Forum > Gaming Discussion > CNET: Is Nintendo's Success a curse?
CNET: Is Nintendo's Success a curse?
next
>>
The 3rd parties have enough space in 2008 to release games. There is no action-adventure released by Nintendo this quater, but the 3rd parties are dropping the ball hard. Well 2009 seems to be much better, but it is mostly smaller Japanese developers. Third parties need to man-up and stop acting like a bunch of pussies.
Third parties are getting out of the Wii exactly what they've put into it.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobile
Nintendo makes most third parties look like a bunch of slack-asses (of which most of them are). Nintendo's own games are usually of such high quality and funfactor that most other companies just can't or won't match. If you can't run with the big dog, you should either work a lot harder to be as good as him or just get out of the park. Unfortunately, most third parties have chosen the latter path.
Edited: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:28:31
Well I will say that when the revolution controller was announced I imagined how a whole flurry of traditional games and big franchises could evolve and innovate using a new, unique control method.
Third parties needed to come out strong right out of the gate on the console and continue that to establish a strong prescence on the console. So far the majority of great third party games are original, unique IP which I love as a gamer, but titles which would struggle no matter what system they were on.
A game like Boom Blox isn't something that is going to blow it out of the gate. Meanwhile a game like Assasins Creed which at best acheived mixed reviews, had heaps of mindshare and media space devoted to it and huge sales because it 'looked' epic and 'looked' ambitious and because Ubisoft backed it with a huge amount of capital. Even if the quality of the end product seems questionable.
I see this as a catch 22 situation. If third parties never even try then they wont succeed. And they wont know the hows and whys and what ifs. It all begins with a first step. But no, you see big title, after big title missing the system. Which is strange when other companies like Sega or Activision can manage decent multiplatform versions of games, even to the extent where I find that World at War is such an unusual third party effort on Wii -in production terms- that it suprises me that it was completely hidden in its development process with barely a preview and only one review and no advertising.
It seems to me that they could have made it an original game with the same effort and done something better or more appealing, than a non-HD version of a game-type people would prefer to play on other systems with hyper visuals. That's not smart thinking.
You need to see a similar level of commitment to the platform to even begin to compare the relative success of titles. And given the lower cost of developing Wii games and the shorter development times and wealth of experience I just expected a lot more. And I expected it even before the system became the success that it is now. I just assumed that everyone was excited as I remember reading the thoughts of a whole bunch of developers about how excited they were. And then years later with the success of the system seemingly knowing no bounds, I'm still waiting on the awesome support.
Did you know that Activision Blizzard make more revenue out of Wii than any other home console? Did you know that Ubisoft make more money out of DS then any other system? These are suprising statistics to me and I'd like to hear about more companies just trying and marketing more.
Seeing how nintendo really push advertising for games that conceptually need it, Wii Fit for instance or how they repeat advertising for older games, building this "long tail" system. It's just a better business model then having a huge initial sales period followed by a drop off. It's like the race between the Hare and the Tortoise.
At the moment on the system you have nintendo games, either casual or core. You have multiplatform versions of games, which are either slightly different or just the same with worse graphics. Or you have shovelware, or you have great looking new IP that may struggle, usually by smaller teams or devs: Little Kings Story, No More Heroes 2.
Even Madworld, this is a black and white cel-shaded uber violent game that is just not going to be a huge success on any system to be frank. You need mainstream, big games with ambition and the marketing to match it. You need the A-teams working on games and wanting to work on games.
But we've heard all these worrying stories about publishers refusing to back developers Wii projects with the resources they need to do the visions they have. It's just disappointing and yet, for all that there are still those original, unique and special games that I keep picking up.
Beautiful Ocean FTW.
Third parties needed to come out strong right out of the gate on the console and continue that to establish a strong prescence on the console. So far the majority of great third party games are original, unique IP which I love as a gamer, but titles which would struggle no matter what system they were on.
