Prime 3 was for the Wii. Other M did suck ass but only because of the horrible characterization.
Seriously I don't understand Vipershark. I really do think it is nostalgia because Skyward Sword, Donkey Kong Country Returns, Kirby Returns to Dreamland, Mario Galaxy 1 & 2, Rhythm Heaven, Excitebots, Kirby's Epic Yarn, Wario Land Shake It, Metroid Prime 3, Super Smash Bros Brawl, fuck even Mario Party 9 had "passion and soul" as you put it.
As for "completely destroyed anything and everything on the market" the Gamecube and it's passionate soulful games were a failure in the market. The system sold poorly, but for the first time in ages Nintendo made tons of money in with the Wii.
Vipershark Wrote:Why do -you- think nobody is thinking about Nintendo, Koopaul?
It's not like people have suddenly taken them off the radar for no reason.
Because your head's too far up your ass to consider it.
hey, if you are butthurt about others' opinions, then you are the one who should stick your head into a bucket filled with ice water. No need to go insulting people because of games. Seriously?
consider this a verbal warning. To everyone here, not only koopaul.
Your right. I'm sorry Vipershark. However if we should carry on the discussion, because it is on topic, we'll be mature about it I'm sure.
When is the last time you played a game and honestly thought, "oh boy, whats gonna happen next? I don't even know, I'm so excited!"
It's been a long time for me, certainly no games after the GameCube could give me that feeling. Whether the games are well made anymore
is irrelevant, they are all made with the same ideas and structures that I've already played.
Take the Zelda franchise as an example. In link's awakening, which was my first actual Zelda game (I'd played the first two for the nes before that,
but never seriously) Aside from the fact that it had similar characters and items, it was it's own unique experience, and you couldn't look back to the
previous titles for guidance. When you hit a hard puzzle, and you would eventually, you couldn't think back to the last games to help you with the
answer. That isn't so with the later titles simply because pretty much all of the game and design mechanics have been recycled and rehashed into
every Zelda following LA.
I'm not saying that every Zelda after LA is bad, I'm saying that aside from minor plot and setting changes, the formula hasn't expanded at all,
and I haven't had the feeling that I was experiencing anything truly new.
Anyone can rave about how Nintendo is the ultimate, and I'll admit I've been guilty of it in the past my self, but this was like in middle school, when
there was still a console war, and people were picking sides. It just so happened that my first games had plumbers in them aside from Hedgehogs.
What It all boils down to is new ideas, and while Nintendo has been "innovative" they haven't made anything I haven't seen before in
well over a decade.
They've been trying to adress that issue. In interviews they claim to have been experimenting in way to make Zelda different while still being Zelda. Skyward Sword took a slightly different approach by trying to make everything one continuous dungeon. Sorta. Whether it worked depends on the person however you can't deny it was a carefully crafted game with the same time and effort put in as the past titles.
Perhaps that's the reason why certain people think Nintendo lost their touch. They have fond memories experiencing these kind of games for the first time but grow sick of it after a while. However they blame the quality of the game instead.
Or perhaps they see it as a perverted version as their once beloved title. "Skyward Sword is like Zelda but they made changes, so it sucks"
I guess you have to find a balance. Keep the franchise too similar and people will get bored. Change it too much and they'll feel betrayed.
I'd accept the theory that Nintendo is all nostalgia boots for people if I hadn't first played Pikmin 2 last spring and still felt the soul at work.
There has been an undeniable shift in aesthetics and ethics in Nintendo post-GameCube, and it has not been for the better.
Edit: Also, I have to address this.
Vipershark specified that he wasn't talking about second party Nintendo games, only Nintendo-made titles. At least half of your (Koopaul's) list was developed by second party developers (Good Feel, Retro, HAL, etc.) and not actually developed by one of Nintendo's in-house developers.
Gotta agree with Kriven there. Even during the 6th gen on the Gamecube, most of my favorites were still second party developments, (Smash Bros Melee, Star Fox Adventures and Assault, Metroid Prime, etc.) and then maybe four first-party games I really cared about.
Very few games were being pumped out on Nintendo's end even then, or at least any that were high on the radar. For the most part, Nintendo kinda left most of their other non-Mario/Zelda francises to the other guys, which I can't really blame them for. Game development is more time-consuming and costly than it ever was in the 4th and 5th gens, so it's probably limiting how many games they can actually create in-house themselves.
Which is why the Wii depressed me so much. ;__; Can't say it was much the same thing this time around, but it was close. I can't think of many first/second party games that peaked my interest besides Mario Kart Wii, Brawl, Skyward Sword and the Wii version of Twilight Princess. (After giving my GC copy to my sis, I'd rather buy the Wii version for myself than drop $60 on another GC version. I don't like where the used market is going, it's driving my frugal spirit to tears.)
