed the same way but using joysticks to aim it would still be bad.

[Mewtarthio]

Tell that to the horrible sales and scathing reviews of the newest metroid game which utilizes motion controls.

Corruption used motion controls far more extensively than Other M (the latter was mostly played with the Wiimote on its side), and that was a really good game. Other M is simply... well, let's be diplomatic and call it "an ill-fated experiment." As I mentioned earlier, mistakes do happen. Blaming the game's failures on motion controls is a bit disingenuous seeing as it fails on so many other levels as well.

And that's assuming you find the controls a point of failure at all. Most reviews I've seen say the controls were the game's strong suit.

[Prime32]

I think that had more to do with the poor design than the movement controls. If the game had still been designed the same way but using joysticks to aim it would still be bad.Mostly it was the story. Like Samus infamously becoming paralysed by fear when she sees Ridley (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecAYwkwI9Lc) despite having killed him at least half a dozen times and being fully aware that he can regenerate and has clones.

[Lord Seth]

Tell that to the horrible sales and scathing reviews of the newest metroid game which utilizes motion controls.Actually, the reviews for the game were overall okay, as seen by its 78.55% score on GameRankings. As for sales, a quick look seems to indicate that while its sales weren't as good as Nintendo probably hoped they were, they weren't "horrible" either. So you're already off on the "horrible sales" and "scathing reviews" bit. Also, while the game did attract some criticism, I don't think the motion controls were the things that were the most criticized.

And, of course, you have to take into account all the games that used motion controls that got great reviews and were smash hits.

[Sipex]

As a rebuttal, I point to Donkey Kong Country Returns which uses movement controls, was released more recently than Other M and got great reviews.

[Mewtarthio]

As a rebuttal, I point to Donkey Kong Country Returns which uses movement controls, was released more recently than Other M and got great reviews.

Or, better yet, the GoldenEye remake. That game had motion controls seriously integrated into the gameplay, and it got pretty good reviews. And that's an Activision game, too.

[Karoht]

As a rebuttal, I point to Donkey Kong Country Returns which uses movement controls, was released more recently than Other M and got great reviews.
touche sir


Or, better yet, the GoldenEye remake. That game had motion controls seriously integrated into the gameplay, and it got pretty good reviews. And that's an Activision game, too.
But that is my point. It was a major part of core play, where as other games it feels tacked on at the last minute, or simply it doesn't feel like it is part core gameplay.

[MoelVermillion]

Graphics mean nothing if the game is not worth playing. There are several games on the 360, and even PC that look great, but are uncontrollable, and thus NO FUN.

And there are (more than) several games on the Wii that look like ass and control like it too.

You're acting like there is a trade off between graphics and controllability here when that is simply not the case. 360 games when developed properly can control amazingly and look amazingly detailed, Wii games can only control amazingly. The Wii's big advantage here to offset this used to be motion control but the competition has now caught up and they've lost this edge. There is a good reason they're releasing a new console after all.



I think a big part of game control comes down to the engine the game is built with. Asynchronous operations like player inputs are a very technically difficult challenge in any system. And most game companies don't write their own engines and even the ones that do don't write that many of them. Licensing a game engine is really expensive. Learning the intricacies of a game engine is difficult and time consuming so one studio is going to focus on one, maybe 2 engines for everything they do. If the game engine(s) they work with don't respond well to motion control inputs (or even input schemes that work for one genre of game but not another) then things get tricky. They probably don't have the budget or the time to invest in a new engine, and unless its something they can use a lot its probably not worth it.


I don't think that this is typically the case at all. Usually engines handle graphics, sound, AI and physics and leave the rest up to the developer. Many different control schemes should be able to be coded onto the same engine and there shouldn't really be any limitation created by the engine.

Check out the MT Framework (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MT_Framework) engine it runs MvC 3 and Lost Planet which are two games that couldn't control more differently if they tried (Okay they could be more different if they actively did try but, they're still pretty different!).


Tell that to the horrible sales and scathing reviews of the newest metroid game which utilizes motion controls.

The Xbox 360 controller didn't suck just because Bullet Witch sucked and the Wiimote and/or Nintendo don't suck because other M sucked.

Other M didn't suck because of motion controls, Other M was a game that sucked and just happened to have motion controls anyway. While I have heard people say that the controls were awkward and hard to use the bulk of the arguments against it seemed to be in the story and characterization which a lot of people thought went against established cannon, were fairly misogynistic and were just painful in general.

That said though I can't say for sure Other M did suck, I've heard some people say good things and I've heard some people say bad things. I didn't play it myself because it didn't look like my type of game in the end. The reviews for it were okay but not great but the most common complaints did seem to be in the story rather than controls.



But that is my point. It was a major part of core play, where as other games it feels tacked on at the last minute, or simply it doesn't feel like it is part core gameplay.

Yeah this is a huge problem when this happens. Hopefully the new Wii will leave developers feeling like they don't have to include motion controls just because they're developping for the Wii.

[Triaxx]

Actually, what I'm saying is that 'GRAPHICS ARE NOT EVERYTHING'. Sure, the games look good, but are you sacrificing looks for gameplay and control?

Given the option between a good game, that looks Great and a Great Game that looks good, I'll take the great game.

Yes, the Lag-nect has caught up to the Wii. And it's so popular there's dozen... Umm... how many games is that now? Three?

The Move has the advantage of being back-compatible for games.

So... yeah, there's not a trade off between control and graphics. I could go to the PS3 and get the best of both worlds. But they didn't make gaming a household activity. Nintendo and the Wii did.

And deride casual gamers all you want, but today's casual gamers are tomorrows hardcore crowd. After all, many of us started with Mario, or Zelda, and passed on to Call of Duty, and Halo.

[TheArsenal]

And deride casual gamers all you want, but today's casual gamers are tomorrows hardcore crowd. After all, many of us started with Mario, or Zelda, and passed on to Call of Duty, and Halo.

Why are shooters shown as the "Hardcore" thing. It pisses me off so much!

[Prime32]

And deride casual gamers all you want, but today's casual gamers are tomorrows hardcore crowd. After all, many of us started with Mario, or Zelda, and passed on to Call of Duty, and Halo....many of us went in the other direction. You can't sit down with friends and play a casual game of Zelda.

Hardcore =/= gritty

[LordShotGun]

I really dislike movement controls like those.

I was talking to a friend about this yesterday, and we came to the following conclusion: The Wii outsold their competitors by a lot, but the people who bought it are not using it at all. I bought the Wii 4 years ago (or so) and I only have like 4 games. And none of them have been played for a while. It's just sitting there gathering dust. :smallfrown:

Quoted for truth...I have had the same experience. Now I only use my Wii when my friends (rarely) come over to play SSBB

[MoelVermillion]

Actually, what I'm saying is that 'GRAPHICS ARE NOT EVERYTHING'. Sure, the games look good, but are you sacrificing looks for gameplay and control?


Just to get this straight because I am honestly confused by this part. You said that "Are you sacrificing looks for gameplay and control?" I want to make sure because what you asked here was... Are you sacrificing looks (making the looks/graphics worse) for gameplay and control (making the gameplay and control better). This doesn't seem to make sense with the previous part of the question "Sure, the game looks good," as that implies that the focus of the game would be graphics which you then went on to ask if I was going to make them worse :smallconfused:. Did you mean "Are you sacrificing gameplay and control for looks?" because that would make more sense. Please help me out here.

Either way though there is no reason for there to need to be a trade off between the two on the 360 or PS3. Both of these consoles have relatively high end graphics and have the potential for excellent controls and gameplay, the Wii? Doesn't. It can have the excellent controls and gameplay but it just can't get the high end graphics.



Given the option between a good game, that looks Great and a Great Game that looks good, I'll take the great game.


So will I. There's no reason why the PS3 and 360 can't take the third option of a Great Game with high end graphics though. The Wii cannot take this third option though.



Yes, the Lag-nect has caught up to the Wii. And it's so popular there's dozen... Umm... how many games is that now? Three?

The Move has the advantage of being back-compatible for games.

So... yeah, there's not a trade off between control and graphics. I could go to the PS3 and get the best of both worlds. But they didn't make gaming a household activity. Nintendo and the Wii did.

Uh, that's nice but the Wii has lost its sale's lead in a lot of markets. The 360 has overtaken it on month by month sales in the US and the PS3 is quickly catching up. Regardless of whether or not they "made gaming a household activity" they have lost their edge and they need to do something to remedy it. Luckily that "something" is apparently an all new HD console with more impressive hardware than the competition and their current motion control and a built in touch screen.



And deride casual gamers all you want, but today's casual gamers are tomorrows hardcore crowd. After all, many of us started with Mario, or Zelda, and passed on to Call of Duty, and Halo.
Is this in response to me or someone else?

If its to me then I don't remember having a negative opinion on casual gamers. What I do remember saying was:


The problem here is that a lot of the Wii's sales are attributed to the casual market and developers of a lot of traditional games are not sure they could sell their games to the bulk of the Wii's market.

And this is frankly true. The Wii is the first console to majorly grasp the casual market in a very long time. What great innovation did the Wii use to do this? Motion controllers. Now remember how this was in response to the idea that developers should develop games for the Wii that don't use motion controls? Now if the casual market all bought up on this largely based on the motion controls which isn't too far of an unreasonable assumption to make... then why would developers try to sell the games that don't use motion controls? That would be market suicide.

Also if the bulk of this post is in response to me then I am detecting an attitude here that you think I'm attacking Nintendo? Nothing is further from the truth, my first post in this thread was in defense of the Wiimote and Nintendo. I then went on to explain that there is not much incentive to developing for the Wii if you purposely choose to sacrifice its main functionality (motion control) in the development process and then I pointed out that now that the competition has caught up they need a new solution (which they have anyway). I don't think anything I posted here is particularly unjustified or unfair to Nintendo.