A game like Boom Blox isn't something that is going to blow it out of the gate. Meanwhile a game like Assasins Creed which at best acheived mixed reviews, had heaps of mindshare and media space devoted to it and huge sales because it 'looked' epic and 'looked' ambitious and because Ubisoft backed it with a huge amount of capital. Even if the quality of the end product seems questionable.
I see this as a catch 22 situation. If third parties never even try then they wont succeed. And they wont know the hows and whys and what ifs. It all begins with a first step. But no, you see big title, after big title missing the system. Which is strange when other companies like Sega or Activision can manage decent multiplatform versions of games, even to the extent where I find that World at War is such an unusual third party effort on Wii -in production terms- that it suprises me that it was completely hidden in its development process with barely a preview and only one review and no advertising.
It seems to me that they could have made it an original game with the same effort and done something better or more appealing, than a non-HD version of a game-type people would prefer to play on other systems with hyper visuals. That's not smart thinking.
You need to see a similar level of commitment to the platform to even begin to compare the relative success of titles. And given the lower cost of developing Wii games and the shorter development times and wealth of experience I just expected a lot more. And I expected it even before the system became the success that it is now. I just assumed that everyone was excited as I remember reading the thoughts of a whole bunch of developers about how excited they were. And then years later with the success of the system seemingly knowing no bounds, I'm still waiting on the awesome support.
Did you know that Activision Blizzard make more revenue out of Wii than any other home console? Did you know that Ubisoft make more money out of DS then any other system? These are suprising statistics to me and I'd like to hear about more companies just trying and marketing more.
Seeing how nintendo really push advertising for games that conceptually need it, Wii Fit for instance or how they repeat advertising for older games, building this "long tail" system. It's just a better business model then having a huge initial sales period followed by a drop off. It's like the race between the Hare and the Tortoise.
At the moment on the system you have nintendo games, either casual or core. You have multiplatform versions of games, which are either slightly different or just the same with worse graphics. Or you have shovelware, or you have great looking new IP that may struggle, usually by smaller teams or devs: Little Kings Story, No More Heroes 2.
Even Madworld, this is a black and white cel-shaded uber violent game that is just not going to be a huge success on any system to be frank. You need mainstream, big games with ambition and the marketing to match it. You need the A-teams working on games and wanting to work on games.
But we've heard all these worrying stories about publishers refusing to back developers Wii projects with the resources they need to do the visions they have. It's just disappointing and yet, for all that there are still those original, unique and special games that I keep picking up.
Beautiful Ocean FTW.
Ravenprose said:Nintendo makes most third parties look like a bunch of slack-asses (of which most of them are). Nintendo's own games are usually of such high quality and funfactor that most other companies just can't or won't match. If you can't run with the big dog, you should either work a lot harder to be as good as him or just get out of the park. Unfortunately, most third parties have chosen the latter path.
You can't be serious?
Nintendo's not so far ahead of other companies that they can't compete in the talent area anymore, if they ever were. You're trying to say other developers don't make games at least on the level of Nintendo's? On NINTENDO Wii and N64 systems, yes. But they sure as hell do on other machines, and have for years. The Gamecube had a large sum of great 3rd-party multi-platform games, and some great exclusives that were easily on the level of what Nintendo made.
Problem is on the Wii they made the machine so different that they basically N64ed themselves all over again...you either pick one or the other. Which leads to the other problem; Nintendo doesn't have Rare or any of their other high quality 2nd-parties anymore. That means you get years like 2008, where the exclusive must haves are very lacking. Nobody's there to fill in the slack.
I have my doubts that Nintendo really WANTS large sums of great 3rd-party games. They'd rather control the machine and the games themselves. And I don't really want most games to be on the Wii either. Its like going back in time just to have different controls. Sure, the controls are good sometimes, but even in the best of Wii games has it made me just never want to look at a normal pad again? No. Could most of the best games on Wii been done on other machines, with normal pads? Yes. Hell, a handful of them WERE.
