http://gameinformer.com/News/Story/200609/N06.0915.1324.09291.htm
The artical seemed a bit too pesimistic for my tastes such as the part with the online gaming. Even though it was a good read.
He has a point , but I belive nintendos now smarter and will be smarter about things. I exspect them to be more into online now (even if they havent talked about it yet) and know what people want.
The article was pretty interesting to read, and he does make some really good points. I also found out that Metroid was pushed back to 07... which is a real bummer.
Read it, been thinking it all along. But it keeps coming back to one thing, Yamauchi has nothing to do with this. Yamauchi was the one obsessed with console expansions just in case he could launch a world empire based off the platform, and was the one who alienated 3rd parties in the first place.
Iwata doesn't follow that philosophy, and he's a geniune game designer. He spent most of his time during the Gamecube's lifespan making up with 3rd parties for all the crap since the NES, he released a new system that's become the fastest selling games platform ever. Wii is launching with 10 times the amount of games GC launched with, it's won over 3rd parties that didn't give Nintendo a 2nd glance, and it's backed by a proven philosophy, a unique style and the all-powerful element of surprise, something that has always worked wonders for any games company.
This guy might say that all Wii's getting is ports, but I think he's quite wrong. Porting suggests changing absolutely nothing about the game, just a straight cash-in.
Wii isn't getting that, every single title on there takes advantage of the controller in some way, right off the bat providing something different to other versions. You wouldn't call a 360 game a port if it was remade completely with HD graphics and included full online mode, I don't think it's far to call these Wii titles "straight ports" either. Of course, some people are, and point at titles like NFS Carbon and Monster 4x4 as an example of how little effort developers are putting into Wii versions. I'd have to say that the list pretty much stops about there, for example:
Madden Wii is an entirely new game, built from the ground-up for Wii with an entirely new control scheme. Far Cry Vengeance will play better than any 360/PS3 FPS because of the controller, nevermind the fact that it has a new story and a world to play in, it's a totally custom version. Rayman is being built specifically for Wii and then being ported to other systems. GT Pro is a whole new title, not a port of the Gamecube version. Marvel: Ultimate Alliance actually looks much closer to the 360 version than the Xbox version (seriously), and has the benefit of the controller in that every move is accessible without any complicated button combos, the control system has had a lot of work put into it. Trauma Center, fair enough, is an enhanced remake of the DS version, but it'd be quite unfair to brand such an innovative title that makes such great use of the controller as a simple rushed port. Tony Hawk is completely unlike any other Tony Hawk game ever released, no ports there.
From looking at the full release list as it is now, I count 4 "ports" (and that's including Blazing Angels, which no one's seen anything of yet) out of the 20 announced so far. That's HARDLY what you could call a port-heavy launch line-up.
I've been thinking this all along, but this time around, my doubts aren't as high.
To me, it looks like Nintendo has been massively improving. I've never been one of those people who look at every sales figure and number, but I know enough to say they're improving.
There were masses of people who thought the DS would straight up fail, due to it's "New gameplay experience" and just general strangeness. Look at it now. It's selling all over, they've already re-released it, and more and more people are getting it. And, people thought the DS' innovation would get old soon. That's almost the opposite right now, as many games are still coming out that make full use of the touch screen. Sequels of classic first party games have come up, relying on the touch screen. It's just getting better.
Well, I'm not comparing everything in the Wii to the DS, but I see something of the same case. Nintendo's innovation with Gamecube failed. They tried to expand your gaming experience, rather than change it for the better. (We all remember the year of the grand GBA connectivity) Either way, nearly everybody who has played the Wii has enjoyed it. If the Wii is already rekindling people's faith in Nintendo, and reaching out to non-gamers, I think it'll go a long way. Even if it doesn't dominate the market or anything, I see it going further than N64 and especially Gamecube.
This guy's an idiot. The guy said that Nintendo's games are the only ones with good graphics, because the third party devs aren't putting enough effort into games. If Nintendo is the only developer who's putting in the effort with their graphics, then why would all the third party devs be putting so much effort in the 360 and ps3?
Plus, this guy said that Wii's launch lineup seems dull without Mario and Zelda - Excite Truck and Red Steel seem amazing, and of course Zelda alone will sell the Wii out. He himself admitted he wanted Zelda, so he's contradicting himself.
He also acts like how well the Wii sells will affect his enjoyment of the console.
