Support NeoGAF

[Version 3.0]

One of the things I like most about GTAIV vs. say, San Andreas is the amount of pure vehicle variety in any given scene. I remember how ridiculous it was to see a convoy of the same 3 vehicles driving by all the time in SA (particularly in the countryside bits). I assume that's a memory constraint issue.

That's odd, one of the things I find most annoying about GTA IV is the lack of vehicle variety in any given scene. How did you get the version without this problem? When I'm in a Comet, every other or third car is a Comet. Sometimes, almost every car is a Comet. I've captured a few videos of this, on both versions of the game.

That was my point: they should have fixed this, but didn't. That's why they could make the game on the Wii without sacrificing anything but visuals.

 

[PhatSaqs]

That's odd, one of the things I find most annoying about GTA IV is the lack of vehicle variety in any given scene. How did you get the version without this problem? When I'm in a Comet, every other or third car is a Comet. Sometimes, almost every car is a Comet. I've captured a few videos of this, on both versions of the game.

I see this alot as well.

 

[HK-47]

What you say sounds logical, but in fact, it isn't true. Doom trumps Bioshock in "haunting atmosphere and visceral violence", and it's from 2+ generations ago. I'm enjoying GTA IV a lot, but San Andreas was better in most ways. Better visuals are preferable, but not the most important thing.

Please note that I'm not saying GTA IV should be a Wii game, at all. I'm very pleased to finally be playing GTA with good graphics. But if there were a Wii GTA game, I don't see any reason that anything but visuals would have to be sacrificed. That's not because the Wii can do everything the PS3/360 can do other than visuals, though, it's because the Wii can do everything GTA IV is doing on those platforms, minus the visuals. I've been pretty disappointed at the things that I expected to be upgraded that weren't, particularly the "everyone else has the same car as me" and "that was/wasn't there a second ago" problems. It seems to me that the game's 'systems' have not been upgraded, and that being the case, should run fine on the Wii.

Doom is not better in haunting atmosphere, its a pixelated mess. And I'm a big SS2 supporter but Bioshockesque graphics would help that game since many of the monsters are laughable blobs.

 

[Version 3.0]

I believe it was done on purpose so you could easily find another of the same car should yours blow up or something.

They should've thought how hard it makes finding a new car. It's really annoying to spend a lot of time searching for an particular car, only to see dozens of them appear once you finally get one.

I like to go on killing sprees, targeting all the people freeloading off of my car model. :lol

 

[bigmakstudios]

Wii Sports is goal oriented too (as are any competitive sports games), and it also includes a variety of gameplay mechanics... in the "hit tennis ball if you waggle at the right time" subgame there's five different types of swings depending on how you move the remote, timing and angles come hugely into play, there's different types of serves... and then there's also 4 different other subgames (Boxing, Golf, Baseball, Bowling) each with their own curves and complexities. Wii Sports most often gets discounted by those who've barely touched it, but there's a deeper game in there than usually given credit for.

The only real difference you've drawn here between GTA4 and Wii Sports is the "story based" caveat... though I'm not sure what that really has to do with depth of gameplay? Is Tetris not deep because it lacks a convincing narrative? Is Chess? :lol

Since when has angularity based on timing been a gameplay mechanic? wtf? That's all related to timing. There is only one gameplay mechanic in Wii Sports tennis: returning the tennis ball with your racket by waggling at the right time. Serving needn't even be user controlled, considering that serves can't be directed by the player. These are the sorts of elements that makes Wii Sports a casual game, and GTA 4 a hardcore game.

 

[Evlar]

Since when has angularity based on timing been a gameplay mechanic? wtf? That's all related to timing. There is only one gameplay mechanic in Wii Sports tennis: returning the tennis ball with your racket by waggling at the right time. Serving needn't even be user controlled, considering that serves can't be directed by the player. These are the sorts of elements that makes Wii Sports a casual game, and GTA 4 a hardcore game.

Since, umm, tennis? The real sport?

 

[Cheez-It]

Since when has angularity based on timing been a gameplay mechanic? wtf? That's all related to timing. There is only one gameplay mechanic in Wii Sports tennis: returning the tennis ball with your racket by waggling at the right time. Serving needn't even be user controlled, considering that serves can't be directed by the player. These are the sorts of elements that makes Wii Sports a casual game, and GTA 4 a hardcore game.

Please inform yourself before partaking in discussions.

Is real tennis just swingining a racquet at the right time? No. Neither is Wii Sports Tennis.

It is painfully obvious that even if you have spent time with the game, you haven't bothered to use your head, or you don't have the faculties to comprehend the incredibly simple ideas of imparting spin through variations on swings, serving hard through proper timing, or serving balls that can't be hit for winners through extremely late swings. These are just a few of the factors that you ignore.

Or, perhaps you are just trolling.