“(Reggie on third party Wii support) I will be able to say our licensees ‘get it’ when their very best content is on our platform. And with very few exceptions today, that’s not the case.”
Reggie is pipe dreaming. Put out a more modern console and their very best content WOULD be on it. May want to fix that awful online too.
"Nintendo has always been a strong first-party hardware manufacturer. With major franchises like Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong, and others, the need for third-party titles may seem nominal."
Again, maybe back in the N64 days when it wasn't just internal Nintendo developers delivering the goods. And Donkey Kong? Really, what was the last major DK game? Oh, DK64. By Rare. And that was probably their worst latter day N64 game. (and why is that not on the VC?)
All in all, I think Nintendo must be thanking the gods of gaming that the Wii has done as well as it has. Because if this console hadn't taken off, they'd be in a very bad spot. With the success its had though, they honestly don't have to do a damn thing, or make one more must have game, until next gen, and they'll still be making money.
edgecrusher said:Ravenprose said:Nintendo makes most third parties look like a bunch of slack-asses (of which most of them are). Nintendo's own games are usually of such high quality and funfactor that most other companies just can't or won't match. If you can't run with the big dog, you should either work a lot harder to be as good as him or just get out of the park. Unfortunately, most third parties have chosen the latter path.
You can't be serious?
Nintendo's not so far ahead of other companies that they can't compete in the talent area anymore, if they ever were. You're trying to say other developers don't make games at least on the level of Nintendo's? On NINTENDO Wii and N64 systems, yes. But they sure as hell do on other machines, and have for years. The Gamecube had a large sum of great 3rd-party multi-platform games, and some great exclusives that were easily on the level of what Nintendo made.
I was referring to third-party support on Wii specifically. Sure there are a number of devs that can and often do produce Nintendo-level quality, but most haven't on Wii. Capcom is a company that I consider equal with Nintendo from a quality and funfactor standpoint, but to date, they have been a joke on Wii. Most of their "support" have been last-gen ports. Umbrella Chronicles may be a fun game, but it's no where near the level of Resident Evil 4 or Street Fighter IV. Same goes for most other third-parties. They want to half-ass it, and Nintendo is destroying them.
Edited: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:08:25
Yeah you can see that 3rd parties on Wii just aren't making games on nintendo's level. Sadly enough Red Steel still stands as a prime example of what games companies should be doing. Did you see the hype, do you see the production? Do you see the genre and how it was original and yet tried to do something appealing like swordfighting?
In the end its execution was lacking but they had the right idea. Rather than publishers running around like headless chickens wondering what will or wont work on Wii, they just need to make normal games like they have been doing for years from the PS2 generation to the current day. Make proper games and make them good.
Edgecrusher, there have been other DK games since 64, many in fact. I don't think you can assume that since nintendo is making money they don't care about 3rd party support. Every sale of 3rd party software yields a licence fee and a healthy library ensures longevity of a system. Also, if you compare sales of games, even separating 3rd and first party, more units of 3rd party software has sold on Wii than on 360. Microsoft try to use ratios and percentages, but if you look at actual unit sales, there is simply more (more units) of 3rd party software being sold on Wii.
What does this mean? It means that on 360 sales are clustered into a small number of high profile titles. On Wii it means that a large amount of sales are spread about a large number of titles. It means that you can have success on the system but shouldn't necessarily expect a gold rush just because you are on the most popular system. But the costs of development are lower and so far, again relating support we still haven't see a 3rd party making a big blow it out title that is AAA in quality and promoting it in a big way like Assasin's Creed was for example.
I think that Wii deserves the A game from publishers for two very simple reasons, the first is obvious: Success. Wii is crapping the shit out of the other systems in sales, every month in NPD it sells more than the competition combined, meanwhile a languishing PS3 picks up multiplatform titles despite it being the cube of this generation - simply because of power, its easier to port. That is what it comes down to, multiplatform develoepers want to whore out their title on as many platforms as possible and its not possible to do that -without huge restructing- on Wii.
