robio said:

Dvader said:

robio said:

I'll say it right now. Piece of shit.

I think it will be the best game movie ever.

Isn't that like being the thinnest guy in Fat Camp?

Yup. You are still the thinnest though.

Dvader said:

gamingeek said:

Agnates said:

If I finally get my lightsaber fighting game on PS3 I'll jump on the opportunity (as long as the pricing will be reasonable), even if I'll still be pissed off at all the developers who didn't make such games a reality earlier by choosing stupid biases and misconceptions presented by the lowest common denominators of the media instead.

This will annoy me, hell it even annoys me slightly when Dvader gets excited that shooters ps3 shooters will play like Wii. We could have had lots of great shooters already if developers had got off their ass and not pigeonholed Wii as a kids system from the get go. Now you'll get developers making these games they should have been making years ago. It's like warping back in time to 2006, even this first line of game games looks horrible - just like casual wii games. Yeeeees.

Note: posting from a mac, so I don't know how to copy text and keep it all in one post.

I will say this again, it is all Nintendo's fault for making a system that is old tech. FPS is a genre that has always been at the cutting edge of graphics, that has always been a big selling point of FPSs. Take that away and you already have a much harder sell. Online play is another major aspect, the Wii isn't exactly the best online system. The two most important selling points for a FPS the Wii fails at, plus it's userbase doesn't seem like the most shooter friendly crowd. Why would a developer waste their time making a quality FPS on the Wii?

I agree with this statement.

I would have loved to have seen some great shooters on Wii. But most likely the developers would have been basically giving money away. Wii developement doesn't cost as much, but it still costs a pretty penny to make something like Halo or the like on it, and they probably wouldn't have made as much with a game like that on Wii as they would elsewhere. If they made money at all, that is.

Especially an original project. I guess its up to Retro Studios if anybody.

edgecrusher said:

I would have loved to have seen some great shooters on Wii. But most likely the developers would have been basically giving money away. Wii developement doesn't cost as much, but it still costs a pretty penny to make something like Halo or the like on it, and they probably wouldn't have made as much with a game like that on Wii as they would elsewhere. If they made money at all, that is.

Especially an original project. I guess its up to Retro Studios if anybody.

 why do you say that?  red steel, the call of duty games are all million sellers and even a very mediocre game like the conduit did very well on wii

edgecrusher said:

I'm honestly happy they copied Nintendo's form factor, because I cannot think of a better design for a controller you point and aim with...than a remote design with a secondary analog piece.

And hell, all the controllers of the past had the same form factors as well...look at the dual shock, Gamecube pad, and the Xbox pad...the Dreamcast pad, whatever. They're all based on a similar design because thats what works.

I think its a good choice too, but I mean someone had to work it all out. Before wii most motion controllers were a standard controller with tilt in it. They could have done something more to differentiate it a bit.

edgecrusher said:

.

I would have loved to have seen some great shooters on Wii. But most likely the developers would have been basically giving money away. Wii developement doesn't cost as much, but it still costs a pretty penny to make something like Halo or the like on it, and they probably wouldn't have made as much with a game like that on Wii as they would elsewhere. If they made money at all, that is.

Especially an original project. I guess its up to Retro Studios if anybody.

I'm an ideas man, I would have wanted to see what they could do with the system. Why work on a Wii FPS? Well how about a FPS with physics based object manipulation like no other system could do? What about them packing in some cheap frames and doing a head tracking game?  Or having perfect IR controls. FPS usually have some form of puzzles in them, so why not crank it up and do a shooter with some intricate first person puzzles like Samus reaching into the screen in Prime 3, only cranked up.

I dont see FPS as having to be the land of the graphics and the online. Why not make it the land of ideas? Like when Perfect Dark came out and it had laptop guns and remote cameras and robocop style guns.

Where is the creativity, ambition and ideas here? If FPS developers thoughts when seeing the wii controller was meh, no graphics, than I find that really depressing honestly. There were tons of incentives to at least try, not least the huge install base, but instead all we got was what? The Conduit? Oh joy.

edgecrusher said:

Dvader said:

gamingeek said:

Agnates said:

If I finally get my lightsaber fighting game on PS3 I'll jump on the opportunity (as long as the pricing will be reasonable), even if I'll still be pissed off at all the developers who didn't make such games a reality earlier by choosing stupid biases and misconceptions presented by the lowest common denominators of the media instead.

This will annoy me, hell it even annoys me slightly when Dvader gets excited that shooters ps3 shooters will play like Wii. We could have had lots of great shooters already if developers had got off their ass and not pigeonholed Wii as a kids system from the get go. Now you'll get developers making these games they should have been making years ago. It's like warping back in time to 2006, even this first line of game games looks horrible - just like casual wii games. Yeeeees.