Here are the facts: graphical enhancement has reached a saturation point where it's no longer economically viable nor is it needed. Graphics nowadays look decent and somewhat realistic. Getting more fidelity out of our games will be immensely costly which would, obviously, reflect on each retail game's price. Where do consoles go from here, you ask?
I feel Nintendo had the right idea. I mean, their new console has just barely reached more graphical capabilities than the previous generation's consoles, namely Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. That's all the Wii needed to stay a strong competitor in the current and, I presume, future video market. That's because it does not rely heavily on visual capabilities. Some games do have nice aesthetics, and with this new toy to play with, the Wii U, game artists have even more power to work with than the other consoles that are out right now. And it will stay at this point. Like I said, graphic fidelity is too expensive to expand on.
What I predict is more heavy investment on gimmicks and motion-based controls. In other words, more emphasis on immersion of the player. The FPS-laden industry is over because what appealed most in common first-person shooters were the realistic looks and visuals. That is long past right now. They will still be a thing, though, but not the main arm that will push famous brands into mass recognition and fame, like they are today. Or at least, like they were in the last couple years.
Sony and Microsoft caught wind of this a bit later than Nintendo, as we can see from the recent development and marketing of the Playstation Move and Kinect, respectively. Expect the industry to further develop and perfect these tools. Now, this can either be good or bad news.
Nintendo seems to be the only one capable of pulling off these motion-controls. The main reason Nintendo really hasn't been an overly influential force to be reckoned by its competitors was its niche market and graphical inferiority. And don't try to argue with me on this. I am not saying Wii games look ugly. Graphics capability and aesthetics are two different things and the Wii (and the other consoles, in that matter) sports some visually appealing games (off the top of my head, Muramasa: The Demon Blade and Okami are simply gorgeous).
What does this mean? It means companies will move all the money directed to graphical improvement and instead invest on either other hardware capabilities (like motion-controls) or more artists that are eager to craft a world of their own where they no longer have any restraints.
I haven't read any posts yet (I'm on my phone), but the game industry really is getting shaken up.
I'll go into more detail when I get home, but here are my thoughts for the future:
With the ever-increasing costs of "mainstream" game development (even as indicated by Iwata), we won't be seeing many games like Black Ops and Tomb Raider and Skyrim. I predict places like Kickstarter will ironically be the last bastion for these games.
Nintendo will likely be the only "original" console-maker left, as the steam box can do everything the PS3 and Xbox360 does but better. In a way, the Wii U's motion controls and tablet will be its savior. Nintendo won't be able to afford making tons of new games and will eventually rely on independent developers to make a majority of their content.
With the ease of digital distribution, the eminent collapse of mainstream games, the larger profit margin/low production costs, popularity of the steam box and Kickstarter, an independent renaissance will kick in, with actual professionals from old titan companies mixed with young blood fresh from school cranking out actually well-made indie games for a cheaper price than today's mainstream games.
As indicated by Facebook, casual games will slowly fade out, either by outdated "$50 for 15 minutes of fun" gameplay, the move to more Nintendo-like casual-core games (as described by Gamasutra), or the typical "short fad" nature of it all.
(02-06-2013, 11:04 AM)Kriven Wrote: [ -> ]Edit: Also, I have to address this.
Vipershark specified that he wasn't talking about second party Nintendo games, only Nintendo-made titles. At least half of your (Koopaul's) list was developed by second party developers (Good Feel, Retro, HAL, etc.) and not actually developed by one of Nintendo's in-house developers.
Actually they are considered First Party. Their development is directly affected by Nintendo themselves, their imput, their overview.
Companies like Game Freak and Camelot are second party.
Sadly I think the gaming market is going to be pretty grim at least judging from both where I come from and what is happening but not everything is bad and who knows it might change.