Yet this brings us onto the second point: Cost. It's simply cheaper and faster and easier to develop wii titles. The simple economics of the situation mean that you could produce a big title for half the cost. But we have heard stories from publishers refusing to greenlight traditional developer projects on Wii.
When it comes down to it, awesome big budget, traditional, third party games could be made, there is no limitation of hardware that can stop that. Otherwise we wouldn't have had all the awesome traditional big budget games on the Xbox, or PS2 or GC, or even Wii ones like Metroid Prime and Super Mario Galaxy. But what I see from third parties is a complete and total lack of commitment to doing so. They have found their groove on the other systems and see no need to try on the 'other' console.
Think about the possible benefits though? A huge install base, a system with four out of the top five selling games across all systems this year. A system where a title can sit in the top 10 for months at a time. This isn't some kind of special nintendo magic. A company needs to figure it out like Rockstar figured out GTA like EA figured out the Sims. Like I stated before, Activision Blizzard make most of their money out of Wii, Ubisoft make more money out of DS, despite putting money into these huge productions. There is money to be made.
In the end its execution was lacking but they had the right idea. Rather than publishers running around like headless chickens wondering what will or wont work on Wii, they just need to make normal games like they have been doing for years from the PS2 generation to the current day. Make proper games and make them good.
Edgecrusher, there have been other DK games since 64, many in fact. I don't think you can assume that since nintendo is making money they don't care about 3rd party support. Every sale of 3rd party software yields a licence fee and a healthy library ensures longevity of a system. Also, if you compare sales of games, even separating 3rd and first party, more units of 3rd party software has sold on Wii than on 360. Microsoft try to use ratios and percentages, but if you look at actual unit sales, there is simply more (more units) of 3rd party software being sold on Wii.
What does this mean? It means that on 360 sales are clustered into a small number of high profile titles. On Wii it means that a large amount of sales are spread about a large number of titles. It means that you can have success on the system but shouldn't necessarily expect a gold rush just because you are on the most popular system. But the costs of development are lower and so far, again relating support we still haven't see a 3rd party making a big blow it out title that is AAA in quality and promoting it in a big way like Assasin's Creed was for example.
I think that Wii deserves the A game from publishers for two very simple reasons, the first is obvious: Success. Wii is crapping the shit out of the other systems in sales, every month in NPD it sells more than the competition combined, meanwhile a languishing PS3 picks up multiplatform titles despite it being the cube of this generation - simply because of power, its easier to port. That is what it comes down to, multiplatform develoepers want to whore out their title on as many platforms as possible and its not possible to do that -without huge restructing- on Wii.
Yet this brings us onto the second point: Cost. It's simply cheaper and faster and easier to develop wii titles. The simple economics of the situation mean that you could produce a big title for half the cost. But we have heard stories from publishers refusing to greenlight traditional developer projects on Wii.
When it comes down to it, awesome big budget, traditional, third party games could be made, there is no limitation of hardware that can stop that. Otherwise we wouldn't have had all the awesome traditional big budget games on the Xbox, or PS2 or GC, or even Wii ones like Metroid Prime and Super Mario Galaxy. But what I see from third parties is a complete and total lack of commitment to doing so. They have found their groove on the other systems and see no need to try on the 'other' console.
Think about the possible benefits though? A huge install base, a system with four out of the top five selling games across all systems this year. A system where a title can sit in the top 10 for months at a time. This isn't some kind of special nintendo magic. A company needs to figure it out like Rockstar figured out GTA like EA figured out the Sims. Like I stated before, Activision Blizzard make most of their money out of Wii, Ubisoft make more money out of DS, despite putting money into these huge productions. There is money to be made.
I saw this quote this morning which I found interesting and this is emblematic of what is happening:
“…Not so long ago the PS2 dominated the market so if we developed an exclusive game for PS2 then we could enjoy a very good profit. But that time is already over. To maximise and spread our games to as many users as possible I think we have to go to multiformat – the Xbox 360, PS3 and also the PC as well.” - Square Enix’s US president John Yamamoto
Notice how he says SE should spread its games to as many users as possible and Wii is conspicuous by its absence?