[Karoht]

For the record I'm not attacking Nintendo either.
What I am staunchly against is this attitude of game companies lately force motion controls on (rather than give the option for either or) or squeeze it in as a feature, when motion controls are not a core element of the game's design. If they're going to include them, the game needs to be designed with this in mind from day one, not a few months before launch.

Again, maybe this is just the impression I get from some of the weeker titles. On the other hand, some are of the mind that voice acting in certain Capcom titles is 'phoned in' as it were (I'm looking at you Resident Evil), and while that may not be true (perhaps Capcom spent kajillions on voice acting and we just don't know it), the impression is there.

[Erloas]

I don't actually get the whole "the Wii brought casual gaming into being" thing. Because for as long as I remember people have been playing games. Most everyone I knew as a kid had a NES, and later a SNES or Sega. And last time I checked 7-15 year olds are not considered "hardcore" gamers. Pacman and Tetris are not "hardcore" games, they are casual games. In fact the majority of games for the longest time were fairly casual.

The young crowd of kids playing games play on whatever console they have, which might be the Wii, or the 360 or the PS3, I've seen lots of kids playing on all of them. And it was the same every generation between this one and the NES. The thing was that in all of the generations up to this one the casual games and the more "hardcore" games were both available to each console. The biggest thing that changed is that now the Wii has very few hardcore games and mostly only the casual games are left, so it stands out as casual. Its not like there weren't a lot of "kids" games in the previous generations.

And if anything, PCs were what brought casual gaming to the masses. I know a lot of old ladies playing Solitaire or Minesweep on the PC long before the Wii was even thought of. The internet Flash game scene has been around long then the Wii, though it didn't really start standing out until fairly recently. And all of the casual games that people are playing all the time are not on the Wii, they are on Facebook and are now transitioning to phones.

Kids never needed motion controls to figure out how to play games, the Wii has not made games any more accessible to young kids then it has been in the past. And all of the parents of the young kids with the Wiis... well there is a very good chance they grew up with a NES, SNES or Sega, they just got out of playing them for a while. And while you do hear of old people playing the Wii, its not really a great revenue stream and its not something most of them are doing more then a little bit of the time. Maybe the Wii has become the "go to" game at the Old Folks Home, but if anything its just replacing shuffleboard and BINGO (which I still think are both probably significantly more common).


I honestly do not see the Wii having really changed all that much in the grand scheme of things. Its just the most current example of what has been happening for a long time, electronics becoming common place instead of a luxury.

[Triaxx]

I only grabbed Shooters as a Hardcore because they're popular enough that if you've never been a gamer, you know the name. Like for a while all systems were Nintendos, and then later Playstations. I could have said EVE and World of Warcraft, or Starcraft, but those are all mostly PC games and this is a console discussion.

And you could sit down and play with friends playing Four Swords. I was really trying to point out that there's no point in a causal/hardcore lable.

Serves me right for posting when I'm tired. It's not true, even had I put it correctly. What I'm really saying is that 'high-end' graphics, are not a measure of how good a game is. A bad game can be beautiful. It doesn't change it being a bad game. A good game is a good game, whether it's beautiful, or completely fugly. Dwarf Fortress is so deep and complex it isn't funny, and it's entirely in simple Ascii graphics.

So just because it could have monstrously high-end graphics, it must? Sounds like a recipe to jack prices up even higher.

[MoelVermillion]

Well yeah the annoying thing is that casual gaming is a hazy and ill defined term. You are absolutely right that PCs and phone games lead the casual charge over all however it is one thing to get a person to play games on a device they basically needed for day to day living (its getting harder and harder every day to live without a computer or a PC) and another thing entirely to sell someone a device dedicated entirely to gaming. The annoying thing is that you will find hundreds of quotes by people all through out the industry saying that Nitendo recaptured the casual market but its very hard to find to solid market research to back that up. The closest I came this search around was this article saying that the Wii was in general considered a good console for families (http://www.marketresearchworld.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2106) but that is not quite the same thing. At some point last year I read a research report that had a large break down of gaming demographics and what type of games they were buying for what consoles but I just can't find the thing anymore :smallfrown:.

Anyway I'm going to retract the term casual from the argument I'm making. The point is no matter what you call it most the people who bought the Wii bought it for the motion controls. Graphically speaking the Wii is not that much of an improvement over its last gen counter part the Gamecube and yet it has sold nearly 4 times as many units as its predecessor (84.64 million versus 22 million). Outside of the graphical upgrades which were miniscule compared to that of the competition's consoles the Wii's other feature was its innovative motion control. When your main upgrade is motion control and you've sold four times as many consoles as your predecessor its safe to say that your selling point is the new motion control. To further reinforce this if you look at top ten games sold on the Wii only one does not use motion control, only two can be played at all without it and five could absolutely not work without it. It is quite clear that the Wii's selling point is motion control.

Now the point I'm trying to make in a lot of these posts I'm making right now is that there is no incentive to develop for the Wii and forsake motion controls when that is the main selling point of the Wii. Motion controls are what people bought the Wii for. All the people who bought Wii for motion controls (which is apparently a lot) are probably not going to buy your game if you don't use motion controls. If you're developing a game without motion controls then you'd be better off going to the competition who have better non motion control related hardware and sell games based on things other than motion controls. I hope that clears up what I'm saying if anyone was confused.

EDIT:



So just because it could have monstrously high-end graphics, it must?

Nah of course not, what I mainly mean is that as a developer if you did forsake the Wii's main selling point and handle over the competition (motion control) then you'd usually be better off developing on the console that has less limiting hardware for rendering purposes and for a market that is more likely to pick up your game (the people who didn't buy a console for motion control). Oh and also I guess that Nintendo will need to pull out something bigger now (which apparently they are doing) now that the competition has copied their main selling point and put it into their beefier hardware consoles.

EDIT 2: Also to re-address the initial topic on whether or not Nintendo should "Jumps off the Sinking boat of motion controls." No they should definitely not. As I said its pretty clear that the Wii's main selling point was its motion controls and it has still to this point sold the most consoles of this generation. The competition has only just started catching up now and they've only been able to do that by putting motion controls into their own consoles. Its pretty clear that motion controls are whats selling units this generation so abandoning them would be the worst possible thing Nintendo could do.

[Erloas]

Preface this with the fact that all my numbers are from Wikipedia, which is good enough for this sort of discussion.
I think one of the main differences between the Gamecube and the Wii's sales numbers is the sales numbers of its competitor. The PS2 has sold 140M units, it broke 100M after 5y9m. For comparison to the Wii, its been out now 5y4m and is at ~85M.

So I think that goes to show that the Wii really isn't significantly more popular then the consoles of the previous generation. It just seems that the Gamecube was not very popular. Even the much maligned PS3 sales are 2x that of the Gamecube (41m vs 22m).

To me that all says that the Wii sales numbers really aren't that impressive at all. And that the market penetration and "universal appeal" of the motion controls of the Wii aren't nearly as important as people make them out to be. Its hard to even try to say the Wii broke open new markets to consoles when it hasn't even come close to breaking the previous generations install base. If anything these numbers tell me that fewer people are playing console games this generation compared to last. This generation is at about 185M units sold, last generation is at about 206M units sold.


I think the biggest issue with the Wii, and graphics in general, is that it fell behind in the minimum acceptable graphics for a full retail game. People don't have to have great graphics and graphics don't make a game fun, but when you are spending $40-60 for a game your minimum expectations are different then if you are paying $0-20 for a game. Some game designs also age better in terms of graphics then others. I don't by any means live and die by graphics but the Wii graphics have fallen far enough behind that it really has started to detract from a lot of the games.

[MoelVermillion]

Preface this with the fact that all my numbers are from Wikipedia, which is good enough for this sort of discussion.
I think one of the main differences between the Gamecube and the Wii's sales numbers is the sales numbers of its competitor. The PS2 has sold 140M units, it broke 100M after 5y9m. For comparison to the Wii, its been out now 5y4m and is at ~85M.



Actually the Wii came out in November 2006 so it will be at 5 years this November so its currently at 4y5m :smalltongue:.




So I think that goes to show that the Wii really isn't significantly more popular then the consoles of the previous generation. It just seems that the Gamecube was not very popular. Even the much maligned PS3 sales are 2x that of the Gamecube (41m vs 22m).

To me that all says that the Wii sales numbers really aren't that impressive at all. And that the market penetration and "universal appeal" of the motion controls of the Wii aren't nearly as important as people make them out to be. Its hard to even try to say the Wii broke open new markets to consoles when it hasn't even come close to breaking the previous generations install base. If anything these numbers tell me that fewer people are playing console games this generation compared to last. This generation is at about 185M units sold, last generation is at about 206M units sold.


Like I said your initial numbers were actually a little off but either way the Wii is the front runner this generation. Whether or not this generation is selling as many units as the last generation its still motion controls that seem to be selling consoles for this generation.

[Zevox]

I don't by any means live and die by graphics but the Wii graphics have fallen far enough behind that it really has started to detract from a lot of the games.
Yeah, see, that is an opinion that I will never understand. Frankly, I don't even see any significant different between the Wii's graphics and the 360's, and even if there were I don't see how graphics can detract from a game unless you're unable to tell what you're looking at. Which frankly we're long past needing to worry about as a graphics-based problem.

Zevox

[TheArsenal]

Yeah, see, that is an opinion that I will never understand. Frankly, I don't even see any significant different between the Wii's graphics and the 360's, and even if there were I don't see how graphics can detract from a game unless you're unable to tell what you're looking at. Which frankly we're long past needing to worry about as a graphics-based problem.

Zevox

Because graphics can add a great layer of "Wow" to the game. Like try playing Portal 2 on Wii graphics.

[warty goblin]

Yeah, see, that is an opinion that I will never understand. Frankly, I don't even see any significant different between the Wii's graphics and the 360's, and even if there were I don't see how graphics can detract from a game unless you're unable to tell what you're looking at. Which frankly we're long past needing to worry about as a graphics-based problem.

