The Ghost of RubangB said:
Dammit, I can't deny it when you tell me I know it in my heart. I was just tossing around bad analogies for fun. I thought that became the point of this thread after a while.
Indulge me, I was trying to concede a way out of a terrible rethorical place you had created for yourself.
Everybody knows Twilight is a passing craze that isn't revolutionizing vampire films. However, I think Wii Sports is no passing craze and is actually revolutionizing video games.
It is changing the landscape for non-gamers. It did squat for gamers. They can care about the economy of the industry or in an abstract way about other people having fun, but it didn't add much to their gaming life.
Well I've been gaming since I could move a joystick, and I had a lot of fun with Wii Sports and I still do. I think it is a great game for myself. Maybe I'm only half a gamer, and half non-gamer? Or am I the anomaly in the casual vs. hardcore battle? The self-proclaimed hardcore don't really leave room for gamers like me in their boolean view of the world.
I think that's a good thing and some people here think that's a bad thing. I have no idea why it could be a bad thing. Market expansion is not market replacement.
Say that to the Nintendo core gamers that are feeling neglected. There's quite a number of them.
Well they're nuts. I've always assumed those people were trolls pretending to be Nintendo fans. Nintendo is throwing a stream of new games at us from all angles (DS, Wii, VC, WiiWare), and that includes new IPs, sequels, spinoffs, remakes, and everything else.
I really don't know why this game gets so much hate.
From a seasoned gamer's point of view it might have little going for it. Much richer games have been dissed thoroughly. Why should this game be special for such an audience?
I'm a seasoned gamer, and I'm so seasoned that I like new things instead of the constant same-old same-old, and Wii Sports was a new way to play, so it was a new kind of fun for me. I also don't see depth or lack thereof as a good basis for comparing games. Some games rely on depth and others don't and that's fine by me. By today's "hardcore" standards, Tetris would be a pathetic minigame for a cell phone or a watch. I still think it's one of the greatest games of all time and for me, it's still better than most new games. Also by today's "hardcore" standards Super Mario All-Stars would be a minigame collection, and it would be too short, since a couple crazies can beat all the games on it in under an hour total. I'm glad the whole industry hasn't gone hardcore-crazy and we can still get some nice smaller games like Braid and stuff. I don't want every game to be a giant 100 hour epic saga. I like some appetizers, desserts, and snacks.
I think I should just start a "Why do you hate Wii Sports?" thread to gather all the anti-Wii Sports arguments in one place. I really still don't get it.
Most common answer you'd get? "Because it's a bad game"
I can understand people not liking it. I can understand disliking something. I just don't like people calling it a tech demo.
Second most common answer? "Because if this is the direction the industry takes I fear there will be less space for the games I like"
This is the one I really don't get. I can't understand the fear. Genres come and go in waves of popularity. I miss all kinds of 2-D games like platformers, beat 'em ups, shoot 'em ups, and run and gun games. But I'm not crying about the 3rd dimension ruining the entire game industry (don't look for this in my post history, it might actually be in there somewhere), and hating everybody who makes 3-D games. I don't see any genres that are in threat of being replaced by "casual games" though. As long as there is a casual market we'll get casual games, and as long as there is a hardcore market we'll get hardcore games, and as long as there is a 2-D gaming market, we'll get 2-D games. Everybody wins, right?
It's that simple, really.
|