By the way, GTAIV isn't hardcore by definition. It's a game. Whether a particular audience is more or less attracted to it is up for debate; many would argue that GTAIV attracts a significant casual crowd.

On a side note: as a long time gamer who enjoys both the entertainment and competition of gaming, I do not find much to enjoy in GTAIV (well, ignoring the first few minutes of fun before stagnation sets in), and I know many other enthusiastic gamers who feel the same way. Does this mean it isn't 'hardcore'? No, it's a personal opinion that can't be extrapolated.

 

[Version 3.0]

GTA 4 a hardcore game.

:lol

Sorry, there's nothing hardcore about GTA IV. It's one of the most mass-market games in existance, and its gameplay is about as deep as a mud puddle (though wide as an ocean).

You want to see a hardcore game? See my avatar. Most people can't even tell what's going on in T2K. That's hardcore.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

We'll just have to agree to disagree here, but are you really of the opinion that no advances in technology can help developers establish a tone or a modd for their games which makes the overall game better?

On the contrary, I am a firm believer in technology allowing for new experiences that have not been possible before.

Unfortunately for the HD consoles, the new gameplay mechanics are coming about on the Wii with its controller technology, not on the HD consoles with their system technology, which are being almost universally used to present the same gameplay experiences that were present last gen but with better resolutions and shader / post processing effects.

Again, not all games are doing this, just the very vast majority. When people talk about things like physics or lighting being superior on the HD consoles, they're correct, but they're missing the point that most games are using that power as bulletpoints for the back of the box, not as something genuinely innovative, and I suspect the major reason for that is precisely due to the exponential rise of cost of producing an HD only title.

You can't really take too many risks on a multi million dollar costing title, which is something I would consider a detriment to the self-proclaimed 'hardcore' gamer, despite all their bluster over 'casuals' killing gamer - they're not.

Now, if their was a game out there that was something like Pitch Black, where there was no static lighting anywhere in the level, and you had to survive by creating your own dynamic light sources which would inevitably fail when the games calculated fuel / air / heat triangle depleted and flickering shadows created illusions of movement to keep you on your toes in a large and expansive environment where calculated winds would put your light sources at risk without careful choice of location, I would be all over that.

That's something that really could not be done previously in terms of AI (of the creatures calculating your light 'reserves' and biding their time / risking a rush / distracting you), lighting (which due to the dynamic nature of gameplay would be very processor intensive) and physics (as you pile rubble to act as wind shields against your light sources or whatever).

Hell, just brainstorming an example of the kind of games we could be seeing using the tech level of the current HD consoles makes me depressed that what we actually get is a bunch of sequels with some shader effects, often sacrificing framerate just to provide that.

So each month this conversation will continue on and on like it does every month with all the same answers until the numbers start to change or we reach next gen again.

Now you might think that, but for the Wii to dominate so very heavily against both PS3 and 360 combined in hardware sales in the month of the largest title this year means that any third parties not seriously thinking about changing their focus to be primarily the Wii are heading for a financial disaster of their own making.

Seriously; GTA4 is the single biggest HD release of this year, I don't think that is even arguable. And it has had almost no impact on hardware sales.

I think there are going to be some epic meltdowns come E3, because this isn't a case of 'the Wii is winning' anymore, this is an unqualified statement that the Wii has already won.

 

[Cheez-It]

:lol

Sorry, there's nothing hardcore about GTA IV. It's one of the most mass-market games in existance, and its gameplay is about as deep as a mud puddle (though wide as an ocean).

You want to see a hardcore game? See my avatar. Most people can't even tell what's going on in T2K. That's hardcore.

Hold on. Are you telling me that a game where you can shoot people isn't hardcore? I thought that was the definition of hardcore!

 

[bigmakstudios]

Since, umm, tennis? The real sport?

Um, yes. I never said it wasn't in the game. Maybe my wording was a little off. I'm just saying that it isn't a game play mechanic independent of the main action that occurs in the game, waggling at the right time. Returning the ball to different positions on the court is inherent to the game's design, but it isn't a separate action that a player could facilitate, like running, shooting, carjacking, hand to hand combat, driving, etc.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

Returning the ball to different positions on the court is inherent to the game's design, but it isn't a separate action that a player could facilitate, like running, shooting, carjacking, hand to hand combat, driving, etc.

...

running or carjacking in GTA require as much user input as selecting a gamemode in Wii sports does.

run = press X button. KEEP PRESSING IT AND YOU SPRINT! HOW FUCKING HARDCORE IS THAT?!?!?!?!

carjacking = stand in the road, wait a minute. Press triangle.


...oh, right, pressing a button to watch a canned animation of you threatening someone then pulling them out of a car = saviour of gaming, using timing and technique to return a volley = casual shit.