Zevox

I play a lot of shooters, and graphics really do matter there. Higher resolutions and sharper textures in particular make distinguishing targets vastly easier - I distinctly remember when I started playing Quake Wars on a new computer that could run the game at much higher resolution. Thanks to the extra crispness, I could not only locate enemies more easily, but determine things like how they were armed and what class they were playing at ranges I could do when playing at 800x600. It also made it a lot easier to spot enemy landmines. The game was still playable at the lower resolution understand, but I was missing out on actually relevant information due to weaker hardware.

Improved graphics can also simply make a game more fun to look at. I also remember cranking the settings on the Witcher, and simply being blown away at how much more atmospheric and moody they made the game. While I could always tell what was going on with the lower settings, on high the art design and scenery could win through better and thus convey a greater sense of tone than could be managed otherwise.

In general my bottom line is that games are a visual medium. I see nothing wrong with wanting the things I look at for fun to be pretty, and more advanced technology allows for that. The absence of great graphics isn't really a minus, but their presence is absolutely a plus.

[Zevox]

Because graphics can add a great layer of "Wow" to the game. Like try playing Portal 2 on Wii graphics.
I would, if I were interested enough in Portal 2 to buy it at this point and it were available on the Wii. Neither of those is the case though unfortunately.


The absence of great graphics isn't really a minus,
Which was my point. My reaction was to the statement: "Wii graphics have fallen far enough behind that it really has started to detract from a lot of the games." Which I cannot understand.

Zevox

[Erloas]

I don't think I could really articulate what it is about the graphics that detracts from the games, simply that it does.
Some of it might also be the design decisions made for a game to keep it running well on the system, the bubbly cartoony looking graphics. Its not that its not realistic looking, I like the look of a number of non-realistic design, like some cell-shading.

Atmosphere is also a big one. A lot of settings don't look right without a good looking backdrop. When you have to cut out a lot of the minor world building details to keep things running well... well then you've cut out world building details. There is a lot of majesty in large scenes that can't be had with limited graphical power.
Considering that escapism and immersion are two very big factors in really getting into a story, having to cut back on the world building is cutting back on the game.
Of course its also dependent on the type of game. There isn't a whole lot of immersion or world building in a game like SSBB, given the nature of the game, graphics don't really do much for it. In a game like Bioshock the immersion and world building is as much a part of the enjoyment of the game as gameplay is. L4D, or any other horror/survival type game, the immersion and feel of the game world are very important to the enjoyment of the game.

[Triaxx]

If you're not going with motion control, then yes, it's acceptable to move away from the Wii in favor of improved graphics. Yet, there's no escape from motion control it seems. Both the 360 and PS3 have them.

The difference? The price. Even now you're spending $400 on the 360, and similar on the PS3. And that's only for one person for the PS3. The Wii is $200out of the box for one person. And not only did they do the Motion control first, but out of those I've spent time with, they've done it the best. I haven't played with the PS3 enough to say yes or no if it's better or worse, so I reserve judgement.

And yes, Warty is right, and wrong. Improved graphics can benefit the game. If you're shooting a mile away, the difference between three pixels, and one pixel is significant. But if it's an in your face game, it's not as important.

[Zevox]

I don't think I could really articulate what it is about the graphics that detracts from the games, simply that it does.
Not exactly a good way to make an argument to someone who is of the opposite mindset, and cannot see how Wii-level graphics could ever detract from a game.


Atmosphere is also a big one. A lot of settings don't look right without a good looking backdrop. When you have to cut out a lot of the minor world building details to keep things running well... well then you've cut out world building details. There is a lot of majesty in large scenes that can't be had with limited graphical power.
Considering that escapism and immersion are two very big factors in really getting into a story, having to cut back on the world building is cutting back on the game.
Yeah, see, I don't understand those arguments either, really. World-building and atmosphere are things that I've never seen as dependent on graphics. The first thing that comes to mind for the former in a video game is Dragon Age, which was criticized for having outdated graphics if I recall (not a criticism I ever understood, but I know I heard it on multiple occasions). The world-building came from the story, dialogue, events, characters, and codex entries, not visuals. For atmosphere the first thing that comes to mind is Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Survivor, a DS game which doesn't make any effort at being visually impressive at all, and achieves its atmosphere through events and dialogue alone.

I also know of a Wii game that I've seen praised mainly for its atmosphere, Fragile Dreams: Farewell, Ruins of the Moon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragile_Dreams:_Farewell_Ruins_of_the_Moon), but unfortunately I haven't picked it up yet, so I can't vouch for how accurate that is.


Of course its also dependent on the type of game. There isn't a whole lot of immersion or world building in a game like SSBB, given the nature of the game, graphics don't really do much for it. In a game like Bioshock the immersion and world building is as much a part of the enjoyment of the game as gameplay is. L4D, or any other horror/survival type game, the immersion and feel of the game world are very important to the enjoyment of the game.
I can't really respond to those examples I'm afraid. I've never played and likely never will play Bioshock or L4D, and since I don't see any appeal to scaring myself I don't play horror games (or watch horror movies, or read horror books) in general. The only horror game I can think of that I've played and enjoyed was Eternal Darkness, and that's Lovecraftian Horror, which I don't find scary, so it was only a horror game by technicality for me.


Even now you're spending $400 on the 360, and similar on the PS3.
Er, no, you're spending $300 on either of them, $250 or less if you can find an older version. I only paid $250 for my 360 a couple years ago.

Zevox

[Imposter]

Yeah, see, I don't understand those arguments either, really. World-building and atmosphere are things that I've never seen as dependent on graphics. The first thing that comes to mind for the former in a video game is Dragon Age, which was criticized for having outdated graphics if I recall (not a criticism I ever understood, but I know I heard it on multiple occasions). The world-building came from the story, dialogue, events, characters, and codex entries, not visuals. For atmosphere the first thing that comes to mind is Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Survivor, a DS game which doesn't make any effort at being visually impressive at all, and achieves its atmosphere through events and dialogue alone.

See, this argument just annoys me. While it's true that the visuals of a game aren't the only tool a dev has available when building the tone of a game, it's still a hugely important one. It's much easier to establish a setting if it's possible to add details, and almost every other method of providing those involve much more explicit and obtrusive delivery. Characterization and NPCs are nice example here, so let's look at them. Older games couldn't really represent expressions in any useful way, and we got a lot of head bobbing as a result. More recently, the expression of an NPC is something that the animator can actually change, and the decision to put resources into the facial animation is a decision that a developer can realistically make. And being able to make a character's emotions known in a way that doesn't interrupt whatever else is going on is, yes, a useful tool for the writing team and can help improve a game.

The other thing is that the limitations of a low powered system aren't just on useless pretties, but on things that actually matter to the gameplay. A system with more processing power handy can draw more objects per frame, have more AI controlled characters in a scene, can have more accurate or elaborate lighting to control what's visible. These things have effects on game design, and not having objections to boxy character models isn't going to change that.

Anyway, on the question of motion control, I don't really think that Nintendo's focus on casual games is all that relevant. They've clearly decided that the traditional "hardcore" gaming that Sony and Microsoft are fighting for with their consoles is a tough and saturated market, and that they can do better by gearing their products and marketing towards a different demographic. The motion controls being tied to that change in focus doesn't seem like it's all that dependent on the controls themselves, since they could have probably tried for "hardcore" titles using the new tech. The fact that they had that new tech that they could use to support their new "we're different" message seems like it would have been more of a happy coincidence.

[warty goblin]

Yeah, see, I don't understand those arguments either, really. World-building and atmosphere are things that I've never seen as dependent on graphics. The first thing that comes to mind for the former in a video game is Dragon Age, which was criticized for having outdated graphics if I recall (not a criticism I ever understood, but I know I heard it on multiple occasions). The world-building came from the story, dialogue, events, characters, and codex entries, not visuals.

True. This probably has more to do with Bioware's mediocre to terrible art design however, and less to do with what can be done with better or worse software/hardware. Good art will pretty much always look better than bad, but backed by more RAM and a zippier CPU it can look so much better.


For atmosphere the first thing that comes to mind is Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Survivor, a DS game which doesn't make any effort at being visually impressive at all, and achieves its atmosphere through events and dialogue alone.


I can't really respond to those examples I'm afraid. I've never played and likely never will play Bioshock or L4D, and since I don't see any appeal to scaring myself I don't play horror games (or watch horror movies, or read horror books) in general. The only horror game I can think of that I've played and enjoyed was Eternal Darkness, and that's Lovecraftian Horror, which I don't find scary, so it was only a horror game by technicality for me.
Neither L4D or Bioshock is horror in the sense of being particularly scary, the later manages creepy every now and again but that's about it. And Bioshock is definitely a game that benefits from having a lot of hardware behind it, the decayed art deco thing would simply not have the same impact if it wasn't so sharply rendered.

(Incidentally, STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl is the only game that's ever seriously scared me, and it definitely benefits from having a lot of hardware resources available to spend on incidental detail. Ask anybody who's played any of the STALKER games what the central feature and main character of the game is, and they'll tell you it's the land where it takes place. Being able to render that in terrifying high resolution allows one to soak up the atmosphere that much better. It's certainly a game I enjoyed a lot more on a more powerful rig than the one I first played it on.)

[Zevox]

See, this argument just annoys me. While it's true that the visuals of a game aren't the only tool a dev has available when building the tone of a game, it's still a hugely important one. It's much easier to establish a setting if it's possible to add details, and almost every other method of providing those involve much more explicit and obtrusive delivery. Characterization and NPCs are nice example here, so let's look at them. Older games couldn't really represent expressions in any useful way, and we got a lot of head bobbing as a result. More recently, the expression of an NPC is something that the animator can actually change, and the decision to put resources into the facial animation is a decision that a developer can realistically make. And being able to make a character's emotions known in a way that doesn't interrupt whatever else is going on is, yes, a useful tool for the writing team and can help improve a game.
Come now, it's not like Wii-level graphics are anywhere near poor enough to be unable to do things like facial expressions. That's just a silly argument.