Notice the bold contradiction? The Wii IS dominating the market in the same way as PS2 did and when that happened everyone out there flocked to the system to make sure that their product was on there. That is why people are sitting around wondering why that isn't happening and why product isn't getting better. It's a condradiction. So SE a japanese country say that they need to focuse worldwide outside of their native japan where Wii and DS is dominating? Okay well the platform that is doing well worldwide is the Wii, where Xbox struggles in the east and PS3 struggles all over.
“…Not so long ago the PS2 dominated the market so if we developed an exclusive game for PS2 then we could enjoy a very good profit. But that time is already over. To maximise and spread our games to as many users as possible I think we have to go to multiformat – the Xbox 360, PS3 and also the PC as well.” - Square Enix’s US president John Yamamoto
Notice how he says SE should spread its games to as many users as possible and Wii is conspicuous by its absence?
Notice the bold contradiction? The Wii IS dominating the market in the same way as PS2 did and when that happened everyone out there flocked to the system to make sure that their product was on there. That is why people are sitting around wondering why that isn't happening and why product isn't getting better. It's a condradiction. So SE a japanese country say that they need to focuse worldwide outside of their native japan where Wii and DS is dominating? Okay well the platform that is doing well worldwide is the Wii, where Xbox struggles in the east and PS3 struggles all over.
Obviously I know there have been DK games since then. But that was the last really major one. Its not really a major franchise anymore was my point.
As for sales, maybe some people are selling more wii software, but look at what the games are. Mostly crap. Who cares?
Yeah, big major games obviously can be made on Wii. But why would I want these games on Wii, when I can have them on the others? Like I said, its like going back in time 4 years technically. Why would I want to drive a Ford Focus, when I can drive a ferrari? Outside of porting older games to the Wii, I can't say at this point that I'm really rooting for many major 3rd-party games to go to the Wii. Unless its something that doesn't benefit much from better tech, like strategy RPG's or something.
Where I'm coming from is, I have better technology so I'd rather use that. I'd rather use a system that can get Digital sound out of my reciever and full widescreen and visuals that take advantage of my TV.
Tomb Raider just came out. Did I get the Wii version? No. The gap is too wide in the audiovisuals for me to care about different controls. Whereas TR Anniversary was basically a PS2 game anyway, so I had no problem getting the Wii version of that (which some didn't like, but I did).
Do I really care that developers are not making much interesting stuff on the Wii? Not really. They obviously don't either. All I really hope for on the Wii is more great Nintendo published games.
They didn't deliver that this year. Not in North America anyway. I'm basically just hoping for new Pikmin since I think it could actually benefit from the controller, and some RPG's from Monolith since they make great ones. Other than that, meh.
As for sales, maybe some people are selling more wii software, but look at what the games are. Mostly crap. Who cares?
Yeah, big major games obviously can be made on Wii. But why would I want these games on Wii, when I can have them on the others? Like I said, its like going back in time 4 years technically. Why would I want to drive a Ford Focus, when I can drive a ferrari? Outside of porting older games to the Wii, I can't say at this point that I'm really rooting for many major 3rd-party games to go to the Wii. Unless its something that doesn't benefit much from better tech, like strategy RPG's or something.
Where I'm coming from is, I have better technology so I'd rather use that. I'd rather use a system that can get Digital sound out of my reciever and full widescreen and visuals that take advantage of my TV.
Tomb Raider just came out. Did I get the Wii version? No. The gap is too wide in the audiovisuals for me to care about different controls. Whereas TR Anniversary was basically a PS2 game anyway, so I had no problem getting the Wii version of that (which some didn't like, but I did).
Do I really care that developers are not making much interesting stuff on the Wii? Not really. They obviously don't either. All I really hope for on the Wii is more great Nintendo published games.