 

[Vinci]

...

running or carjacking in GTA require as much user input as selecting a gamemode in Wii sports does.

run = press X button. KEEP PRESSING IT AND YOU SPRINT! HOW FUCKING HARDCORE IS THAT?!?!?!?!

carjacking = stand in the road, wait a minute. Press triangle.


...oh, right, pressing a button to watch a canned animation of you threatening someone then pulling them out of a car = saviour of gaming, using timing and technique to return a volley = casual shit.

Pressing a button is hardcore, moving is casual. So obviously using the Wii Sports menu is hardcore since it involves button-pressing, but the Tennis game itself is casual. Considering the other sports involved in the package use buttons more than Tennis does, I guess that means Wii Sports is, in fact, hardcore for the most part.

Consider me stunned.

 

[Redd]

Since when has angularity based on timing been a gameplay mechanic? wtf? That's all related to timing. There is only one gameplay mechanic in Wii Sports tennis: returning the tennis ball with your racket by waggling at the right time. Serving needn't even be user controlled, considering that serves can't be directed by the player. These are the sorts of elements that makes Wii Sports a casual game, and GTA 4 a hardcore game.

I always thought of the GTA series as a casual game that you can play hardcore if you choose so, like Guitar Hero, Smash Brothers, and Rock Band. Those games of are pretty easy to get into and hard to master like the GTA series. Nothing wrong with pick up and play games as long as you have fun with them.

 

[Cheez-It]

I always thought of the GTA series as a casual game that you can play hardcore if you choose so, like Guitar Hero, Smash Brothers, and Rock Band. Those games of are pretty easy to get into and hard to master like the GTA series. Nothing wrong with pick up and play games as long as you have fun with them.

GTA is hard to master? Color me surprised.

 

[Redd]

GTA is hard to master? Color me surprised.

Well accomplishing all the bonus missions are pretty hard. Rarely do I see people have the 100% competion; most end up not even trying anymore. Kind of like Guitar Hero when you try to get the higher scores and, well you get what I'm saying.

 

[Vinci]

Well accomplishing all the bonus missions are pretty hard. Rarely do I see people have the 100% competion; most end up not even trying anymore. Kind of like Guitar Hero when you try to get the higher scores and, well you get what I'm saying.

Given the PRO meter and such, then wouldn't it stand to reason that someone could legitimately make Wii Sports into a hardcore game going by that standard?

 

[Innotech]

But if that is the case, why would they ever need to release a new console just to improve the controls?

because sometimes companies like to expand the market

 

[Gaborn]

Given the PRO meter and such, then wouldn't it stand to reason that someone could legitimately make Wii Sports into a hardcore game going by that standard?

I'd say that was obvious. There are hardcore ways to play what you believe to be "casual" games. For example, anyone can play tetris, however, some people are absolutely INSANE in terms of their ability to play the game at a higher level.

 

[kame-sennin]

Wii Sports is goal oriented too (as are any competitive sports games), and it also includes a variety of gameplay mechanics... in the "hit tennis ball if you waggle at the right time" subgame there's five different types of swings depending on how you move the remote, timing and angles come hugely into play, there's different types of serves... and then there's also 4 different other subgames (Boxing, Golf, Baseball, Bowling) each with their own curves and complexities. Wii Sports most often gets discounted by those who've barely touched it, but there's a deeper game in there than usually given credit for.

The only real difference you've drawn here between GTA4 and Wii Sports is the "story based" caveat... though I'm not sure what that really has to do with depth of gameplay? Is Tetris not deep because it lacks a convincing narrative? Is Chess? :lol

Fantastic post.

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

I still can't believe that this thread is going on with the fervor that it is going.

 

[bigmakstudios]

...

running or carjacking in GTA require as much user input as selecting a gamemode in Wii sports does.

run = press X button. KEEP PRESSING IT AND YOU SPRINT! HOW FUCKING HARDCORE IS THAT?!?!?!?!

carjacking = stand in the road, wait a minute. Press triangle.


...oh, right, pressing a button to watch a canned animation of you threatening someone then pulling them out of a car = saviour of gaming, using timing and technique to return a volley = casual shit.

*sigh*
All I'm saying is that GTA 4 offers far more direct control and is far more open ended than Wii Sports. Wii Sports was designed as a non-gamers' game. GTA 4 wasn't. Maybe in some roundabout way you believe that because Wii Sports could please both "non-gamers" and "hardcore gamers", it is just as "hardcore" as any other game, but the underlying fact is that it was designed primarily to appeal to "lapsed gamers" and those who find most games to be too complicated.

 

[Kunan]

The last 2 or 3 pages have had some great discussion. This is true sales age.

Kids have bedtimes.

I kid, I kid.

 

[Vinci]

I'd say that was obvious. There are hardcore ways to play what you believe to be "casual" games. For example, anyone can play tetris, however, some people are absolutely INSANE in terms of their ability to play the game at a higher level.