The other thing is that the limitations of a low powered system aren't just on useless pretties, but on things that actually matter to the gameplay. A system with more processing power handy can draw more objects per frame, have more AI controlled characters in a scene, can have more accurate or elaborate lighting to control what's visible. These things have effects on game design, and not having objections to boxy character models isn't going to change that.
That's all fine and good, but now you're on another subject entirely, not graphics at all. (And since when were the Wii's visuals anything like "boxy character models?" Those stopped after the N64/PS1 era.)


Neither L4D or Bioshock is horror in the sense of being particularly scary, the later manages creepy every now and again but that's about it. And Bioshock is definitely a game that benefits from having a lot of hardware behind it, the decayed art deco thing would simply not have the same impact if it wasn't so sharply rendered.
The horror remarks were simply because Erloas brought up the horror genre in general, so I wanted to mention my unfamiliarity with it and why. The reason I'll likely never play L4D or Bioshock has little to do with any horror elements to them and much more to do with them being first-person shooters.

Zevox

[Gralamin]

(Man, this turned into a rant, oh well)
On Controls

The control scheme of the Wii was a great choice on Nintendo's part, and wanting them to go backwards is not a solution. Most of the complaints focus on the bad games, which tack on the controls. Most of the praises focus on the good games, which use the controls to good effect for the individual game.

The bad control scheme games mean companies didn't spend enough time thinking about the how the controls would work. This is unfortunate, because a bad control scheme will break game immersion faster then anything else, in addition to making a game frustrating. Even good companies can make bad decisions in these regards.

The good control scheme games have been made with companies who have took the time to think carefully about how the controls would work, and were right. This is a good thing, because a controller like this: http://walyou.com/img/xbox-360-controller-recovers-stolen-console.jpg
Is actually very complex, and a huge barrier to entry. Let's count: We have the left and right analog stick, which has a close to 360 degree motion at various speeds. You can also press the sticks for some hidden buttons. You have the DPad, which seems intuitively like it should fit the same purpose as the analog stick (it often doesn't). You have Y X B and A for four more buttons, though the color coding is a good touch (6 buttons so far). You have the left and right bumper as buttons as well (8), you have the analog triggers, you have the Back, Start, and Guide buttons (11), and the connect button (12). All in all you have:
12 buttons, spread out between: Center of controller, Right of Controller, Left of Controller, and Hidden under analog Sticks.
2 Analog Triggers,
2 Analog Sticks,
and a Digital pad (Which I can't even remember the last time I used).

If you don't see a problem with this much complexity, then you are still thinking as a hardcore player. In which case, you are thinking about the controller all wrong, because time has shown that hardcore gamers will put up with the worst controller designs. Sometimes this complexity is needed to be able to actually represent a game, but even in the case of say, a FPS, there is nothing intuitive about the controller beyond: The Trigger buttons make you shoot.
(Note: The above analysis can also be done for the PS3 for similar results).

Let's compare to:

http://venturebeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wii_controller.jpg

On the controller itself, we have: 1,2, -, +, Home, A, B as a trigger, a Digital pad (Which only functions as 4 buttons), an analog stick, Z, and C. And the power button. We have then, 14 buttons, and an Analog stick. Doesn't appear to be any better just from the numbers (Especially if you throw in motion control), but context is also important:

First, the core controller is shaped like a TV Remote, and quite a few of the button choices are where you would expect to find similar buttons on a remote. The Power button is in the top left corner, where a TV's power button is. The Home button is where many remotes "Menu" button is. + and - are reminiscent of channel changing, or volume increasing/decreasing buttons on many remotes. One and two are kinda strangely positioned, but that is to make them easy to use when it's sideways. These choices count for a lot, since new players can already draw many parallels.

The motion control is where the controller really shines, or does poorly, depending on the game. The shake motion recognized by the controller, for example, is genius, since it's very intuitive to shake something you are holding when you are mad. Something like Metroid Prime's 3 aiming and firing is reminiscent of light guns, and just as easy (or easier, some of those were pretty terrible) to learn. Radiant Dawn is notable for realizing that the game didn't need the motion controls and not bothering with them.

And this great control scheme shown on some games is what has made the Wii successful, even if not with the hardcore gamer crowd. Horrible controls in some things is to be expected, since the control scheme is new. Refinement and improvement, something that the video game industry is great at, is going to polish it up nicely. Then all you need is for a wider variety of games, and your golden.

On Graphics
The choice on Nintendo's part to have less powerful graphics and processor was a good one since it let them get it out for cheap, and to appeal to a large market share easily. Even so, it isn't exactly a slouch: ~729 MHz Power-PC processor, with a undisclosed processor created by ATI. It really is hurt by the fact it only has 88 MB of RAM in total, 24 MB of which is pure graphics. But since it isn't trying to do HD Gaming, this is more then acceptable. Also note that the Wii was released a year after the 360, but only cost $250.00.

The XBox 360 which is meant to do HD Gaming is pretty terrible at it (Good at it's time of production, because it had about double the graphics memory of a GeForce 7800 GT. That said, PCs weren't doing all their processing on graphics memory either). It has a triple core 64-bit PowerPC processor clocked at 3.2 GHz. It's graphics card is clocked at 500 MHz, a dedicated 10 MB eDRAM daughter-die meant to allow for 4x FSAA, z-Buffering, and alpha-blending (Cute trick). It has only 512 MB of GDDR3 RAM @700 MHz (yuck), it's transmission rate is about 1.4 GHz taking into account the front side bus. It's original cost was about $400 US, assuming you are looking at the version with the 20 GB HDD.

If you don't have any idea what these numbers mean, I'll make it simple: The Wii is pretty decent for something that isn't trying to do HD Gaming. The XBox 360 is terrible at HD Gaming, though it was decent for it's time. Thus, you can probably expect from the Wii2 better graphics then the PS3, since even the PS3 is way behind what PCs have been doing for years - In other words HD gaming is quickly becoming the norm, and it is a tested technology. And normal, tested technologies are Nintendo's bread and butter, with the exception of whatever technology they are trying to promote (motion control for the Wii, touch screens for the DS, etc.)


That is my opinion anyway. :smallwink:

[Triaxx]

Sorry, my bad. I meant that it's $400 if you're also getting the 'not included in the box' motion control. As opposed to the Wii's 'included' motion control.

[Imposter]

Come now, it's not like Wii-level graphics are anywhere near poor enough to be unable to do things like facial expressions. That's just a silly argument.

Well, yes. But the principle stands, and anything that gives the dev more options should be a good thing by default, shouldn't it? And while the Wii has good enough graphics to do most things, that still leaves things that are impossible on the system. Even without that, optimization almost always results in compromises, and the less system resources available the worse the compromises will be. These things have actual effects on gameplay. And even if they didn't, I like being able to see what the art team wanted to make, as opposed to what they were forced to make do with.

[Knaight]

Well, yes. But the principle stands, and anything that gives the dev more options should be a good thing by default, shouldn't it?

Sure, but there is a point of diminishing returns. Going from Nintendo 64 to Gamecube graphics allowed a huge amount of development, and is much more significant than the difference between the PS2 and PS3, and it has nothing on the huge changes. Going from text to text and static pictures, going to full mobile 2d, going to 3d, these were huge, more modern changes are far more incremental.

Moreover, the fact that more options exist doesn't mean the older ones should be abandoned. Some games work beautifully in 2d and wouldn't work well in 3d, even if made way past when 3d engines were developed (see DROD, which also manages atmosphere very well with fairly basic graphics). Even the Wii can manage most artistic styles, its the very close to realistic stuff where it starts breaking down, and for many people -myself included- that particular style isn't of great importance.

[Triaxx]

I think we're looking at the Wii all wrong.

What if HD had been the worst thing to ever come to gaming? If it had suddenly caused games to become completely unplayable pieces of trash? It didn't, but someone had to do it first. Nintendo simply wasn't the one to do it. Instead, they went in another direction.

Motion control works. It's not a sinking ship, it just hasn't been around long enough to really be taken advantage of. Look at the first games to pop up on the PS3, and 360. Look at the games on them now. The differences as they've learned the graphic abilities of the systems are remarkable.

Now that it's been proven that Motion Control can work, we can look ahead and see a future marriage of HD and Motion Control. Someone had to be the innovator, had to put out a console that would have the new thing built in. Nintendo decided that HD was the bigger risk, and went with Motion Control. Both proved out as excellent investments, now they're coming back together as a new system. Because really, if you'd strapped HD to motion control, you'd have had a problem, and having Motion Control strapped to HD isn't doing quite as well.

But a new console, perhaps built on the Wii frame, with integrated HD and Motion Control... I see a bright future for the marriage of the two.

Of course I'm going to continue to argue forever that High Def isn't a requirement to good games.

[Zevox]

Well, yes. But the principle stands, and anything that gives the dev more options should be a good thing by default, shouldn't it?
And what options exactly are available on the 360/PS3 that aren't on the Wii that could possibly have a significant impact on the game in any manner remotely like the facial expressions thing you brought up? That's what I'm not seeing. Frankly, as I've said, I don't even see any real difference between the graphics on my 360 and my Wii myself. Much as Knaight was indicating, I'd say we've hit a point where further improvements in graphics are pretty minor and unimportant, because of how good what we've got already is.


I think we're looking at the Wii all wrong.

What if HD had been the worst thing to ever come to gaming? If it had suddenly caused games to become completely unplayable pieces of trash? It didn't, but someone had to do it first. Nintendo simply wasn't the one to do it. Instead, they went in another direction.
:smallconfused: Okay, I'm pretty sure my apathy with regards to graphics is clear by now, but even I don't see how that makes any sense. How could a graphical improvement possibly render games "completely unplayable pieces of trash?"

