Discussion for Rumors of Wii’s Death are Greatly Exaggerated…

[Flare]

Here's what I don't understand.

Aren't we supposed to be gamers? Didn't we evolve with gaming, from the simplistic experiences that the Atari 2600 offered to the immersive visually impressive experiences that the PS2 offered?

Didn't we all get excited when we saw the SNES or the Amiga come out and suddenly music sounded 10 times better than their predecessors? Suddenly there 16 million colores instead of 256?

Why did we suddenly stop caring for better graphics and sound? How come the Wii comes out, and now it doesn't matter that its hardware is essentially the same as the previous generation Gamecube?

Why did we stop preferring a First Person Shooter against a simplistic game where all you do is waggle a remote control?

We were supposed to hate the Wii from the beginning, because it took away our beloved gamepad, and it didn't offer us HD graphics.

Some people say "HD graphics don't excite me". Well, "why not!?" aren't we supposed to be technophiles? We are EXPECTED to like HD graphics, because it's part of hour hobby. Leave those "HD graphics don't care" statements to the nongamers and old folks. We are expected to like a game BECAUSE it has HD graphics. And if a console on this day and age doesn't support it, we're supposed to be disappointed about it... as the gamers we are, no?

[Nous Anima]

So why exactly is that a bad thing?

Why is it a bad thing is too vague a question. From a profit standpoint this is clearly a fantastic thing for Nintendo, for example. It means they're making money hand over fist from all the consoles they sell (very fat profit margins on the hardware) but they also get to dominate the software market (76% of all games sales, and counting).

You may ask "Why is it a bad thing, commercially, if you're not Nintendo?"

To answer that specific question one might say that, unless you're Nintendo, the tie ratio is simply abysmal.

[Chris]

Here's what I don't understand.

Aren't we supposed to be gamers? Didn't we evolve with gaming, from the simplistic experiences that the Atari 2600 offered to the immersive visually impressive experiences that the PS2 offered?

Didn't we all get excited when we saw the SNES or the Amiga come out and suddenly music sounded 10 times better than their predecessors? Suddenly there 16 million colores instead of 256?

Why did we suddenly stop caring for better graphics and sound? How come the Wii comes out, and now it doesn't matter that its hardware is essentially the same as the previous generation Gamecube?

Why did we stop preferring a First Person Shooter against a simplistic game where all you do is waggle a remote control?

We were supposed to hate the Wii from the beginning, because it took away our beloved gamepad, and it didn't offer us HD graphics.

Some people say "HD graphics don't excite me". Well, "why not!?" aren't we supposed to be technophiles? We are EXPECTED to like HD graphics, because it's part of hour hobby. Leave those "HD graphics don't care" statements to the nongamers and old folks. We are expected to like a game BECAUSE it has HD graphics. And if a console on this day and age doesn't support it, we're supposed to dismiss it immediately... as the gamers we are, no?

For me personally, it all comes down to having a perfect blend of gameplay, graphics, and imagination. When we started off on those older systems, our imagination was far more integral to the experience. That dot was us. The story was big but the graphics were not and so we filled in the blanks and there is something compelling about that. There came a point, and it's different for other people, but there came a point where the graphics were too good for me. I like to refer to All Star Baseball on the N64, that game strived for the "realistic" look and realistic animations. The problem was that the gameplay suffered as a result, animations got in the way of making quick plays. I much prefer Ken Griffey Baseball on the SNES to anything out there today, save for maybe Power Pros but guess what style that reverts back to? Simple graphics, great gameplay.

There also came a time when FMV went nuts, games became more like movies. I'm not interested in that, especially when most of my experience with those "movie games" was that once you played the actual game it had horrific and stiff controls. I have a PS3 and I've played "next gen" games. They look beautiful, but guess where I have more fun? I have 1 game on my PS3 and I never play it. I've tried several demos, most of which don't last nearly as long as the time it takes to load the freakin' things. If the formula is no nonsense pick up and play fun that is well done and created with genuine care and polish, it doesn't matter how it looks. Isn't that what the Atari 2600 really taught us?

[alexjlopez]

...no?

No.

..........

[javierdlopez]

Why did we stop preferring a First Person Shooter against a simplistic game where all you do is waggle a remote control?


We were supposed to hate the Wii from the beginning, because it took away our beloved gamepad, and it didn't offer us HD graphics.

When game companies stopped creating unique and innovative games and began carbon copying the same thing one game after the other. Don't get me wrong, I love my HD graphics and as you may have noticed, I love playing my FPSs. But let's face it, there's too many companies making game clones with great graphics. World of Goo and Boom Blox are great innovative titles, that realistically could have come out on the N64.

I don't need 90 minute cutscenes or over the top graphics if the game's controls are broken or if the game is the same identical game I played last month.

[Nous Anima]

I think it would be fun to sit down and walk through the various ploys folks have had to come up with in order to try and get any possible negative angle on Nintendo.

In 2006, it was "the Wii? What a horrible name! And motion control is a total gimmick. The Wii is gimmicky and it's for little kids. It'll finish 3rd"

In 2007, it was "the only reason all those people are buying Wii's is because they are just kids and soccer moms, and old people, and grown men chasing their childhood. Those are the only people buying Wii's. Motion Control is just a gimmick and true gamers will always like traditional control."