I'm trying to clarify the fact for those amongst us who don't see this connection. The Tetris argument has been around forever, just trying to suggest to the hardly-cores that Wii Sports can, in fact, be considered hardcore on some level.

 

[titiklabingapat]

I think there are going to be some epic meltdowns come E3, because this isn't a case of 'the Wii is winning' anymore, this is an unqualified statement that the Wii has already won.

While I agree with tge majority of your points, you are naively too optimistic.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

*sigh*
All I'm saying is that GTA 4 offers far more direct control and is far more open ended than Wii Sports. Wii Sports was designed as a non-gamers' game. GTA 4 wasn't. Maybe in some roundabout way you believe that because Wii Sports could please both "non-gamers" and "hardcore gamers", it is just as "hardcore" as any other game, but the underlying fact is that it was designed primarily to appeal to "lapsed gamers" and those who find most games to be too complicated.

I find it quite precious that you consider "Do I steal a car or just shoot some random people" to automatically be a more valid 'gamers choice' than "Do I play some tennis, or do I play some golf?".

Wii Sports is clearly designed as a tech demo for the potential of the Wii controller, and equally obviously chose activities that people can relate to so that they can see how well that potential can be realised.

Are all sports titles automatically designed for casuals, and of no possible interest to the self-proclaimed hardcore? Because that is what you are claiming here.

EDIT:

While I agree with tge majority of your points, you are naively too optimistic.

Quite possibly, but I would be amazed if there isn't at least one 'megaton' announcement at this E3.

 

[AstroLad]

I bought Wii Fit and Smarty Pants this week. Casualsplosion.

 

[bigmakstudios]

Seriously; GTA4 is the single biggest HD release of this year, I don't think that is even arguable. And it has had almost no impact on hardware sales.

So what? Third party software sales are just as strong on Xbox 360 as ever.

 

[pgtl_10]

I think the Wii will start to get traditional games. People often believe that only casual games sell well on Wii but most games that sell on Wii are traditional:

Super Mario Galaxy
Super Mariokart
Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
Super Smash Brothers
Resident Evil 4
Red Steel
Pokemon Colosseum
PES 2008

Casual games do sell well but many were already popular before Wii:

Mario Party 8
Guiter Hero 3
My Sims
Rayman: Raving Rabbids

Only a few games could one argue shows that only casual games sell on Wii

Carnival Games
Wii play(Note: comes with Wiimote)
Wii Sports
Wii Fit.

In truth Wii still caters mostly to traditional gamers but third parties don't want to spend the
money to develop a AAA Wii game. Hence publishers use the casual excuse as another way of saying they are cheap.

 

[Vinci]

I bought Wii Fit and Smarty Pants this week. Casualsplosion.

How is Smarty Pants, btw?

 

[Kuramu]

running or carjacking in GTA require as much user input as selecting a gamemode in Wii sports does.

run = press X button. KEEP PRESSING IT AND YOU SPRINT! HOW FUCKING HARDCORE IS THAT?!?!?!?!

carjacking = stand in the road, wait a minute. Press triangle.


...oh, right, pressing a button to watch a canned animation of you threatening someone then pulling them out of a car = saviour of gaming, using timing and technique to return a volley = casual shit.

precise = Hardcore!!1

 

[jarrod]

So what? Third party software sales are just as strong on Xbox 360 as ever.

Yes and no... I think the increased competition (which is natural for any maturing platform really) might be squeezing out the lower end titles. I'm not sure we could see the sort of smaller success stories like Chrome Hounds or Prey on today's 360, despite the much increased userbase. I'm not sure titles like Dead Rising or Oblivion would've managed the record highs they hit either... there's just too much competition really.

This also happened with DS and I think it'll happen with Wii too (once more valuable 3rd party games start hitting).

 

[AstroLad]

How is Smarty Pants, btw?

Just ordered it on Amazon today actually; heard a lot of good impressions and I have friends coming to town for a week so it was a no-brainer for me. Reviews are mixed but I don't think any of the criticisms are relevant to what I want out of the game. Questions are supposed to be good and generally tough and there are 2000+ in the game so that alone is good enough. Only bummer was that it's still full price ($40) at most places.

 

[Davidion]

Just ordered it on Amazon today actually; heard a lot of good impressions and I have friends coming to town for a week so it was a no-brainer for me. Reviews are mixed but I don't think any of the criticisms are relevant to what I want out of the game. Questions are supposed to be good and generally tough and there are 2000+ in the game so that alone is good enough. Only bummer was that it's still full price ($40) at most places.

The questions can be difficult and specialized, but that makes it fun. The overall package is nice and the production value relatively high and the game is definitely fun for groups. Controls are relatively solid, though there are the occasional hiccups, par for the course.

The game has a lot of similarities to Trivial Pursuit, I thought.