Zevox

[TheArsenal]

And what options exactly are available on the 360/PS3 that aren't on the Wii that could possibly have a significant impact on the game in any manner remotely like the facial expressions thing you brought up? That's what I'm not seeing. Frankly, as I've said, I don't even see any real difference between the graphics on my 360 and my Wii myself. Much as Knaight was indicating, I'd say we've hit a point where further improvements in graphics are pretty minor and unimportant, because of how good what we've got already is.
Zevox

I hate saying "Well then you just don't get it". Its one of the laziest and ego boosting things to say EVER. So instead il just say "Its a thing that matters more for other people".

I think this is currently a battle of apples and Oranges.

I Dislike Motion Controls, others Do not. Lets leave it there.

[GloatingSwine]

Yeah, see, that is an opinion that I will never understand. Frankly, I don't even see any significant different between the Wii's graphics and the 360's,

Man, get new eyes, yours are broken.

If you can't tell the difference between this:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y143/Uberbucket/game/crysis-2-xbox-360-1920x1080.jpg

and this:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y143/Uberbucket/game/ss_preview_RVL_MetroidOM_01ss03_E3jpg.jpg

then you need new glasses or something.

[Triaxx]

Lag. PC users have seen for years, where Ultra-High graphics can introduce tremendous lag that can make games nearly unplayable.

I don't see a difference in the images. Both are excellent representations of the universes within which they take place. Consider also comparing apples to apples, with say Halo 3 and Metroid Prime 3.

[Zevox]

Man, get new eyes, yours are broken.

If you can't tell the difference between this:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y143/Uberbucket/game/crysis-2-xbox-360-1920x1080.jpg

and this:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y143/Uberbucket/game/ss_preview_RVL_MetroidOM_01ss03_E3jpg.jpg

then you need new glasses or something.
The main difference I see between those images is art style. Hyper-realism for whatever the first one is, a less realistic, somewhat cartoony style for Metroid Other M.

And no, I do not need new glasses. I see an eye doctor every December, and the last visit resulted in no real change in my vision since I last got new glasses.


Lag. PC users have seen for years, where Ultra-High graphics can introduce tremendous lag that can make games nearly unplayable.
Correct me if I'm wrong - I don't really know anything about computers on any technical level - but isn't that based on the power of the machine itself? In which case the only reason there would be any worry about that is if the console were stupidly designed and unable to handle its own graphical power?

Zevox

[Mando Knight]

As far as I've seen, for most instances, in order to fully realize the difference in graphical capabilities, you generally need to have the full 1080p resolution. Sometimes, though, you can notice where the programmers took a graphical shortcut to conserve processing time/space/etc, and this happens a bit more frequently on the Wii. Metroid Prime 3 looks great until you start running up right next to the doors or a handful of other textures, which are horribly pixelated when you get close enough.

[MoelVermillion]

Of course I'm going to continue to argue forever that High Def isn't a requirement to good games.

And I'm going to continually tell you that having the option is by default better than not having the option because now you can get the best of both worlds.


Lag. PC users have seen for years, where Ultra-High graphics can introduce tremendous lag that can make games nearly unplayable.


Yes which is why you get better hardware. If you're lagging your hardware isn't good enough. This is why better hardware is an advantage and this is why I keep saying motion control aside the PS3 and 360 are better consoles because you can do more with them with less risk of lag.


The main difference I see between those images is art style. Hyper-realism for whatever the first one is, a less realistic, somewhat cartoony style for Metroid Other M.

And only one of these styles is actually achievable on the Wii.

Also I don't really know that much about the Wii's capability in this area because apparently they have something called the TEV unit or something that lets them catch up in this area a little bit but... shaders. Marvel Vs Capcom 3's living comic book style is achieved with shaders and as much as me and you both dislike it SF4's graphic style is also achieved largely with shaders. Now if your hardware is unable to run shaders you cannot use these art styles. You can hack together something that looks kind of like it without using shaders if you try really but it won't really end up with the same impact or looking particularly nice. Basically having lower technology can deny you entire art styles, I'm not sure if this is the case with the Wii in regards to shaders but it definitely is for hyper realistic art styles.


Metroid Prime 3 looks great until you start running up right next to the doors or a handful of other textures, which are horribly pixelated when you get close enough.

From what I can tell most Wii games don't really seem to have anti-aliasing either. Anti-aliasing is pretty hardware demanding though and even the 360 and PS3 don't really run high amounts of it but it is a noticeable thing with using lower end hardware.

[Lord Seth]

I Dislike Motion Controls, others Do not. Lets leave it there.If that's where you want to leave it, why did you feel the need to make a topic about it?

[Reverent-One]

And I'm going to continually tell you that having the option is by default better than not having the option because now you can get the best of both worlds.

That depends on what the cost of having that option is. I very much doubt Nintendo decided to hold back the graphic capabilities of the Wii for no reason. Since generally the newest and best hardware costs more, it's not unreasonable for Nintendo to use somewhat lower end hardware to keep the price point down and make the Wii more affordable.

[Mando Knight]

Since generally the newest and best hardware costs more, it's not unreasonable for Nintendo to use somewhat lower end hardware to keep the price point down and make the Wii more affordable.
The Wii was designed with just-above-Gamecube-level graphics capabilities because of two things: cost and efficiency. The development team specifically looked at cutting the system's power consumption and physical footprint, on top of keeping it at around the same price point as the Gamecube around its release.

[MoelVermillion]

That depends on what the cost of having that option is. I very much doubt Nintendo decided to hold back the graphic capabilities of the Wii for no reason. Since generally the newest and best hardware costs more, it's not unreasonable for Nintendo to use somewhat lower end hardware to keep the price point down and make the Wii more affordable.

I'm talking more along the lines of as a third party software developer that's already ruled out using motion control in their game than as Nintendo. What Nintendo did clearly worked for Nintendo, they still have a sales lead over everyone else even if they're not the front runner market wise. Nintendo are (or at least were) the only company that actually made profit based on consoles sold, the 360 maybe broke even and the PS3 was sold at a loss.

[Reverent-One]

I'm talking more along the lines of as a third party software developer that's already ruled out using motion control in their game than as Nintendo. What Nintendo did clearly worked for Nintendo, they still have a sales lead over everyone else even if they're not the front runner market wise. Nintendo are (or at least were) the only company that actually made profit based on consoles sold, the 360 maybe broke even and the PS3 was sold at a loss.

On the other hand, I would think having a larger available audience can helpful to a third party developer, and something they might consider better than simply being able to push the graphical limits more. So again, one has to weigh the cost of having that option.

[MoelVermillion]

On the other hand, I would think having a larger available audience can helpful to a third party developer, and something they might consider better than simply being able to push the graphical limits more. So again, one has to weigh the cost of having that option.

But once again with an engine like MT Framework you can develop on PC and then fairly easily port to PS3 and 360 which ends up being a larger combined market than that of the Wii, porting a game for 360 and PS3 to work on the Wii is much harder to do. If you're not using motion controls your also likely going to cut out a fair chunk of the Wii market from buying your game.

[Reverent-One]

But once again with an engine like MT Framework you can develop on PC and then fairly easily port to PS3 and 360 which ends up being a larger combined market than that of the Wii. If you're not using motion controls your also likely going to cut out a fair chunk of the Wii market from buying your game.

Certainly that is a possibility and I was not denying that. My issue was with the absoluteness of your statement.

[MoelVermillion]

Certainly that is a possibility and I was not denying that. My issue was with the absoluteness of your statement.

Okay yeah the statement was a little too absolute however it does accurately describe the situation right now. There isn't enough incentive to forsake the Wii's main selling point when developing games otherwise more people would be doing it. Yes hypothetically there could be a console with such high end hardware that developers honestly couldn't justify developing for it over the Wii but the 360 and PS3 are not these consoles. Besides you can make games on the cheap for these consoles if you want to, you just have to end up selling them on PSN or XBLA, the Wii on the other hand has no solution like this to overcome its shortcomings.

[Reverent-One]

Okay yeah the statement was a little too absolute however it does accurately describe the situation right now.

...Am I mis-reading this or is this a contradictory statement? If it's too absolute, then it's not really accurate, otherwise it wouldn't be too absolute. :smallconfused:


There isn't enough incentive to forsake the Wii's main selling point when developing games otherwise more people would be doing it. Yes hypothetically there could be a console with such high end hardware that developers honestly couldn't justify developing for it over the Wii but the 360 and PS3 are not these consoles. Besides you can make games on the cheap for these consoles if you want to, you just have to end up selling them on PSN or XBLA, the Wii on the other hand has no solution like this to overcome its shortcomings.

The shortcoming of not easily ignoring the main selling point of a console?

[warty goblin]

The main difference I see between those images is art style. Hyper-realism for whatever the first one is, a less realistic, somewhat cartoony style for Metroid Other M.
Zevox

You mean you don't notice, for instance, that the second image has no shadows*? Or that the Metroid shot seems to use a single texture for the background, where the Crysis 2 shot uses actual models?

If these were videos you could also notice that all the light sources in Crysis 2 are dynamic, which to me at least make a scene a lot more believable. The more I find a game believable, the more I engage with it, and the more fun I can have.


*And shadows absolutely make a gameplay difference in an action game. They're pretty integral to Crysis 2's multiplayer, since cloaked players still cast them.

[Reverent-One]

If these were videos you could also notice that all the light sources in Crysis 2 are dynamic, which to me at least make a scene a lot more believable. The more I find a game believable, the more I engage with it, and the more fun I can have.

So which each successive console generation, you find the games more fun than the ones before, thanks to the graphic improvements?

[warty goblin]

So which each successive console generation, you find the games more fun than the ones before, thanks to the graphic improvements?