Well Drewboy, if you could set aside your thinly veiled bias for long enough to pay any attention to the article you'd notice that he said he's getting Wii launch night mostly for Zelda, so he's in no way contradicting himself. Also, the entire article is explaining how he thinks the Wii is on the same road as the Gamecube for points which for the most part were valid; there's not even some hidden subtext about sales relating to quality. Not only that, but as far as I can remember, and I could be wrong here seeing as I read this last night and can't be bothered to read the whole thing again, I'm pretty confident he never said anything about not enjoying the console peroid, much less because of sales.
He IS contradicitng himself, becuase he said he WAS getting Zelda. He said that Wii's launch could turn out weak, like Gamecube's launch, but the fact that Zelda is there and that he even admitted that makes the launch good makes him contradicting himself.
...he never said the launch was good, he said he was getting Zelda. How the hell is that a contradiction?
The fact that Zelda is in the launch makes it a good launch, and he proves this by buying it for Zelda. Therefore, the launch for Wii cannot be bad like Gamecube's becuase it has a major first party Zelda game (as well as other games that many people are excited about).
He acts like Mario Galaxy not being a launch title will create results like Gamecube; Gamecube didn't have Mario Sunshine, so the launch titles weren't good, and the sales were bad. But Gamecube ALSO didn't have Zelda, where the Wii does, so Wii's launch can't be bad.
Besides, who the **** cares if Wii sells alot or not? That won't stop me from loving the console.
Sunshine was a terrible game. And one game does not make a console launch good. Suppose you don't like Zelda? And besides, if the bad outweighs the good, it's not good.
Maybe this issue goes so much deeper but something can still be bad with a part of it being good. I can write a ****ty paper with good mechanics or have a terrible meal with awesome gas afterwards, doesn't mean a **** thing.
If there's enough goodness to tide me over until Smash Brothers Brawl, Metroid Prime 3, and Super Mario Galaxy comes out, it will have been a good launch, to me. I think Wii Sports, Zelda, and the Virtual Console should accomplish that rather well. I'll probably end up renting a few other launch titles as well just to see how they use the controller.
[quote=s0ul]Sunshine was a terrible game. And one game does not make a console launch good. Suppose you don't like Zelda? And besides, if the bad outweighs the good, it's not good.
Maybe this issue goes so much deeper but something can still be bad with a part of it being good. I can write a ****ty paper with good mechanics or have a terrible meal with awesome gas afterwards, doesn't mean a **** thing.
Then get Red Steel, Elebits, ExciteTruck, GT Pro, Far Cry, Splinter Cell, WarioWare, Madden 07, Need for Speed Carbon, Rayman, Super Monkey Ball, Tony Hawk, Trauma Center, Wii Play, Marvel: Ultimate Alliance, Pangya or go bitch somewhere else. A good launch doesn't give one kind of gamer 20 games that are perfect for them, it gives every gamer a couple of decent titles and follows up with a steady stream of interesting games.
If you can't find 2 or 3 titles that appeal to you then your library most likely consists of nothing but Square Enix RPGs and you seriously need to broaden your tastes. Myself, I'm interested in every single one of those titles, and they're all completely different, and I consider myself a hardcore gamer.
You're just forgetting that most people have about 10 games by the time the generation is over, not 10 games in the first 6 months.
When did I say Live Arcade couldn't stand up to Sunshine? What the hell?
And yes, one good game, considering it is Zelda: TP, CAN make a great launch. Also, considering there are several other good titles, it is a good launch.
All I'm saying is that this guy is comparing Wii to Gamecube because Wii no longer has Galaxy as a launch title. Gamecube dropped having Sunshine as a launch title, too. Therefore, he is saying Wii's launch will be a dissappointment and will fail in selling the system, like Gamecube's.
However, because there is a great Zelda game, that changes his entire argument.
[quote=s0ul]Some other thread. I read it, like, yesterday. I think it was you because you're the only person who could possibly trick themself into thinking Sunshine was good.
And he's comparing it to the Gamecube launch for a number of reasons, not just the lack of Mario, it was the general lack of good games. You'd have to be a prude not to like any Gamecube launch games too, but that didn't stop anyone. One game cannot make a launch good, because it's one game that you just spent 300 dollars on. Regardless of what you may think Zelda does not appeal to everyone. (and also, when you start talking about the other launch games, it kinda... you know, ruins your argument and puts you into a position I agree with, so... don't.)
Zelda appeals to the people who have actually heard of Wii and are making sure right now that they will be able to secure one for the Christmas period. Launch is for hardcore gamers, I thought that was blindingly obvious.
Launch window is the whole holiday season. There's going to be more than just hardcore gamers getting them around launch unless Nintendo's strategy has royally ****ed up.
