You are hereNintendo's Good News/Bad News
Nintendo's Good News/Bad News
Good News: Swag and Noir are right: Nintendo is the most successful console of the latest generation.
Bad News: There is money to be made on the system, but Nintendo seems to be taking the lion's share;... leaving other developers wondering how to cash in. Apparently, only Nintendo games are really selling.
Check it out.
-
- Login to post comments
- 1102 reads
As some of you may know, Grand Theft Auto publisher Take-Two has been much more interested in Nintendo lately, specifically with their upcoming DS title "GTA: Chinatown Wars".
Quote:
"Even some of the M-rated content that we think is much more appropriate for the [Xbox] 360 or the PS3... we have to look at the Wii as a viable platform, because we can't ignore that install base," Feder said. "We just can't."
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=21581
This is what I've been waiting for: the test case that pushes the recognition of ESRB ratings at the retail level from voluntary to enforced.
... for the post that generated the most verbal diarrhea...
We should give out an award for verbal diarrhea. I nominate the following topics:
Unfortunatly, I cannot locate the other 10 reviews posted that were as verbose as the above mentioned ones.
But it comes in a jar...
It's not in a test tube
First is that for all the consoles first party titles almost always tend to be the best, for I think obvious reasons which I will not go into.
Secondly, it isn't Nintendoes fault that Third parties are not capitalizing on the Wii. The Nintendo Wii SDK is suppose to be really good and easy to use. I think it comes down to money, as thinks in this capitalist pig society always do. Since the Wii stands out from the other two (3 including the PC) systems it makes sense from a financial standpoint that developers would develop a game that would be made for 3 [PC included] systems (and ported shittly to the third [Wii]) instead of making a game for 1 system and porting for 3 other systems. Make a game for 3 systems and ignore 1, or make a game for 1 system and ignore 3? Simple math really.
I personally hate how the whole gaming business has turned to porting pretty much all there games to as many systems as possible. PC and Xbox I can Almost understand, because they are both the same hardware wise. That coupled with Downloadable Content makes for much sloppier games, in my opinion. The whole system needs to be changed. I think Nintendo tried to make a system that was so much different that developers would be discouraged from doing those type of ports, but obviously that hasn't really worked. A perfect example is Dead Rising (not ever meant for the Wii)
Finally, I think that Nintendo should try helping out the smaller developers. It's the small developers with unique ideas that I believe would benefit the most from the Wii because they can't afford the multi-millions for graphic teams. Which is what the WiiWare is for and has partly worked. There are some damn cool games on WiiWare from third parties.
It is the third parties that have to step up to the plate if they truly want a piece of the pie. Wiis sold = 360s + PS3s combined, making a Great third party game for the Wii Alone has the potential of selling just as much as realizing the game on two systems(which would be more development work and cost).
I'll stop my rant with that for now.
Is that the majority of the games made for the, for lack of a better term I will use 3 legacy systems, is that the interface is very different. PC gaming uses mouse and keyboard. That has been the standard now for 20+ years, and it works well. X-Box 360 and PS3 use d-pad style controller with analog joysticks. This also has been around for 20+ years in some form or another.
The developers, and more importantly, the investors know and are familiar with these systems, therefore they can develop for them. For the Wii, the only people who are really comfortable developping for their interface is Nintendo. All of the other companies, unless they make a game that is specifically designed for the Wii, will make a game that is designed to be played with mouse/keyboard and/or d-pad controller.
Let's face it, that is the gaming standard. That is where the most money is being made from the biggest titles / franchises out there.
So based on that, what is their incentive to develop a game that can make the most use out of the Wii and that will probably not port well to the 3 other systems.
Yes, Nintendo developped a great entertainment system that is very inovative, it's very creative, it's fun to play with. So what.
How do you transalate a Call of Duty to it that will let you play with 16 other people online. Until they can guarantee 1 million titles sold for a major game, you will not see a game developped by the other big names that is specific to the Wii, because the core gamers will not play it.
I have not yet tried a multiplayer game like CoD on the Wii, and now that I mention it, I am curious to see how it does it. I know Aku and Q-Bert both have a Wii, so we should pick a date and each rent the same game to test this out. Just for the sake of comparing Wii multiplayer to other platforms of course.
One thing that I dislike about Nintendo is their poor third party support, but who's fault is that really?
Like the article says, Nintendo's games are just much better than anyone else's. Very few publishers can match the quality of Nintendo's games (probably because Nintendo also makes hardware).
Basically developers and publishers need to stop doing shitty ports of games on a system with much different specs than the other two consoles and use their damn brains to make some unique games (it's like with the DS, and how a bunch of game just used the bottom screen for a map).
There is hope though, and that Mad World game does look pretty cool. It's also a good example of a developer using their brains.
P.S. I have always thought that Microsoft's own games have always been very good, or at least top quality, like Age of Empires and GoW.