That's not entirely accurate. I find that good looking games are more engaging than their uglier cousins. The more engaged I am in a game the more fun I will have given that particular game's gameplay. Graphics don't make the game fun you understand, they help the fun already there to shine through.

Thus if given the choice between an older game or a modern game, both of which play very similarly and both of which run reasonably well, I'm gonna go with the modern one pretty much every time. Usually I can find a modern game that plays very similarly to any given older title, since let's face it, this is not the world's most diverse medium by a long shot. If the gameplay seems fun and I can't find a corresponding new game, I'll happily play an older title.

(Of course I seem to finding games in general less enjoyable as time goes on. This almost certainly has more to do with my own changing tastes than some change in gaming.)

[Zevox]

You mean you don't notice, for instance, that the second image has no shadows*? Or that the Metroid shot seems to use a single texture for the background, where the Crysis 2 shot uses actual models?
Shadows: Not at first glance I didn't, no. Now that you point it out I do, but I can say for certain that their absence isn't because the Wii is incapable of showing shadows, given there were N64 games that had them.

Background: Not really, no. I don't honestly know how you would determine such a thing from the Metroid image.

Zevox

[Imposter]

So which each successive console generation, you find the games more fun than the ones before, thanks to the graphic improvements?

...

I think you might be missing the point here. Earlier console generations could not do some of the things that a current console can. So, while you could still make fun games for those consoles, there are more possible fun games that could be made for more recent hardware. You can make a platformer for the Xbox, but you cannot make a game like Crysis for the NES. It is possible to make a game like Metroid Other M for the Xbox, but there is no way to get a game like Crysis on the Wii. It's a matter of choice for the developer, on the xbox, or the ps3, or with a release to the pc, what they want their game to look like. Crysis 2 could have looked like anything the devs wanted it to, from the toonish style of TF2 to the extremely realistic style they chose. The team behind Other M, on the other hand, had much less freedom, being forced into choosing from the small set of art styles can actually be achieved, and even then couldn't achieve them with the control available on a different system.

This is an actual weakness of the system. It's probably more than balanced out by the lower cost, but it's still a weakness. This was a compromise made when Nintendo was designing the wii, and pretending that it has no effect on the games made for the console is just silly.

[Zevox]

there is no way to get a game like Crysis on the Wii.
Oh please. From the look of it it's a first-person shooter, which the Wii is plenty capable of doing. It may not look the same, but you can't seriously expect me to believe that the difference between whatever level of realistic graphics the Wii is capable of and those the 360/PS3 are capable of would actually make the game literally impossible to make for the Wii. The graphics aren't that important.

Zevox

[MoelVermillion]

Oh please. From the look of it it's a first-person shooter, which the Wii is plenty capable of doing. It may not look the same, but you can't seriously expect me to believe that the difference between whatever level of realistic graphics the Wii is capable of and those the 360/PS3 are capable of would actually make the game literally impossible to make for the Wii. The graphics aren't that important.

Zevox

The graphics were basically Crysis' main selling point, to the audience who bought Crysis they were that important. You could make a game called Crysis on the Wii and sell it but it wouldn't be the same game, not by a long shot. I understand that graphics don't seem to make an impact on what you buy but can you honestly not understand that they make an impact on what other people buy?

[Zevox]

The graphics were basically Crysis' main selling point, to the audience who bought Crysis they were that important. You could make a game called Crysis on the Wii and sell it but it wouldn't be the same game, not by a long shot. I understand that graphics don't seem to make an impact on what you buy but can you honestly not understand that they make an impact on what other people buy?
Theoretically, yes, I can understand that others care more about graphics than I do. What I cannot understand is statements like the one that prompted this discussion (that the Wii's graphics were falling far enough behind to be a detriment to its games), or the quote I was responding to in my last post. Or, on a matter you mention, why a game would make its graphics its main selling point in the first place - seriously, that one is just baffling to me. :smallconfused:

Most especially though it would be you second statement there that I can't understand: "You could make a game called Crysis on the Wii and sell it but it wouldn't be the same game, not by a long shot." As long as everything but the graphics were accurately reproduced, I do not see how that statement could possibly make any sense whatsoever.

Zevox

[Reverent-One]

...

I think you might be missing the point here.

No, I was pointing that from what he said, he should continually enjoy newer games more than older games back when they were new, since he made a direct connection that "better graphics = more believable = more engagement = more fun". He further clarified, but the simple statement I was responding to was an interesting one.

[GloatingSwine]

But once again with an engine like MT Framework you can develop on PC and then fairly easily port to PS3 and 360 which ends up being a larger combined market than that of the Wii, porting a game for 360 and PS3 to work on the Wii is much harder to do. If you're not using motion controls your also likely going to cut out a fair chunk of the Wii market from buying your game.

MT Framework has also been ported to the Wii. It just looks like this:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y143/Uberbucket/game/tatsunoko-vs-capcom-cross-generation-of-heroes-20080527082750687_640w.jpg

rather than this:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y143/Uberbucket/game/marvel-vs-capcom-3-fate-of-two-worlds-20100615094302784.jpg

Even with two games using the same visual style and the same game engine there's a noticable advantage to having more graphical power, it allows designers more freedom to make things look the way they want to look, rather than be limited by the platform.

[MoelVermillion]

MT Framework has also been ported to the Wii. It just looks like this:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y143/Uberbucket/game/tatsunoko-vs-capcom-cross-generation-of-heroes-20080527082750687_640w.jpg

rather than this:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y143/Uberbucket/game/marvel-vs-capcom-3-fate-of-two-worlds-20100615094302784.jpg

Even with two games using the same visual style and the same game engine there's a noticable advantage to having more graphical power, it allows designers more freedom to make things look the way they want to look, rather than be limited by the platform.

Yeah I was aware that MT Framework could be used for the Wii it just can't use the same art assets on the Wii that you use for the PS3 and 360 versions which means no easy porting to the Wii.

EDIT:


...Am I mis-reading this or is this a contradictory statement? If it's too absolute, then it's not really accurate, otherwise it wouldn't be too absolute. :smallconfused:


Well what I meant is that at some point in the future this statement may become untrue but right now it is accurate to say that Nintendo is not providing enough incentive for third party companies to develop games for the Wii that do not use motion controls. Look at the definition of the term incentive:


noun
1. Something that incites or tends to incite to action or greater effort, as a reward offered for increased productivity.

Now compared to the competition and compared to the Wii's own library there are very few third party games that do not utilize motion control. That is to say there has been no real action to develop these games for the Wii or no greater effort to create these games for the Wii. Therefore by definition there is no real incentive to develop these games for the Wii. I can't really see how you can say that its inaccurate to say that there isn't enough incentive for third party developers to make games without motion controls for the Wii when its pretty clear that third party developers largely haven't been incentivized to create games without motion controls on the Wii.

Now should the Wii and Nintendo provide increased incentive for third party developers to develop games without motion controls for their console? I don't really think they should. The Wii's main selling point always was its motion control anyway and there is no sense for Nintendo to turn their back on it. The Wii's sales are beginning to dwindle but Nintendo still have the over all sale's lead, the dominance of the handheld market and a new console soon to be announced. Things are not "broken" for Nintendo so there is no reason for them to try and fix them.



The shortcoming of not easily ignoring the main selling point of a console?

The hardware limitations that stop a lot of multi-platform games reaching the Wii. Call of Duty games, Battlefield games, Grand Theft Auto games, Street Fighter games and a host of others are released on PS3, 360 and PC but not the Wii why? Because the Wii literally does not have the power to run these games, that is its short coming.

Anyway I feel like I'm mostly just saying the same things over and over again to different posters in this thread so I don't think there's anything else I can add here really. I'm stepping out. Enjoy your discussions about Nintendo everyone :smallsmile:.

[Drascin]

That depends on what the cost of having that option is. I very much doubt Nintendo decided to hold back the graphic capabilities of the Wii for no reason. Since generally the newest and best hardware costs more, it's not unreasonable for Nintendo to use somewhat lower end hardware to keep the price point down and make the Wii more affordable.

Yup. And making the graphics themselves also costs a gazillion bucks, let's not forget. A big part of why Capcom made their Monster Hunter Tri on the Wii despite clamoring for it to be on PS3 was saving of costs - Wii owners wouldn't complain about merely "pretty and functional" graphics, while PS3 owners have come to expect a kind of hyperrealistic HD that the MonHun division just doesn't have the budget to tackle. Wii was the only current home console they could go with if they tried to branch from their portable paradigm.

Personally, if I'm allowed to be completely subjective for a moment, I feel we've kind of reached a point where graphics are just not worth improving more, in a money/improvement ratio. PS2/Gamecube graphics already did pretty much everything I ever needed, and the only requirement I made from additional power was more objects on screen and such. Instead of that, I'm mostly getting ugly "hyperrealism is better!" and games spending three quarters of their budget in graphics. It makes me a tad sad :smallsigh:.

[Triaxx]

The option? Seriously? Fah. Sure, the 360 has the option of not, but does anyone take the option? Not a chance. Why sacrifice graphics for control when you can just pour money into graphics until they forget about how bad it controls...

Oh, wait, that doesn't work. At all.

Yes, and no. It's a symptom of designers reaching for the stars when the systems can't necessarily support it. I don't know of many computers that could run Crysis flat out at full potential when it was released.

[Imposter]

Most especially though it would be you second statement there that I can't understand: "You could make a game called Crysis on the Wii and sell it but it wouldn't be the same game, not by a long shot." As long as everything but the graphics were accurately reproduced, I do not see how that statement could possibly make any sense whatsoever.

Zevox

See, the problem is that it would be impossible to accurately reproduce everything but the graphics. Levels in Crysis are huge, detailed, and the game does rely on it's graphics for gameplay purposes. I'm honestly in awe of Crytek because they managed to get an xBox version working. The first things to do in an attempt to get the game to run on a wii would be to remove every single one of the graphical features the game sold on, yes. Then you would have to go on to removing most of the objects in the maps, half of the enemies, and splitting the campaign levels into smaller chunks with more loading screens. It would change the game completely, and while crysis was a fairly good game and probably kinda survive, it would be nowhere near the same.