In 2008, it was "the Wii is just for casual gamers. I'm a hardcore gamer, so the Wii is stupid to me. Anyway, my hardcore system will have far superior motion controls. Wii's motion controls suck, my system will have hardcore graphics AND REAL motion controls, such as those found in HIGH VELOCITY BOWLING"

In 2009, it was "uh oh, I saw Wii's on store shelves the other day, the Wii must be fading out! People are finally seeing how much it sucks and nobody is buying it anymore. And plus, the only games that sell on Wii are games made or published by Nintendo. Everything else hardly sells at all. Wii Motion Plus is a total failure and my system's motion controls will be far superior due to the axelentic temperature that exists in the OM2 core and it's polarity to the earth's magnetic field is a more true measure of motion............and stuff"

Joking aside (and I don't necessarilly share your particular sense of humour in this case), if you look at the software sales above they clearly convey the message that the Wii's appeal has everything to do with those top 7-8 1st party titles (the Wii Sports, the Wii Fits, the Wii Plays, the Mario Parties, etc).

To put it another way, even if only those titles ever existed (let's say the Wii was a closed platform/toy sold with only those handful of "games" and nothing else), then still not much would be different in terms of either hardware or software sales.

This handful of 1st party titles that dominate software sales is clearly the main reason by far why the vast majority of Wii users want a Wii; this is what they pay for, this is what they buy and this is what (most of them) play.

The numbers speak for themselves!

[Nous Anima]

Here's what I don't understand.

Aren't we supposed to be gamers? Didn't we evolve with gaming, from the simplistic experiences that the Atari 2600 offered to the immersive visually impressive experiences that the PS2 offered?

Didn't we all get excited when we saw the SNES or the Amiga come out and suddenly music sounded 10 times better than their predecessors? Suddenly there 16 million colores instead of 256?

Why did we suddenly stop caring for better graphics and sound? How come the Wii comes out, and now it doesn't matter that its hardware is essentially the same as the previous generation Gamecube?

Why did we stop preferring a First Person Shooter against a simplistic game where all you do is waggle a remote control?

We were supposed to hate the Wii from the beginning, because it took away our beloved gamepad, and it didn't offer us HD graphics.

Some people say "HD graphics don't excite me". Well, "why not!?" aren't we supposed to be technophiles? We are EXPECTED to like HD graphics, because it's part of hour hobby. Leave those "HD graphics don't care" statements to the nongamers and old folks. We are expected to like a game BECAUSE it has HD graphics. And if a console on this day and age doesn't support it, we're supposed to be disappointed about it... as the gamers we are, no?

I don't think it has anything to do with "HD graphics" Flare, honestly. There are games on the Amiga that are far more complex and involving (and therefore for many of us "immersive") than what we get today - and the Wii is not the only offending party here.

Look at it another way: there are dozens of games on the PS2 (hell, even on the Dreamcast or Gamecube) that are almost the complete opposite of what a casual gamer would buy a Wii for today. It isn't the lack of HD graphics that is the problem here at all.

[hiphopcr]

It's not just HD graphics. So many games nowadays are loaded with content. Assassin's Creed II (from what I understand) allows you to create your own village. That in itself would have been a complete game a few years ago. Now it's just a tiny part of a massive game.

Halo 3 had a robust campaign, playable with 1-4 players and 2 players on each tv, 4 player split screen while going online, Forge, Saved Films, etc. Calling the multiplayer in MW2 feels like an understatement. Not to mention Campaign and Spec Ops. Gears, ODST, etc, come not only with single and multiplayer deathmatch modes, but Firefight, Horde, Nazi Zombies (WaW), Scavenger (L4D2), all online or local.

Many developers have really upped the ante to make that $60 game a true value.

When it comes to that I feel like the Wii still wallows in the previous generations. Excite Truck, while a euphoric experience in the short term, had no online and even 2-player split screen lacked bots. NSMB has a great campaign, but then stops.

So basically I'm agreeing with Flare that as gamers, we do want more, more, and more!

[alexjlopez]

I don't think anyone is "rejecting" technically advanced games. It's quite the opposite--people are rejecting games that aren't technically advanced. I don't buy into that, personally, and for better or for worse, more people bought into Nintendo's vision of gaming this generation than not. No need for tears, no one is banning HD games.

I don't understand where the outrage comes from, if Wii games are so unappealing, ignore them and stop lamenting the mystery of what makes them so popular.

As gamers, competitiveness is in our nature, and that in part is what fuels these silly discussions in the first place.

Another thing I find amusing is the "the world revolves around my personal tastes" attitude so many gamers have. "We gamers are supposed to demand HD graphics". "We gamers demand online functionality". Is it that difficult to accept that your own tastes may not be in line with other gamers? It's that kind of myopic thinking that killed PC gaming for the most part--with gamers having grown tired of the expensive upgrades and video card arms race.

At some point, people got tired of that sh*t and just wanted to play a good game.

Technology can be used in fantastic ways to enhance video games, but it shouldn't be a requirement. That kind of thinking led some jackass to think it was a good idea to put arms, legs, and a face on Pac Man and make a 3D third-person adventure game out of it. It was more realistic though, I'll give them that. "Technically" superior--you'll get no argument there either. But a better game? I don't think so. When games become more about the technology than about the gameplay itself, you lose sight of why we play them in the first place. That doesn't mean technically advanced games can't also feature great gameplay--just don't tell me that games that don't feature advanced tech can't be great games.

I think Nous himself put it nicely in another thread:

"Any true gamer who still plays games on any platform that's ever existed in the past 30 years (no matter the graphics, sound, controls, thematic content, length of gameplay, learning curve, etc) will also appreciate smaller, cheaper to make games that offer instant gratification.

[alexjlopez]

People who think advanced technology drives better games probably think that the Star Wars prequels were better movies than the original trilogy. You can keep that Jar Jar Binks crap dude. Green screens and CGI couldn't hold a candle to the clever use of latex, makeup, and midgets.