Well that was an enjoyable read, along with a lot of the comments here. I espeically enjoy this one from phisheep.
| phisheep said:
Step with me into a parallel universe for a moment, and imagine that from the outset the graphical power of PS360 was used for immersive, realistic and utterly non-violent games. Endless Ocean, Afrika, Sonydogz and MS Music, say. And imagine that the Wii from the outset had been populated with Manhunt, Madworld and Gears and so on.
It might (just) have been that way. And if it were, all the self-described ‘true gamers’ would be talking up the realism and precision and subtlety of the Wii controls and talking down the sweet, fluffy and, yes, Hi-Def graphics as suitable for people who really don’t know better, who need the easy accessibility of HD because they simply can’t understand that gameplay is king, who need the short learning curve of crappy 20th century controllers because the Wii controls are too difficult for them.
So it is *all* to do with the tribalism and nothing at all to do with the consoles. Not at all whatsoever. |
Judging from the comments I've seen here and at other forums, this seems spot on. A lot of people seemed disappointed in Nintendo for not actively pursuing the warrior demographic. Isn't that the biggest complaint we here about the Wii? Not enough "hardcore" games. Don’t we here that more often the motion control complaints? (Which are often lumped together with the first complaint.)
Why else would (some of) the same people still like the DS? Nintendo's strategy with the DS is practically the same as their strategy with the Wii. Refining old technology into new gaming ideas on a system with less power then its competitors. They've actively made sequels to their popular franchises while creating new types of games for an expanded audience. (Brain Age, Nintendogs) DS has tons of shovelware due to it's massive install base and low development costs. Only difference is the big name 3rd party support is stronger and more traditional games for the crowd land on the system. (Ninja Gaiden, Castlevania, Contra, now GTA)
I made a lousy gag thread about how the only deciding factor for "hardcore" gamers was cover arts, and only cover arts with guns, swords, and sometimes fast cars are hardcore enough to buy. I was half-kidding, but phallic imagery are big sellers for video games in the traditional warrior market. The HD consoles were all about catering specially to that demographic. Look at the biggest titles out now or coming up for both HD consoles.
Killzone, Gears of War, Uncharted, Mass Effect, Halo, Assassin's Creed, Metal Gear Solid, Ninja Gaiden, Fallout, Oblivion, Bioshock, Left 4 Dead, Heavenly Sword
All games with a big emphasis on shooting things, slashing at things, or both. These of course are all different games, and shooting/slashing are small parts for some of them, but their all marketed to show off guns and swords to attract the combative male crowd. There are exceptions of course, Little Big Planet being an obvious one. But the sales number reflect the bulk of this group probably aren't actually represented in gaming circles like this one. Probably also why Madden is such a massive seller, but not met with much enthusiasm in gaming centric websites.
I made a joke about Army of Two outselling Battlefield: Bad Company, but I really wasn't joking. Army of Two's cover better reflects an image the warrior demo wants to see. They were both shooters, made by EA, released about five months apart, on the same systems, with strong advertising campaigns. Battlefield: Bad Company was reviewed a good bit better then Army of Two, and has the Battlefield brand name. But Army of Two still outsold it.