[Erloas]

Having more graphical power doesn't just mean having higher definition graphics and more special effects, it also means how much can be on the screen at one time.
Lets say you have a game where having cover is very important to the game, be it to hide from the enemy to sneak around or to protect yourself from being shot. Is it better to have 10 possible things to hide behind or 40? Is it better to be able to hide behind some bare or 2d looking bush or a more detailed one that might actually cover you up? Can you hide in the shadow of a building or do you stand out just the same standing out in the open as you do trying to stay in what should be dark areas. Of course anything can do shadows, its a matter of: are the shadows real and caused by light or were they simply painted there by some artist, and what, if anything, had to be removed/cut back to free up the resources to make those shadows. Will you or the enemy actually be shadowed when in them or will you be the same with shadows around you (if you aren't using dynamic lighting its very hard to really shadow transient objects)

Being able to see where you are going and planning ahead is it better to be able to see 50 yards or 200 yards? (draw distance takes a lot of extra graphical resources because the farther you can see the more objects need to be drawn)
Along the same lines, there are a lot of games designed with small corridors, always inside buildings, or otherwise in areas where you can't see too far ahead of you, always boxed in and usually with fewer possible paths. This sort of thing is done because of graphical limitation, because you can't have large open areas with much of anything going on in them without having more power. Not having a lot of general resources on the system also means you can't have nearly as many possible paths without having loading screens between them because the system can't load that much at once, and in a lot of situations there is no practical place to add loading screens in normal world design.

What would it have been like sneaking around cities in Assassin's Creed if there was only 5-10 pedestrians in the market rather then the 30-40 that they used? What if the camera was always above you and facing down (used all the time to cut down visual distance in games) so you couldn't see to those rooftops half the city away?

The invisibility in Crysis and a lot of effects in the Stalker games use fairly demanding graphical effects to create subtle but effective means of conveying information about the world around you. It has a very real effect on gameplay too because if you aren't paying attention, (because you are being a lazy player or in the middle of a fight) you won't notice them and that will drastically change how difficult the game is and what sort of situations that can be set up for the player.


And what about those types of games where realism is important to the game? Most simulators fall into this, from racing games that are very specifically trying to be realistic, to flight sims, and sports games. And most survival/horror games atmosphere is highly dependent on creating a realistic and believable world. A cartoony end of the world situation doesn't have nearly the visceral effect that a realistic one does.

[Zevox]

See, the problem is that it would be impossible to accurately reproduce everything but the graphics. Levels in Crysis are huge, detailed, and the game does rely on it's graphics for gameplay purposes. I'm honestly in awe of Crytek because they managed to get an xBox version working. The first things to do in an attempt to get the game to run on a wii would be to remove every single one of the graphical features the game sold on, yes. Then you would have to go on to removing most of the objects in the maps, half of the enemies, and splitting the campaign levels into smaller chunks with more loading screens. It would change the game completely, and while crysis was a fairly good game and probably kinda survive, it would be nowhere near the same.
And the parts about changing the number of enemies, size of maps, and the like I can understand. That makes sense and I can see how limitations in the system itself could be an issue there. But that's different from the graphics. What I honestly, literally cannot comprehend is the part where you claim the game would be nowhere near the same just because of the graphics portion. I just cannot see how anyone, for any game, could honestly believe that the difference between modern high-end graphics and Wii-level graphics is that important.

Zevox

[Prime32]

Having more graphical power doesn't just mean having higher definition graphics and more special effects, it also means how much can be on the screen at one time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MII4nosRHUA :smallamused:

[Erloas]

And the parts about changing the number of enemies, size of maps, and the like I can understand. That makes sense and I can see how limitations in the system itself could be an issue there. But that's different from the graphics. What I honestly, literally cannot comprehend is the part where you claim the game would be nowhere near the same just because of the graphics portion. I just cannot see how anyone, for any game, could honestly believe that the difference between modern high-end graphics and Wii-level graphics is that important.

Zevox
But they are the same thing. When you have more graphical power you can do more with it. If you can draw 100M polygon instead of 20M that changes what you can do drastically. (polygons being the basic building block of all 3d graphics, not just 3d really, everything that isn't sprites basically) If you use 1M polygons to draw 100 very realistic things or instead choose to draw 200 objects at half the definition is entirely up to the developers. But when you've got a lot less to work with you have a lot less options.

The thing is with a lot of models you can only cut the polygon count down so far before it changes what art styles you can even use. And even if you cut out the high resolution skins, with such limited system resources there is only so much you can put on the screen at a time. Which means changing map sizes, changing map designs and cutting down draw distances. All of which have a noticeable impact on gameplay.

In the case of Crysis they use a number of effects to show the various powers of the suits, and how you deal with an enemy has a lot to do with what powers they are currently using. Without the effects to show what power they are using you can't effectively fight against them. Of course there are other options such as popping up icons on the person or simple coloring effects, but its kind of a cheesy way of doing it and more importantly are completely against the style the developers are going for. (neither of which are practical for the stealth mode, which isn't 100% invisible on purpose, its specifically designed to make a person much harder to see while keeping them noticeable to the observant player, which are very much gameplay considerations)

[Knaight]

Man, get new eyes, yours are broken.

If you can't tell the difference between this:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y143/Uberbucket/game/crysis-2-xbox-360-1920x1080.jpg

and this:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y143/Uberbucket/game/ss_preview_RVL_MetroidOM_01ss03_E3jpg.jpg

then you need new glasses or something.
That's two points of data, both of which use deliberately different art styles. You might as well argue that crayon is a better medium that watercolor based on one good crayon drawing one one bunch of horrible splotches. There are fair comparisons that can be made between systems, that wasn't one of them, as a similar style and level of competence within the style as done with two art tools is needed for the sort of two picture comparison -if not the exact same shot in two systems. After all, you could have used any of these pictures for the wii:

http://wiimedia.gamespy.com/wii/image/article/733/733242/metroid-prime-3-corruption-20060919073740396-000.jpg
http://www.gamers-globe.com/images/screenshots/the-legend-of-zelda-twilight-princess/the-legend-of-zelda-twilight-princess-gc-008.jpg

Or these, which would drastically change the extent to which the Wii looks inferior.

http://img.youtube.com/vi/llPoIx93Ipg/0.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2009/348/reviews/955089_20091215_790screen003.jpg

The graphics are worse, and this can be visible. Comparing two games that aren't even in the same genre isn't the way to show that.

[Imposter]

And the parts about changing the number of enemies, size of maps, and the like I can understand. That makes sense and I can see how limitations in the system itself could be an issue there. But that's different from the graphics. What I honestly, literally cannot comprehend is the part where you claim the game would be nowhere near the same just because of the graphics portion. I just cannot see how anyone, for any game, could honestly believe that the difference between modern high-end graphics and Wii-level graphics is that important.

Zevox

Erloas covered this too, but you don't seem to realize exactly how hard it is to separate limitations on what can be drawn from level design and gameplay. Locking camera angles isn't something that's done because it's more fun, and neither is putting doors or narrow little hallways between arenas. These things are all attempts to keep the player from being able to see to much at once, and the methods you have to use to get things to run do have rather major effects on how the game plays.

As for the purely visual bit, let's actually compare games with (kinda) similar styles. It's more fair, and supports the point just as well.

This is a screen from Team Fortress 2.
http://media.teamxbox.com/games/ss/1532/1191335383.jpg

This is a screen from Monday Night Combat.
http://regmedia.co.uk/2010/08/17/monday_night_combat_2.jpg

This is an image from Metroid Other M.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y143/Uberbucket/game/ss_preview_RVL_MetroidOM_01ss03_E3jpg.jpg

Both TF2 and MNC uses a variety of shader effects to achieve the styles that they have, and reinforce that with fairly detailed models that fit those styles. Note that neither TF2 or MNC come anywhere close to stressing the systems they run on. The devs could make a choice in their choice of art styles, and then simply built their games with the styles they wanted.

Other M, on the other hand, obviously made concessions in the art style to run. There are no shadows, models are simple, etc. I think we can all agree that, from a quality standpoint, this isn't exactly desirable?

Also, I'm not really sure what the fuss is. The wii made sacrifices, and apparently chose the right things to sacrifice since they seem to be doing rather well. I just don't understand the argument the the sacrifices don't exist.

[GloatingSwine]

That's two points of data, both of which use deliberately different art styles. You might as well argue that crayon is a better medium that watercolor based on one good crayon drawing one one bunch of horrible splotches.

I used Other M because it's widely regarded as one of the best technical accomplishments on the Wii.

Go back a few posts and you'll see a more like-for-like comparison between Tatsunoko vs. Capcom and Marvel vs. Capcom 3, two games which use very similar graphical styles.

[leafman]

Same* game for Wii and 360:
http://i807.photobucket.com/albums/yy356/leafman343/xboxvswii.jpg


*Developed by different studios. The Wii/PS2 version is supposed to be stylized where the xbox/ps3/PC went for a realistic look, so it isn't a completely fair comparison.

[warty goblin]

The graphics were basically Crysis' main selling point, to the audience who bought Crysis they were that important. You could make a game called Crysis on the Wii and sell it but it wouldn't be the same game, not by a long shot. I understand that graphics don't seem to make an impact on what you buy but can you honestly not understand that they make an impact on what other people buy?

I played Crysis because it's a really good shooter; the first time through I was running it on an older computer where it didn't look appreciably better than anything else. Even then it was a crazy awesome time since I did manage to crank the physics up to medium*, at which point mayhem ensued.

*At anything below medium, you aren't playing Crysis.