 

[LCGeek]

*sigh*
All I'm saying is that GTA 4 offers far more direct control and is far more open ended than Wii Sports. Wii Sports was designed as a non-gamers' game. GTA 4 wasn't. Maybe in some roundabout way you believe that because Wii Sports could please both "non-gamers" and "hardcore gamers", it is just as "hardcore" as any other game, but the underlying fact is that it was designed primarily to appeal to "lapsed gamers" and those who find most games to be too complicated.

sports game that is simplistic vs a sandbox, the biggest sandbox, wtf of course GTA is gonna be more open ended. As for direct control I beg to differ tennis, boxing, and bowling were done right I still hate driving and shooting in GTA4 because it still feels like it came out of a mini game trying to be something more. sure it's better than last gen, but I'm waiting till it hit pcs before I make anymore judgements on the title like typical since last gen.

 

[Version 3.0]

*sigh*
All I'm saying is that GTA 4 offers far more direct control and is far more open ended than Wii Sports. Wii Sports was designed as a non-gamers' game. GTA 4 wasn't. Maybe in some roundabout way you believe that because Wii Sports could please both "non-gamers" and "hardcore gamers", it is just as "hardcore" as any other game, but the underlying fact is that it was designed primarily to appeal to "lapsed gamers" and those who find most games to be too complicated.

Funny me, I thought Wii Sports was designed to appeal to everyone, or at least as broad a demographic as possible...in this case, anyone who enjoys sports, videogames, or both.

GTA was designed to appeal to a "male fantasy" crowd, also a very large demographic, and certainly one with a large crossover with "hardcore" gamers.

Neither of these is hardcore. GTA is closer to it, I suppose. But this is a silly argument.

 

[Ramenman]

Um, yes. I never said it wasn't in the game. Maybe my wording was a little off. I'm just saying that it isn't a game play mechanic independent of the main action that occurs in the game, waggling at the right time. Returning the ball to different positions on the court is inherent to the game's design, but it isn't a separate action that a player could facilitate, like running, shooting, carjacking, hand to hand combat, driving, etc.

So because you can choose between different actions it's hardcore ? What about Ikaruga then , you can only go forward and shoot. Is it casual ?


Please note, I'm not trying to putt you off and it's quite possible that I didn't get your point.

 

[maynerd]

That's odd, one of the things I find most annoying about GTA IV is the lack of vehicle variety in any given scene. How did you get the version without this problem? When I'm in a Comet, every other or third car is a Comet. Sometimes, almost every car is a Comet. I've captured a few videos of this, on both versions of the game.

You sure that this wasn't intentional by the programers?

How many people have had the situation occur where you don't see a model of car until you buy one then it seems like they are everywhere?

 

[bigmakstudios]

I find it quite precious that you consider "Do I steal a car or just shoot some random people" to automatically be a more valid 'gamers choice' than "Do I play some tennis, or do I play some golf?".

Wii Sports is clearly designed as a tech demo for the potential of the Wii controller, and equally obviously chose activities that people can relate to so that they can see how well that potential can be realised.

Are all sports titles automatically designed for casuals, and of no possible interest to the self-proclaimed hardcore? Because that is what you are claiming here.

Each mini-game in Wii Sports is a game of its own, therefore, choosing between golf and tennis wouldn't really qualify as a choice that takes place within game play.

Also, no I don't think that all sports titles are of no interest to the self proclaimed hardcore. I simply think it's a travesty to compare the depth of a neutered variation of baseball, for instance, that doesn't allow players to field, pitch in specific locations, take leads, steal, miss pitches unless the timing of a swing is way off, or advance more than one base while the ball is in play, to a game like GTA 4, when the latter is an enormous open world game that allows you to combat enemies in any way you'd like, implements a cover system for avoiding gun fire, enables you to choose between a variety of vehicles with different advantages and disadvantages, and is teeming with other complexities and subtleties.

 

[kame-sennin]

If your description of Nintendo's strategy is true, then it is no wonder that 3rd party publishers are reluctant to jump on board, if indeed there is "no historical data, sales trends, or any other predictor of how ['non-gamers'] would react."

This, and the rest of your post is an excellent point. It will be very difficult for third parties to shift philosophy, and some will not be able to handle the transition. Sega is one of the few third parties that understands Nintendo's strategy. Their games appear to be moving up market more or less from launch to the present (MB:BB, M&S>>>Mad World, S&SR). Other companies, like EA misinterpret Nintendo's strategy. They believe Nintendo is "settling" for the casual market because the games are cheaper to produce. Thus they create "casual divisions" to make cheap games thinking this will satiate the new market. They do not realize that upstreaming is only possible if the casual games are of quality and contain a certain amount of depth. This is necessary if new gamers are to be enticed to move further up market.

The strategy you describe runs counter to the traditional model of technology adoption (as I understand it): get early adopters early, get a critical mass of marketshare, and use the network effect to drive adoption up the saturation curve.