They didn't deliver that this year. Not in North America anyway. I'm basically just hoping for new Pikmin since I think it could actually benefit from the controller, and some RPG's from Monolith since they make great ones. Other than that, meh.
So Edge I take it you are a PC gamer?
PS2 dominated like Wii, but it was in the same ballpark as the others technologically. Again, that's where they dropped the unwilling to spend money on tech ball. Plus, it was catering to the type of games Square make....and coming off incredible success on the PS1.
Still, I think if Nintendo really wanted a big Square game, they could get one. Obviously they don't. Last I heard, even the Crystal Chronicles game was canned.
Still, I think if Nintendo really wanted a big Square game, they could get one. Obviously they don't. Last I heard, even the Crystal Chronicles game was canned.
Iga_Bobovic said:So Edge I take it you are a PC gamer?
And that has what to do with anything? No, I hate sitting in front of a monitor playing games.
edgecrusher said:Iga_Bobovic said:So Edge I take it you are a PC gamer?
And that has what to do with anything? No, I hate sitting in front of a monitor playing games.
You said you rather wanted to have better technology, PC > 360/PS3 technology wise. So following your own logic, I came to the conclusion you would be a PC gamer. Pretty straightforward, if you aks me!
edgecrusher said:
Still, I think if Nintendo really wanted a big Square game, they could get one. Obviously they don't. Last I heard, even the Crystal Chronicles game was canned.
Crystal Chronicles hasn't been canceled. That was a false EGM rumor. Square Enix squashed that rumor a week ago:
"We have never announced that Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: The Crystal Bearers has been cancelled and have every intention of releasing it. There may be some concerns as a firm ship date has not been set but rest assured there will be an announcement once we finalize the date internally."
Edited: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:48:23
Iga_Bobovic said:edgecrusher said:Iga_Bobovic said:So Edge I take it you are a PC gamer?
And that has what to do with anything? No, I hate sitting in front of a monitor playing games.You said you rather wanted to have better technology, PC > 360/PS3 technology wise. So following your own logic, I came to the conclusion you would be a PC gamer. Pretty straightforward, if you aks me!
Yeah, because the PC is as far ahead of the PS360 as they are to the Wii....
Whatever, your just being foolish now. You realise that you come out with this every time a tech discussion is brought up?
Yeah, I'm dumb for wanting to use my better tech. Let me bust out my Dreamcast and get people making games on that again. Technically, it is possible to make great games on it. And it doesn't have the burden of being as powerful as a Wii.
edgecrusher said:Iga_Bobovic said:edgecrusher said:Iga_Bobovic said:So Edge I take it you are a PC gamer?
And that has what to do with anything? No, I hate sitting in front of a monitor playing games.You said you rather wanted to have better technology, PC > 360/PS3 technology wise. So following your own logic, I came to the conclusion you would be a PC gamer. Pretty straightforward, if you aks me!
Yeah, because the PC is as far ahead of the PS360 as they are to the Wii....
Whatever, your just being foolish now. You realise that you come out with this every time a tech discussion is brought up?
Yeah, I'm dumb for wanting to use my better tech. Let me bust out my Dreamcast and get people making games on that again. Technically, it is possible to make great games on it. And it doesn't have the burden of being as powerful as a Wii.
Yes the PC is way ahead of the PS3 and 360. Have you seen Crysis? And why are you being so defensive, I just asked a simple question?
Hey there are actual people here discussing things. This is new 
Edgecrusher, the point about sales is that who cares? Publishers care, because they can sell product on a system and its the sales of the hardware and even now collectively the software that shows there is a viable market for games. It's almost like a safety net that dampens the risk vs reward mechanic.
"Yeah, big major games obviously can be made on Wii. But why would I want these games on Wii, when I can have them on the others?"