And for the ultimate case of hardware allowing for gameplay, consider something like ArmA II, which has a draw distance larger than most games' levels, and can somehow still handle dozens if not hundreds of AI and player entities running, driving and flying around.

[Reverent-One]

The hardware limitations that stop a lot of multi-platform games reaching the Wii. Call of Duty games, Battlefield games, Grand Theft Auto games, Street Fighter games and a host of others are released on PS3, 360 and PC but not the Wii why? Because the Wii literally does not have the power to run these games, that is its short coming.

You might have left, but I still don't like leaving this hanging unanswered. Several mistakes in this section, first is that several Call of Duty games have come for the Wii. Also, you're assuming that graphics are the only reason why they're not on Nintendo's console, when there are other considerations, such as target audience. Neither the Battlefield series game or the Grand Theft auto series game has ever been on a Nintendo console. Nintendo console have never (to my knowledge) focused on the M rated shooters that the Xbox and Playstation rely on, not that they don't exist for the N64/GC/Wii, but they are certainly in the minority of the games for the Nintendo systems.

[Reverent-One]

Double posting to bring this news up (http://uk.kotaku.com/5795241/nintendo-confirms-wii-successor). If this new console is superior hardware-wise to the 360 and PS3 and allows a more standard control scheme in addition to the wii remote style, would that result in the developers that use the standard control scheme and higher quality graphics jumping ship from the 360 and PS3 and go to Nintendo instead?

[Sipex]

I believe it would, yes but this is assuming the Wii2 is easy to program for. Developers love the 360 and the PS3 because they can create games as if they were computer games and then port them to the console with little difficulty. I have no idea how the Wii or the Wii2 are in this regards.

Case in point: The N64. Most powerful system of it's time, very few games due to how difficult it was to create games for.

[warty goblin]

Double posting to bring this news up (http://uk.kotaku.com/5795241/nintendo-confirms-wii-successor). If this new console is superior hardware-wise to the 360 and PS3 and allows a more standard control scheme in addition to the wii remote style, would that result in the developers that use the standard control scheme and higher quality graphics jumping ship from the 360 and PS3 and go to Nintendo instead?

It could, but you gotta weigh that against the large established install base for the 360 and PS3, particularly since devs know how to develop for those platforms. And unless Nintendo comes up with an online service that can rival XBox Live or Playstation Network, the incentive to migrate a franchise like Call of Duty (or really any shooter) over is going to be very weak.

(I also sort of have to wonder if the market is really there for it. There's already two HD consoles with some sort of motion controls and one console that pretty much only does motion control. It seems like people who want either of these things have had plenty of chances to get them by now.)

[Reverent-One]

(I also sort of have to wonder if the market is really there for it. There's already two HD consoles with some sort of motion controls and one console that pretty much only does motion control. It seems like people who want either of these things have had plenty of chances to get them by now.)

Of course at the moment we only know really that there is a new Nintendo console coming out, with very few details about it and what new capabilites it will have. Still, as mentioned in this thread many times, more hardware capabilites results in more options for developers, so even if they didn't focus on providing some new aspect of gaming (like the Wii did with their motion control), it could provide games that would otherwise not be possible.

[Triaxx]

I suspect we'll see a system that is essentially the Wii with beefier graphics power, rather than an entirely new system and architecture. So there's the probabilty that it'll be just as easy to develop for, but have improved graphics, and the ability to play the back catalog.

[Gnoman]

Case in point: The N64. Most powerful system of it's time, very few games due to how difficult it was to create games for.

The N64 wasn't the most powerful system of it's time. It had a critical RAM shortage and the cartidge format was a crippling flaw. The shortage of games had nothing to do with difficulty of programming it, and everything to do with the need for expensive, proprietary storage media that was worse in every way than the cheap, universal media used in other consoles.

[Sipex]

It was definitely the most powerful in bit-age though (64 compared to the PSX's 32), I had forgotten about the RAM though (they had that upgrade ram pack that came with Majora's Mask).

I'm still pretty sure it had a lot to do with how difficult the console was to program for. I remember reading something that stated how developers took more kindly to the PSX because it was closer to the 'Build a game on the PC and port it to the console' arrangement that most consoles use today.

[Prime32]

The N64 wasn't the most powerful system of it's time. It had a critical RAM shortage and the cartidge format was a crippling flaw. The shortage of games had nothing to do with difficulty of programming it, and everything to do with the need for expensive, proprietary storage media that was worse in every way than the cheap, universal media used in other consoles.Not worse in every way. Cartridges allow random access, where a CD drive has to physically move the laser to read different parts of the data. Hence, the N64 had no loading screens.

[Triaxx]

Plus no annoying spin up.

[GloatingSwine]

It was definitely the most powerful in bit-age though (64 compared to the PSX's 32), I had forgotten about the RAM though (they had that upgrade ram pack that came with Majora's Mask).

If only that meant anything.... Hardly any software actually used 64 bit precision, and the CPU was only fed by a 32 bit data bus anyway meaning that doing so incurred overhead in moving data into the CPU.

The biggest flaw in the N64's design was it's graphics chip, which had abysmal texture handling. A 4kb texture cache meant that only very low resolution/colour depth textures could ever be loaded, and whilst there were workarounds (layering multiple textures on an object, for instance), it still meant that the vast majority of titles were rendered in grease-o-vision compared to the PSX or Saturn. Fill rate was diabolical as well, it simply couldn't get enough pixels into the framebuffer fast enough to render them on screen (hence heavy fog in many titles, if you don't have to change those background pixels you don't have to do work)


I'm still pretty sure it had a lot to do with how difficult the console was to program for. I remember reading something that stated how developers took more kindly to the PSX because it was closer to the 'Build a game on the PC and port it to the console' arrangement that most consoles use today.

That might be a valid comparison between the PSX and Saturn, the Saturn was notable for being hell to work with, but the N64 was not significantly more difficult to program, just more limited in what you could make it do thanks to it's rubbish graphics chip and low storage of the cartridge format.

The biggest obstacle to production of N64 games was Nintendo, they kept a tight grip on cartridge manufacture and charged a non inconsiderable fee for doing so, in addition to license fees for developer kits and the license to release games at all. Sony were much more developer friendly, it was cheaper to make games for the Playstation because Sony charged less for the developer kit, had lower license fees, and CDs were cheap to produce.

[Sipex]

Oh wow, I bow to your superior knowledge swine.

Interest stuff.

[leafman]

Not worse in every way. Cartridges allow random access, where a CD drive has to physically move the laser to read different parts of the data. Hence, the N64 had no loading screens.

I wonder if we will ever see a return of cartridge style formats. With modern flash drives being able to hold 8 GB and being the same price now that 1 gb flash drives were a few years ago, I could see the cost dropping even more in a few years making them a viable option for game media.

[Erloas]

I think we've got a long ways yet before flash drives hit that point. A DVD for instance costs maybe a few cents to make, and while blue-ray disc are more they aren't a lot more. (re-writable media is more, but at least for blue-ray thats still a supply and demand related higher cost). Even being $8-10 for an 8gb flash drive, there is no way they have over 1000% markup in the cost to make it even comparable to the cost of a DVD. I'm also not aware of any way to mass write data to them, where as DVDs are stamped with all data as they are being produced. Even if the cost of material isn't that much greater, I think the time and labor costs would be.

And while its a nice feature, I don't think its actually a feature most people would pay much of anything for. Since with a decently powerful system and a well designed prefetching system in place load times can be greatly reduced from DVDs. And along those same lines, it doesn't seem like most developers feel its worth their time to put that prefetching into place now so it doesn't seem like there is a big push for decreasing load times.

[Mando Knight]

I wonder if we will ever see a return of cartridge style formats. With modern flash drives being able to hold 8 GB and being the same price now that 1 gb flash drives were a few years ago, I could see the cost dropping even more in a few years making them a viable option for game media.

Nintendo's portables never stopped. The 3DS's current games use 2 GB data cards.

[Mando Knight]

I wonder if we will ever see a return of cartridge style formats. With modern flash drives being able to hold 8 GB and being the same price now that 1 gb flash drives were a few years ago, I could see the cost dropping even more in a few years making them a viable option for game media.

Nintendo's portables never stopped. The 3DS's current games use 2 GB data cards.

[Trazoi]

I believe it would, yes but this is assuming the Wii2 is easy to program for. Developers love the 360 and the PS3 because they can create games as if they were computer games and then port them to the console with little difficulty. I have no idea how the Wii or the Wii2 are in this regards.
The impression I got from what I heard a few developers say early on in the generation was that the Xbox 360 was an absolute joy to develop for due to the similarity to the PC and the help from Microsoft, the Wii was better than usual for consoles mainly because hardware-wise it's a suped-up Gamecube so they knew what to do, and the PS3 was a royal pain in the fundament due to the quirky architecture. Note though I'm a few steps removed those who truly know and I'm not sure how that stands these days.

[Prime32]

The impression I got from what I heard a few developers say early on in the generation was that the Xbox 360 was an absolute joy to develop for due to the similarity to the PC and the help from MicrosoftThere's their XNA Framework for one thing, which is pretty nice and works on both Windows and Xbox. Also on Windows Phone, but... seriously?

[Trazoi]

There's their XNA Framework for one thing, which is pretty nice and works on both Windows and Xbox. Also on Windows Phone, but... seriously?
That's what I've heard. Of course they might be exaggerating a little, but the general impression I've got from a few developers is that working on the Xbox series has significantly less hassles than standard console development.

I can only speak on what they've said, though. The only closed hardware I've developed for is the Sony AIBO, and that's hardly the same.

[Gnoman]

Not worse in every way. Cartridges allow random access, where a CD drive has to physically move the laser to read different parts of the data. Hence, the N64 had no loading screens.

Except it DID have load times. In fact, many of the multi-platform games between the PS1 and N64 took longer to load on the latter because the microscopic storage space of the cartridge format neccessitated massive compression.