Note: posting from a mac, so I don't know how to copy text and keep it all in one post.

I will say this again, it is all Nintendo's fault for making a system that is old tech. FPS is a genre that has always been at the cutting edge of graphics, that has always been a big selling point of FPSs. Take that away and you already have a much harder sell. Online play is another major aspect, the Wii isn't exactly the best online system. The two most important selling points for a FPS the Wii fails at, plus it's userbase doesn't seem like the most shooter friendly crowd. Why would a developer waste their time making a quality FPS on the Wii?

I agree with this statement.

I would have loved to have seen some great shooters on Wii. But most likely the developers would have been basically giving money away. Wii developement doesn't cost as much, but it still costs a pretty penny to make something like Halo or the like on it, and they probably wouldn't have made as much with a game like that on Wii as they would elsewhere. If they made money at all, that is.

Especially an original project. I guess its up to Retro Studios if anybody.

BS. Nintendo led the way with GREAT software including core titles. As for third party games there were the likes of RE4. Even Red Steel while shitty sold GREAT at launch just because it was an FPS with the "new" controls. The mediocrely ported COD games outsold the PS3 versions up until they decided to completely shun the Wii with COD4. It was the third parties that dropped the ball, and the games that are actually impossible on Wii are still few and far between so the tech had nothing to do with it. Only the likes of Dead Rising are actually impossible on Wii, anything else can be downported with minimal effort as the belated Modern Warfare port from an understaffed and under-timed Treyarch proved. They simply wanted to have their pie and eat it too, spending nothing on development and wanting Nintendo level success, then whining they didn't get it, as if that attitude deserved it.

The software they put out on Wii wouldn't sell on any system, and it wasn't the tech that held it back from being great, it was the lack of effort. They tried to convince us the Wii can't handle more than flat colors for textures and Half-Life 1-esque level geometry when the first party games show us you can have more than enough visual fidelity, in SD instead of HD, for an eye pleasing result. You can have Battlefield-sized levels like in Battalion Wars, sleek visuals with multiple detailed textures per surface as in Metroid Prime 3 (with 60 fps to boot), awesome effects and lighting as seen in Galaxy's shiny surfaces, refractions and other effects.

Even small indie developers consistently put out better efforts than the big publishers, even if we pit WiiWare vs retail titles (go back a few pages to look at Jett Rocket). The shitty quality of the third party games had nothing to do with the tech behind them being lacking, few even achieved PS2 like results after all, and the Wii's far more capable.

People constantly claim that they tried to copy Nintendo's examples. How? With crappy outsourced products or efforts from their C-D tier teams and interns? With having a handful of people alone porting a high caliber game like COD: WAW? Is that how Nintendo develops? Don't they put their AAA teams to the test even for the "casual" games, which often manage to appeal to the core gamer thanks to that fact? And when did they make baby simulators for Ubisoft to get that example from them? And where are the great 3D and 2D platformers from the 3rd parties? De Blob sold great, why has it taken years to even announce a sequel is "coming", likely multiplatform as well? Where are the Zelda type long and engaging action adventures? Even Okami's belated port sold better than on PS2, though granted that doesn't say much about its sales. Why rail shooters instead? And how are success stories (NMH) constantly shunned in favor of hyping some lackluster title's failures (MadWorld)?

Only third parties are to blame for creating an unfriendly to their products market, but as shown with MH3 in Japan nothing is irreversible if there's actual effort put into it. Does anyone really believe that Dragon Quest X will sell worse by being on the Wii? The same goes for almost any high caliber IP. If it's of the same quality, and the same marketing, it can sell, with lesser development costs to boot, as CAPCOM realised for at least one of their franchises. Sure, it would be pointless to make a ground-up Wii blockbuster FPS considering the others hold that market (though ports of some could still be done decently if treated better, with a decent return), but almost anything else could still work out on Wii if it's actually a quality effort, considering the first party titles cover a wide range of genres that consistently sell.

And no, Nintendo's games don't sell just for being Nintendo, when they drop the ball they also fail, as seen with Wii Music which didn't make a dent to the success of the third party music games (which are another example of good third party efforts being rewarded). Yet we still don't see any effort, especially from the West. I don't see why this stuff has to be repeated every so often, do people forget how this generation started, and continued, so easily? Not to mention last gen with the GC more capable than the PS2 yet still being shunned from the third parties, so how could people possibly suggest they would have been better off if they had gone the visual tech route again? Nintendo took a RISK and it paid off, nothing was guaranteed, and having a Wii far more powerful would have affected how the consumer viewed it, if not because the games would possibly have a different ideology behind them, then because the price would have certainly been affected as well.

SteelAttack said:

I wonder what will be Nintendo's reaction to this.

They are probably talking to their lawyers right now, lol.