While I don't see consoles completely dying out, they will be more of a niche (more than now, probably something like Wiz/OpenPandora niche) since more people have PCs and phones, the former will be increased by Steam while the latter market will have its bubble bust in a couple of years time. Angry Birds will be gone by 2016 at least due to over saturation. The retail market (as in boxed games) will disappear almost completely apart from a few online sites since currently two retail places are on the verge of closure in the UK and when they go, its going to be supermarkets (one that from looking more or less stopped stocking games except Xbox 360 stuff), Game that probably will go if they aren't careful, lucky enough to find an indie store [there doesn't seem to be one where I live, nearly one is about 12 miles away in a little market town], the dodgy Grainger Games, CeX that will close down if the anti-second hand technology in next gen consoles are true and online where eventually games will be even more expensive than they are now. Remember in the UK and Europe, games are mostly more expensive than they are in the US especially Nintendo stuff being £10 more than the competition and PC games being the cheapest. With a declining market and less places to get games as well as the "no used games" policy, it will mean that more games will be downloaded and I can see more of a split from the cheaper stuff to EA/Activision charging £60+ for their games and more top up cards [more than just PSN/eShop]. Maybe Steam might have top up cards everywhere in the future. There will be less developers in terms of commercial games with some more big names expected to go and also less "big" games that people usually buy e.g. the FIFA/Madden/COD/GTA stuff due to high development costs. Probably there will be more indie developers but the quality will be more inconsistant as the section gets larger* and as for the low-key developers [the ones who develop on the DS/Wii/phones] who make licensed shovelware, they will sadly still be there but luckily will be smaller in volume in the future. People are probably still surprised that there are still DS games around but they are usually licensed games from GSP [they were a cheap PC publisher]. As for the Japanese game market, the games will get either more perverted, more Vocaloid games (Miku), more RPGs (Pokemon will end up like their FIFA/COD, more than now) but stagnation due to the amount of RPGs that are released there but there will be a rise of more quirkier games due to new developers having ideas and taking risks. At least the boxed retail market will still be there.
Luckily for Steam and Valve, that will only get stronger and stronger to the point that they will be either 1st or 2nd place in the next generation.
* - Sort of a repeat of the UK Spectrum games market in its early days before the arcade ports came in where there were new games every week but the quality was all over the place where there were some good looking but highly buggy games or ugly games but played very well and if a developer has a reputation, it can continue. E.g. people are still fond of Jet Set Willy even though it is a buggy game that can't be completed in normal circumstances compared to Manic Miner.
Also the Nintendo is going to save the day scenario does not apply everywhere, it will apply to America and Japan due to the larger fan base but places like Europe, Austrailia, New Zealand, India, China, South America [the later three will be more in the future] I just don't see it happening at all. While it is good that Nintendo is starting to attract the indie developers, Nintendo will have to change some of their ways especially if they want to play people who aren't fans of the company. I mean developers probably have a ton of ideas on Nintendo games but the company will not allow it due to the old guard (Miyamoto would go crazy if WayFoward were going to make a Zelda game or an indie developer to make a new Star Fox game that is like 64). The only way I can see Nintendo doing really well and being a global leader is if people who were burnt out like Miyamoto would leave while some young blood with passion and ambition will take over with new ideas that are risky yet worth the effort. Balance between family friendly fun and maturer/darker games, balance between their IPs [no two similar Mario games in one year] and new games that appeal to more than just the fans. People outside of Japan/US only see Nintendo has the "family friendly fun company that makes Mario and Pokemon all the time" so they need to change, not completely change to be like say modern Capcom or EA style but more like a mix of Treasure, Sony and Valve. Oh and they might have to develop games on non-Nintendo devices (like PCs and phones, not say the PS4) or more eShop titles.
I think its because half of Nintendo's development is working on things like Wii Fit and Nintendogs. They are certainly different than they used to be, but when they do make a traditional core title they certainly still deliver. The Galaxy games are some of the finest games I've played.
Kriven and Vipershark really haven't given a real reason to why the Gamecube games stomp the Wii games other than, "they just do" so their argument isn't convincing me. I have reason to believe that perhaps they haven't even played the games I mentioned.
(02-06-2013, 06:34 PM)Koopaul Wrote: [ -> ]I think its because half of Nintendo's development is working on things like Wii Fit and Nintendogs. They are certainly different than they used to be, but when they do make a traditional core title they certainly still deliver. The Galaxy games are some of the finest games I've played.
Stitch and Vipershark really haven't given a real reason to why the Gamecube games stomp the Wii games other than, "they just do" so their argument isn't convincing me. I have reason to believe that perhaps they haven't even played the games I mentioned.
You're being an awfully pompous fellow in this thread.
Not really, "pompous" means I think I'm better than you. I'm merely looking for a more in-depth explanation for why you think the titles on the Wii are terrible. You and Vipershark just claimed it was obvious and left it at that. Is it so bad for me to ask for more of an explanation? Is it so insulting of me to assume you may not have tried the games. No mud has been slung, I assure you... atleast after the apology I made.
While Koopaul has come close to dumping on this thread a couple times, yeah, he was wanting more insight into everyone's opinion, really.
I do agree that their main titles are still pretty solid, even on the Wii, but they're getting fewer and fewer with each gen, from the looks of it. I just simply had less reason to want a Wii as opposed to the dozens of titles I can name for the Gamecube. For me, the Wii kinda went out like the N64; not as many must-haves as on the SNES, but the ones that were released really counted.
Mostly referring to "killer" first/second party titles, though, seeing as all consoles get a library of games counting in the thousands, whether most of it is shovelware or not.
Also, Yawackhary, you could use more paragraphs in that post! I'm a bit too daunted to read that fire-breathing beast of a text wall.