The whole point isn't neccesarily to make the same games i.e multiplatform versions of games but to make something that isn't on other systems. So take a big production, traditional game approach on a franchise or new IP that isn't multiplatform and because of the lower costs and associated risks and larger userbase, that can offset the risks of making a huge game and having it flatline. The reason it would be on Wii, would be firstly you could still get great looking graphics like Prime 3 or RE4 or Rebel Strike and yet you could improve or change the design to take advantage of the Wii controls.
Mario Galaxy is an awesome game, heavy on design innovation with great visuals. Gamerankings has it collectively reviewed as one of the greatest games of all time. That shows what you can achieve on Wii level hardware, it doesn't matter that it doesn't have digital sound, it still has one of the best soundtracks there is, it doesn't matter that its not in high definition to support your HDTV, it's still one the best games in recent memory.
Crystal Chronicles isn't cancelled, the EGM rumour was put to bed the same day by Square Enix PR. I fail to see how the PS2 caters more to the type of games SE want to make in comparision to Wii. If anything the two systems are closer in success and technology and userbase than other systems. I think that Crystal Chronicles is a big Square game, it's not a numbered entry in the franchise but everything I have read and seen so far seems to indicate that this is one game where they are taking an agreeable approach. But given the success of the system, particularly in relation to Square which used to be such an insular company, focused on Japan, I expected more. Instead their idea is to put more support on 360 and their reasons for doing that are a contradiction.
Edgecrusher, the point about sales is that who cares? Publishers care, because they can sell product on a system and its the sales of the hardware and even now collectively the software that shows there is a viable market for games. It's almost like a safety net that dampens the risk vs reward mechanic.
"Yeah, big major games obviously can be made on Wii. But why would I want these games on Wii, when I can have them on the others?"
The whole point isn't neccesarily to make the same games i.e multiplatform versions of games but to make something that isn't on other systems. So take a big production, traditional game approach on a franchise or new IP that isn't multiplatform and because of the lower costs and associated risks and larger userbase, that can offset the risks of making a huge game and having it flatline. The reason it would be on Wii, would be firstly you could still get great looking graphics like Prime 3 or RE4 or Rebel Strike and yet you could improve or change the design to take advantage of the Wii controls.
Mario Galaxy is an awesome game, heavy on design innovation with great visuals. Gamerankings has it collectively reviewed as one of the greatest games of all time. That shows what you can achieve on Wii level hardware, it doesn't matter that it doesn't have digital sound, it still has one of the best soundtracks there is, it doesn't matter that its not in high definition to support your HDTV, it's still one the best games in recent memory.
Crystal Chronicles isn't cancelled, the EGM rumour was put to bed the same day by Square Enix PR. I fail to see how the PS2 caters more to the type of games SE want to make in comparision to Wii. If anything the two systems are closer in success and technology and userbase than other systems. I think that Crystal Chronicles is a big Square game, it's not a numbered entry in the franchise but everything I have read and seen so far seems to indicate that this is one game where they are taking an agreeable approach. But given the success of the system, particularly in relation to Square which used to be such an insular company, focused on Japan, I expected more. Instead their idea is to put more support on 360 and their reasons for doing that are a contradiction.
Here you go Edgie boy, I got this from the Madworld interview:
IGN AU: Why Wii?
Atsushi Inaba: It has a huge install base and we're really interested in the Wii platform so we wanted to create a really cool and stylish game for that.
This was the same reasoning for putting Okami on PS2, the huge install base. Developers want to reach as many people as possible typically. But the install base can act as a risk reducer for games just like Okami and Madworld. What publisher would greenlight a high def version of a black and white game with a suitably appropiate budget? This way they can make a game with a PS2 budget, that still looks stylish and with a large enough userbase that there is more of a chance of finding an audience. At least that would be the reasoning. I still think a black and white game will bomb.
So as I said, economics and sales.
IGN AU: Why Wii?
Atsushi Inaba: It has a huge install base and we're really interested in the Wii platform so we wanted to create a really cool and stylish game for that.