To address your first point, you are absolutely right. But the videogame industry is not a technology industry, it is an entertainment industry. This is why the business model you outlined, the business model put forth by Sony and MS, is such a dangerous one. As I said in the last post addressing this issue, the market is like a pyramid. The most avid consumers represent the top of that pyramid, and thus are the smallest in number. Relying on the smallest market section to carry your product is a risky strategy.

There is another pitfall in targeting the top of the market/core user. That is overshooting the needs of the market as a whole. Let's compare the American muscle cars of the 1970's to the economy cars coming out of Japan at that time period. Muscle cars had high performance engines that provided excellent acceleration and high top speeds. Japanese sedans were slower, smaller, and less impressive overall. Thirty years later, Toyota is on the cusp of becoming the leading auto maker in the world. Why? Because American cars overshot the market. They provided excellent performance engines, but the automobile industry is not a performance industry, it is a transportation industry. The high performance of American cars overshot the needs of the American market. On the other hand, the seemingly low quality Japanese cars had an important feature, low fuel consumption. This feature was essential to transportation, especially for low end users who did not want to spend a lot of money on their cars (the down market). Technologically speaking, the Japanese cars were inferior, but they perfectly targeted the needs of the casual automobile owner. Only the upmarket user, the car enthusiast, was disappointed with the low performance of these Japanese vehicles. However, thirty years later, Toyota is releasing high performance SUVs. They have been moving up market all this time, operating at lower costs than their American competitors, making larger profits, and steeling market share out from under GM and Ford.

I don't want to derail the thread with an auto debate, so if you don't think the above was analogous, just say so and we'll leave it at that. I simply wanted to provide an example of how it's more economically viable for both the corporation and the consumer to move up market rather than down market, and that this is the path that many of the most successful companies have taken. Other examples are VHS vs Betamax, VHS vs Lazerdisk, MP3s vs, CDs, and perhaps, Youtube and digital distribution vs. Blue Ray and high def.

 

[AstroLad]

The questions can be difficult and specialized, but that makes it fun. The overall package is nice and the production value relatively high and the game is definitely fun for groups. Controls are relatively solid, though there are the occasional hiccups, par for the course.

The game has a lot of similarities to Trivial Pursuit, I thought.

Yep, my only concern was re the difficulty of the questions. When the only negative impressions about difficulty was that some questions may be too hard for little kids (even the game's "Easy" questions) I ordered it. Kind of strange that the review average is so low when I read even the "low" reviews but I guess I'll just have to decide for myself.

Love trivia games. I sort of forgot about it when it came out but this week's GFW Radio+my upcoming vacation reminded me.

EDIT: But I'm still waiting for my new-gen YDKJ of course. The Ride will never be topped I feel.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

But, if Nintendo is successful, then they will in fact be targeting gamers like yourself. The only difference is that they have taken the opposite path, and put the hardcore gamer last on the list of markets to tap.

Good, I hope they forget them totally, whiny bunch of bitches. A bunch of hardcore gamers not playing games. I thought games like Wow take over your life.

 

[larvi]

Each mini-game in Wii Sports is a game of its own, therefore, choosing between golf and tennis wouldn't really qualify as a choice that takes place within game play.

Also, no I don't think that all sports titles are of no interest to the self proclaimed hardcore. I simply think it's a travesty to compare the depth of a neutered variation of baseball, for instance, that doesn't allow players to field, pitch in specific locations, take leads, steal, miss pitches unless the timing of a swing is way off, or advance more than one base while the ball is in play, to a game like GTA 4, when the latter is an enormous open world game that allows you to combat enemies in any way you'd like, implements a cover system for avoiding gun fire, enables you to choose between a variety of vehicles with different advantages and disadvantages, and is teeming with other complexities and subtleties.

Just as Wii Sports is a watered down simulation of several different sports, GTA IV is a watered down version of several different gaming genres. Is the driving going to appeal to hardcore Gran Turisomo/F1/Nascar sim gamer? Nope. Is the gunplay going to appeal to a hardcore shooter fan? Nope. Are the puzzles going to appeal to a hardcore adventure gamer? Again nope. The parallels are very similar to the two games, just appealing to different demographics.

 

[kame-sennin]

Since when has angularity based on timing been a gameplay mechanic? wtf? That's all related to timing. There is only one gameplay mechanic in Wii Sports tennis: returning the tennis ball with your racket by waggling at the right time. Serving needn't even be user controlled, considering that serves can't be directed by the player. These are the sorts of elements that makes Wii Sports a casual game, and GTA 4 a hardcore game.

Um, yes. I never said it wasn't in the game. Maybe my wording was a little off. I'm just saying that it isn't a game play mechanic independent of the main action that occurs in the game, waggling at the right time. Returning the ball to different positions on the court is inherent to the game's design, but it isn't a separate action that a player could facilitate, like running, shooting, carjacking, hand to hand combat, driving, etc.