I'm pretty confident that most of the first 4 million Wii owners will have a passing interest or more in this version of Zelda.
This Zelda has been said to be better than OOT, for christ's sake. Of COURSE it means something in the launch. Not to mention other games like Excite Truck and Red Steel.
But yes, usually it's mostly Hardcore gamers who buy at launch. And even the casual gamers or non gamers who do buy a Wii at launch will have titles for them. Wii sports, anyone?
Why does everyone hate Mario Sunshine? :(
If the flaws of those other games are overlooked don't you think there might be a reason why Sunshine's flaws aren't? i.e. it's a horrible game?
I think it's becuase just want hate Sunshine quite frankly.
Superman 64 is a horrible game. Calling Sunshine anything under 'decent' is just a lie.
Hell, I got Sunshine the day it came out and tried to convince myself I liked it. I even argued with my friends when they said it looked bad! I caved eventually, I can honestly say I had zero fun playing this game.
Jesus than you must have a poor taste in games quite frankly. Having zero fun playing a game ,with quite alot of mission variety, is something I can understand if Tekken or Halo 2 is involved.
Some Shine missions were craptastic like the melon festival and the Hotel level was poorly designed but the playrooms and Delfino Plaze itself was where I had most fun.
I'm siding with Bebop on this. Sunshine was a very enjoyable game. Not 'best game ever' material, but still pretty **** good.
No, I would say that "reason" you're referring to would be something like a desire for a Nintendo-made Mario game to suck. Peer pressure might be a factor, as well, given your statement about your friends thinking it "looked bad."
What? I tried to convince them it wasn't! To this day my friends think I liked Mario Sunshine! I destroyed my good name for the sake of that game, sir. And why the hell would I want the only real Mario game for the entire generation to suck? That's preposterous, I'd have killed a man for that game to have been fun.
Jak and Daxter was terrible?
I disagree.
Funny how this is all subjective, isn't it?
... right... :rolleyes:
I enjoyed them to the extent that was required to have fun with the game. They weren't great, original, or exciting. But I enjoyed them enough and the rest of the game was good enough to make up for it. Is Jak and Daxter a great game? Not even close. It's not even close to being terrible either. But my point stands. It's all subjective, obviously, so if he believes Sunshine is an awful game, then that's what he believes.
Hell, I know quite a few people who really don't like OoT, and that's almost objectively amazing. But there you go.
... okay. Thanks for providing me information that's common knowledge to anyone who's ever even touched a game?
Except you obviously didn't know it because you were trying to argue his opinion. And mine.
But clever. I definitely see what you did there.
I didnt know people have opinions. NO WAI
You may not know this but video game forums are created for the sole purpose as a place for people to argue over each others opinions. I do it. You it. WE'RE A FAMILY.
Except I can't remember the last time I argued against someone's opinion of a game. While actually being serious about it. Why? Because it's ****ing pointless. It's like saying Alternative rock is terrible because it doesn't include enough complex solos. It doesn't work.
Hold on, your saying you've never argued against someones opinion? I find that hard to beleive. I think you're forgetting what you're posting.
I find it hard to beleive you'd be selective about it. I don't humans have it in them.
And I'm not arguing my view. I'm giving my point of view after his. As far as I'm concerned it's just a discussion.
Sure thing, champ.
Ok then.
Sounds good.
It did pretty much play like Crash Bandicoot with 3D levels and totally ripped off Banjo Kazooie.
I don't see how Sunshine can be called a bad game when merely running around Delfino Plaza and bouncing off the walls like a lunatic is fun. The only truly not fun level in the game is that crappy hotel.
bebop you do realise that I agree with you and I was just pointing out some possible reasons?
I never said I hate it because
I said Well it could be meaning that its a possiblity.
But since you made such good counter points I cant help but reply.
It is my personal opinion that no one can claim that Sunshine was good and Jak and Daxter was bad. I'm extremely partial to Nintendo and I liked Jak and Daxter more than Sunshine. The only good part of Sunshine was throwing up on people with Yoshi.
[quote=Tendo]Thats a streach at best. The levels have no real strong conections. Just because two levels have water doesnt mean they are based off each other. And what about the Big clock and Tall Tall mountain? I dont remeber a Clock tower or a mountain in old mario levels.
Even if they were based off each old mario levels they are still more diverse then Sun Shine.
You were saying the levels in Sunshine weren't diverse because of the games overal setting of a topical island. There was a theme park, a harbour, a restort, a volano, palyrooms, beaches and a hotel. That's pretty diverse if you ask me.