This was the same reasoning for putting Okami on PS2, the huge install base. Developers want to reach as many people as possible typically. But the install base can act as a risk reducer for games just like Okami and Madworld. What publisher would greenlight a high def version of a black and white game with a suitably appropiate budget? This way they can make a game with a PS2 budget, that still looks stylish and with a large enough userbase that there is more of a chance of finding an audience. At least that would be the reasoning. I still think a black and white game will bomb.
So as I said, economics and sales.
Edited: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:16:26
I think a very important aspect to consider is that developers also have desires as to how they want to see their works envisioned and alot times that equates to how powerful a system is that can deliver what they want in the best way possible.
Log in or Register for free to comment
Recently Spotted:
Archangel3371 (8m)
Gamasutra posted an interesting study on video game sales and found that so far this year, four of the top five best selling titles can be found exclusively on the Wii.
According to the publication, Super Smash Bros. Brawl is the top-selling game so far this year with an estimated 3.5 million units sold, followed by Mario Kart Wii, Grand Theft Auto 4 for the Xbox 360, Wii Play, and Wii Fit.
There's no debating that Nintendo is extremely pleased with the results and I'm surprised by just how well the Wii is performing. But can we ignore the fact that every single Wii title mentioned in that survey comes from Nintendo?
To those who only cares about playing games, I'm sure that doesn't even matter. Why should it? To the average person, it doesn't matter who makes the games, as long as the games are worth spending $50 or $60 on.
But from a business standpoint, I can't believe that Nintendo would be too happy about Gamasutra's findings. Sure, the company is reaping all the benefits of providing the top-selling games on its own consoles and that helps the bottom line, but we can't forget that a strong third-party library of games still matters to the success of a video game console.
Nintendo has always been a strong first-party hardware manufacturer. With major franchises like Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong, and others, the need for third-party titles may seem nominal. But if we consider the broader effect of not having strong third-party support, I think it becomes clear that Nintendo wishes at least one title from a third-party was included in the best-sellers list.
Right now, the best performers on the Wii come from Nintendo. Sure, there are third-parties migrating to Wii and trying their luck with that market, but so far, few have been successful. On the other hand, Nintendo has been extremely successful selling its own games.
So what gives? Is it marketing? Is it Nintendo's relationship with developers? I think it may be partly both, but it goes far beyond relationships and marketing. Simply put, I think most Wii owners have a strong allegiance to Nintendo and they've quickly realized that if you want the best Wii experience and not a half-baked approach to its unique style of gameplay, the only place to find it is on Nintendo games.
Let's be honest--how many third-party Wii games really show off the value of the hardware? I get games delivered to me each day and I've yet to find one third-party Wii title that truly captures the motion control in a way that makes me think twice about my theory that only Nintendo really cares about Wii development.
See, I don't think third-parties are incapable of developing a strong Wii title; I think they're unwilling to develop a strong Wii title.
In an era where success means placing titles on multiple consoles, the Wii becomes the "other" hardware for most developers. The Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 are similar enough that porting a title from one to the other isn't too much trouble. But when it comes to the Wii, it's an entirely different story. The Wii's visual capabilities can't stand up to its competitors, and its unique control scheme makes it practically impossible for developers to easily port controls from an Xbox 360 controller to a Wiimote.
And with an already high budget and Nintendo cornering the Wii software market to boot, the Wii development space is simply less attractive to developers.
Does that mean they will simply stop developing for the Wii? Of course not. But rest assured that if Nintendo continues its dominance in the Wii video game space and few third-party developers have success in the market, Nintendo could lose third-party support, lose licensing fees, and most importantly, lose potential customers that are looking for a huge library of games over anything else.
Success is great. But sometimes, it becomes a curse. And if Nintendo isn't careful, its success could be a curse to its own operation.
REGGIE SAYS:
“(Reggie on third party Wii support) I will be able to say our licensees ‘get it’ when their very best content is on our platform. And with very few exceptions today, that’s not the case.”