So... you've never played Wii Sports. I would love to play against you though (damn Nintendo for not making it online!), I'd love to see the consternation as every ball you try to return goes wildly off course because of my superior spin control and excellent timin- I mean waggle on cue skills.

Given the PRO meter and such, then wouldn't it stand to reason that someone could legitimately make Wii Sports into a hardcore game going by that standard?

Absolutely, and a lot of people have. (The second video is the best).

 

[marc^o^]

This, and the rest of your post is an excellent point. It will be very difficult for third parties to shift philosophy, and some will not be able to handle the transition. Sega is one of the few third parties that understands Nintendo's strategy. Their games appear to be moving up market more or less from launch to the present (MB:BB, M&S>>>Mad World, S&SR). Other companies, like EA misinterpret Nintendo's strategy. They believe Nintendo is "settling" for the casual market because the games are cheaper to produce. Thus they create "casual divisions" to make cheap games thinking this will satiate the new market. They do not realize that upstreaming is only possible if the casual games are of quality and contain a certain amount of depth. This is necessary if new gamers are to be enticed to move further up market.



To address your first point, you are absolutely right. But the videogame industry is not a technology industry, it is an entertainment industry. This is why the business model you outlined, the business model put forth by Sony and MS, is such a dangerous one. As I said in the last post addressing this issue, the market is like a pyramid. The most avid consumers represent the top of that pyramid, and thus are the smallest in number. Relying on the smallest market section to carry your product is a risky strategy.

There is another pitfall in targeting the top of the market/core user. That is overshooting the needs of the market as a whole. Let's compare the American muscle cars of the 1970's to the economy cars coming out of Japan at that time period. Muscle cars had high performance engines that provided excellent acceleration and high top speeds. Japanese sedans were slower, smaller, and less impressive overall. Thirty years later, Toyota is on the cusp of becoming the leading auto maker in the world. Why? Because American cars overshot the market. They provided excellent performance engines, but the automobile industry is not a performance industry, it is a transportation industry. The high performance of American cars overshot the needs of the American market. On the other hand, the seemingly low quality Japanese cars had an important feature, low fuel consumption. This feature was essential to transportation, especially for low end users who did not want to spend a lot of money on their cars (the down market). Technologically speaking, the Japanese cars were inferior, but they perfectly targeted the needs of the casual automobile owner. Only the upmarket user, the car enthusiast, was disappointed with the low performance of these Japanese vehicles. However, thirty years later, Toyota is releasing high performance SUVs. They have been moving up market all this time, operating at lower costs than their American competitors, making larger profits, and steeling market share out from under GM and Ford.

I don't want to derail the thread with an auto debate, so if you don't think the above was analogous, just say so and we'll leave it at that. I simply wanted to provide an example of how it's more economically viable for both the corporation and the consumer to move up market rather than down market, and that this is the path that many of the most successful companies have taken. Other examples are VHS vs Betamax, VHS vs Lazerdisk, MP3s vs, CDs, and perhaps, Youtube and digital distribution vs. Blue Ray and high def.

You sir are smart. Post of the day

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

Each mini-game in Wii Sports is a game of its own, therefore, choosing between golf and tennis wouldn't really qualify as a choice that takes place within game play.

Also, no I don't think that all sports titles are of no interest to the self proclaimed hardcore. I simply think it's a travesty to compare the depth of a neutered variation of baseball, for instance, that doesn't allow players to field, pitch in specific locations, take leads, steal, miss pitches unless the timing of a swing is way off, or advance more than one base while the ball is in play, to a game like GTA 4, when the latter is an enormous open world game that allows you to combat enemies in any way you'd like, implements a cover system for avoiding gun fire, enables you to choose between a variety of vehicles with different advantages and disadvantages, and is teeming with other complexities and subtleties.

...but you don't mind completely ignoring the 'neutered' driving in GTA4 with its floaty controls, lamp posts that keel over like they're made of balsa wood and complete absense of any kind of gears system on any of the cars?

I know rite, they dumbed it down for casuals.

As for killing people in GTA 'anyway you'd like';
Can I pick up some of the props lying around the city and use them as weapons like I did in Dead Rising? Or am I restricted to a fairly small amount of pre-approved weapons the designers allowed me to have in this sandbox?
Can I give money to random tramps in the street to go kill people for me? Or am I restricted to certain NPC backups where the storyline allows me to have them?
Can I use wrestling moves to suplex people? Or do I only have access to a punch / other punch / kick combos?
Can I push things off of the top of buildings onto peoples heads? Or is verticality something you only occasionally use in a scripted mission or for sniping streets almost empty of people?
Can I follow citizens home to where they live and then break into their houses while they're asleep like in Fable? Or are most of the buildings in the game unenterable, with those that are enterable consisting almost entirely of locked doors?

