Khuutra said:
twesterm said:
Khuutra said:
Twesterm tell me right now if you want to have this argument
I am ready to go
|
You can try, but I'm not going to really be around until Saturday likely since I'm preparing for New Years Party tonight (we get to cook comfort food!) and I'll likely be out of it until tomorrow evening. I might remember, the red helps, but I also ignore that just as much sometimes when I don't feel like reading. >_>
But sure, and here are my thoughts on that:
- It expanded the audience -- great! That doesn't define gaming. It might define it for those people because that's what they start with and they'll always fondly remember Wii Sports or whatever, but that doesn't really mean it defined gaming.
- It introduced a new control mechanic -- great again! It did define motion controls but when I think define gaming I think of things that nearly every game tries to do.
- It revitalized the mini-game genre -- Again, great! I think the Wii did redefine this genre this decade, but gaming isn't a single genre.
Now, that said, I know Sony and Microsoft are now going to start introducing their major motion tech (I'm not counting SIXAXIS, that should just be forgotten) and those might do something to define gaming, we'll see, but I don't believe the Wii did it for motion controls. I think it opened the doors very wide and was a beyond excellent start, but motion controls aren't something that have become a standard like in-game achievements and online multiplayer.
Don't get me wrong, I think the Wii did wonderful things and worked towards defining gaming by defining some things of its own or paving the way for others, but did it define the decade for gaming more than the 360?
In the eyes of the parents that don't know anything about gaming, sure, the Wii is the word they probably know, but in the eyes of gamers? No, I think the 360 did the most to define gaming this decade.
I absolutely acknowledge the Wii did something to define gaming this decade, I just don't think it did the most.
When I see a new game announced, people don't ask where are the motion controls (unless it's specifically a Wii game of course), they ask what are the achievements, how will I play online, and what about multiplayer?
|
You have chosen.... poorly.
|
Sorry for the late reply, been actually busy at work and my laptop battery is fuxored.
There are two ways in which we may consider "defining gaming". The first case would be that it has personified gaming, has become the object that people think of when they think of gaming. That is to say, it is exemplary of gaming. Like it or not, believe it or not, as you will: the fact remains that the Wii, Nintendo, is emblematic of gaming now, far moreso than the 360. That may not be true for "gamers", as you refer to the demographic, but they are neither the largest nor the most influential demographic to which one may refer.
I do agree with this, but with one caveat: it has defined what gaming is for non-gamers or a less harsh term since even I think that's pretty bad, the mythical casual gamers.
For the people here on this forum, I don't want to say that's worthless, but it doesn't mean as much as other things.
The other part of "defining" gaming would be in the case of introducing change, as in actually changing either the face of gaming or certain design paradigms, or even demographic paradigms. The question, then, is which has done more to change gaming: the Nintendo DS/Nintendo Wii (for this they will be interchangeable) or the Xbox 360.
Again, I agree. I was wrong above where I said the Wii did nothing and even corrected that in another post.
I think one thing we should add though-- what has changed and what has become a standard?
The 360 has created definitions in itself through the refinement of old gameplay modes and gamer expectations: wireless, Live, on and on, almost all of them were just building on previous values, and it did not actually change anything, even in the unification of these. The PS3 has all of that stuff, too.
It didn't change those things, but it brought them to the forefront and it was the thing that made those standard in gaming today. Defining isn't just about changing things or being the new thing.
The difference here is achievements. Achievements build off an old value - points - but integrates them with the online service that already existed, making them into a
universal score that allows us to measure our gaming peens. That's special. No doubt. Sony ripped it off for a reason. It very much appeals to the demographic that Microsoft and SOny were trying to appeal to.
But that is what Microsoft did, summed up: capitalize on old values and introduce a universal points system. As much as any one person likes it (I love it too), it did not define the last decade of gaming. No sir.
orly?
I think that was the most genius thing they did, but not the most significant but it did help define gaming. Games had rewards before the 360 but because of achievements every (well, most, Wii and portable games can go without them) have some sort of achievement system because people love achievements.
Having some sort of achievement has become the standard, which means it defined it.
What did Nintendo do, in contrast?
In the first place, the question of "expanding the audience" is not as simple as it sounds: it's actively changing the face of the industry. Gaming is no longer nerds-only to the average person, even the people who traditionally disparage the pasttime for being nerds-only. The Wii and the DS have changed who games can be for. This is more than jsut a demographic expansion, or at least "demographic expansion" cannnot be used in a reductive way to describe it. It's as massive a thing as can be imagined. Gaming, as the public understands it, has changed. Nintendo did that.
/agree
On that note though, why are gamers so quick to shun the Wii?
I don't shun the thing that has defined gaming for me, a gamer.
The other place, I think, is in the paradigm shifts that the industry has undergone, embodied by the Wii. What do I mean by that?
Gaming up to this point, from the NES until 200-....either 4 or 6, depending on your reckoning, has always been about "Bigger, Better, More Bad-ass", though not in as many words. Blast processing, the Ultra 64 processor, the 128-bit generation, culminating in the Playstation 3, it's been about games and game systems that are bigger, more expensive, more awesome.
But it's not like that anymore.
The Nintendo DS and the Wii symbolize ideas that were, previously, only in the indie space: lower cost, higher accessibility. What's more is that these design paradigms have changed gaming in two ways.
I agree what the Wii has done is great for the industry, but agian, gamers aren't embracing the "lets hold back attitude."
I love that the Wii and DS have provided alternative to the unrealistic budget of the HD games, but gamers generally don't embrace that like you or I would want them to.
I very much agree that games cost too much and we should take a step back, but if that was the definition of gaming, why aren't more publishers doing it?
Why wasn't Darksiders released on the Wii?
Why wasn't Bayonetta released on the Wii?
Why wasn't any of those new big franchises released on the Wii or made the Wii the forefront?
The Wii does get its share of exclusives, but when you're talking about gamers games from other publishers, why don't we see more publishers pushing what you say defines gaming?