GTA4 is a pretty fun sandbox game, but there is nothing inhernetly more 'hardcore' (or even 'mature') about playing virtual cops and robbers over playing virtual tennis.

 

[GamerSoul]

You sir are smart. Post of the day

.

 

[Jokeropia]

Someone answered for me here basically, heh. The games just are not there like I said. It doesn't have a true console-like experience to me. I feel the majority of the games on there now are "DS/PSP-esque" if you catch what I mean. And since I have those 2, I really don't need it. If Ninty wants me, someone who buys significantly more games than your average casual consumer (I'd imagine at least, compared to my "casual" friends), they need the games to do that. They don't have things that makes me want the system. They have Mario for platforming? Great. It doesn't nearly interest me as much as LBP. Mario Kart? Okay, but the others have multiple quality racers. The other console then have games that the Wii does not like intense FPS and quality online games.

But, Ninty doesn't need me, or anyone really like me. They're making piles of money so I'm sure they'd be happy just trucking on doing their thing. Which, from a business perspective is very sensible honestly. But they're ignoring a segment of gamers like me to this day, and as of such, they won't get any of my money. And looking at what's ahead, they won't be getting my money anytime this year once again neither. Though, like I said, they don't need it. :lol

Well I also buy much more games than the average consumer and I prefer the Wii's library to the other consoles. (Mainly because I prefer Nintendo's games to any other developers.) Even the best FPS experience can IMO be found on the Wii. (While MP3 technically is an FPA, it's more action-oriented than it's predecessors.) I also have a 360 so I don't feel a need to get a PS3 as I'm not interested in Sony's first party games. (Or exclusive third party games.)

Well, no one can please everyone. Such is the nature of opinion.

 

[Taurus]

This, and the rest of your post is an excellent point. It will be very difficult for third parties to shift philosophy, and some will not be able to handle the transition. Sega is one of the few third parties that understands Nintendo's strategy. Their games appear to be moving up market more or less from launch to the present (MB:BB, M&S>>>Mad World, S&SR). Other companies, like EA misinterpret Nintendo's strategy. They believe Nintendo is "settling" for the casual market because the games are cheaper to produce. Thus they create "casual divisions" to make cheap games thinking this will satiate the new market. They do not realize that upstreaming is only possible if the casual games are of quality and contain a certain amount of depth. This is necessary if new gamers are to be enticed to move further up market.



To address your first point, you are absolutely right. But the videogame industry is not a technology industry, it is an entertainment industry. This is why the business model you outlined, the business model put forth by Sony and MS, is such a dangerous one. As I said in the last post addressing this issue, the market is like a pyramid. The most avid consumers represent the top of that pyramid, and thus are the smallest in number. Relying on the smallest market section to carry your product is a risky strategy.

There is another pitfall in targeting the top of the market/core user. That is overshooting the needs of the market as a whole. Let's compare the American muscle cars of the 1970's to the economy cars coming out of Japan at that time period. Muscle cars had high performance engines that provided excellent acceleration and high top speeds. Japanese sedans were slower, smaller, and less impressive overall. Thirty years later, Toyota is on the cusp of becoming the leading auto maker in the world. Why? Because American cars overshot the market. They provided excellent performance engines, but the automobile industry is not a performance industry, it is a transportation industry. The high performance of American cars overshot the needs of the American market. On the other hand, the seemingly low quality Japanese cars had an important feature, low fuel consumption. This feature was essential to transportation, especially for low end users who did not want to spend a lot of money on their cars (the down market). Technologically speaking, the Japanese cars were inferior, but they perfectly targeted the needs of the casual automobile owner. Only the upmarket user, the car enthusiast, was disappointed with the low performance of these Japanese vehicles. However, thirty years later, Toyota is releasing high performance SUVs. They have been moving up market all this time, operating at lower costs than their American competitors, making larger profits, and steeling market share out from under GM and Ford.

I don't want to derail the thread with an auto debate, so if you don't think the above was analogous, just say so and we'll leave it at that. I simply wanted to provide an example of how it's more economically viable for both the corporation and the consumer to move up market rather than down market, and that this is the path that many of the most successful companies have taken. Other examples are VHS vs Betamax, VHS vs Lazerdisk, MP3s vs, CDs, and perhaps, Youtube and digital distribution vs. Blue Ray and high def.

Wow. One of the smartest posts I've read, well ever. It's amazing how hard it is for some to understand wtf is going on in game industry, and why Sony and MS are in the position they currently are, and why Nintendo is where it is now.

 

[ViperVisor]

I only have a Wii.

Yes I want new stuff but a port of a quality game can be done by X-mas time right? Get that in the pipeline ASAP and then start on the new game. They will have to do all the preproduction work before the meat and potatoes so it won't be out for a while but as long as it is great it gives me something to preorder, maybe not physically but mentally, in the future which Wii is lacking now.