Bitterness in the Wii fandom?

[dunno001]

_honeybadger_ said:

dunno001 said:

gekkokamen said:
@dunno001 why should they put any more effort than what Nintendo does with their own games? You ask nintendo for games and they do what? throw you another one of the SAME bones?

I'm not asking for more effort, I'm asking for a comparable effort. They're assigning B and C teams to making spinoffs. This is not equivilant to Nintendo's AAA efforts. And then those B and C games are released to the market to die- no marketing, no hype, no nothing. They have no right to complain about sales if they're not going to actually try to make a good game, let alone sell it. Of course, like any rule, there are exceptions. Note the exceptions, though; they're all niche games. Some people here complain about the sales on them, but the developers, knowing that they're niche, seem to be happy. Why's that? They may not be AAA games, but they are A games for a niche, and they were marketed to sell.

As for Nintendo, they're not throwing just the same bones like you claim. Yes, there is the NPC line, I won't deny that. But what they are good at doing is throwing like-shaped bones. If we see a Super Mario game, we know what to expect. Likewise with Zelda. Metroid? Check. Those of us who've been around a while know what we are getting. The same can not be said of the 3rd party games on the Wii, due to the sheer number of spinoffs. Oh, and Nintendo's not the only party guilty of throwing out the same bones, some of the 3rd parties do that also. In fact, most 3rd party sequels, not just on the Wii, are more closely linked than Nintendo's sequel "bones". But that's an argument for another thread...

So If Im a A team developer, have gained multiple skill/capabilities to creat and program games for the HD consoles/PC, I would have to take less money, stop moving forward with the Industry and regress just so that I make a game on the WII? that makes total sense.

 

The B an C teams make games for the WII because thats the platform that is more adjusted with their skill set and pay level. Remember Nintendo said that WII games would have lower development Budgets and lower prices, but to achieve those results this is the compromise.

You're actually showing a very strong bias in your first paragraph. Firstly, if you think that all it takes to make a good game is to throw a ton of money at it, you're horribly wrong. (You'll also go out of business in short order.) What you need is a team that wants to make fun games. Secondly, "stop moving forward and regress"? The only "regression" is in graphics. The motion controls are a way of moving forward; look at how both Sony and Microsoft are adding them to their repetoire now. A game has to be in HD to be good? Bull. And this gets me to your second paragraph.

Yes, Nintendo did say that games would be cheaper to develop. But that's assuming that everything else was equal. Yes, a B or C team gets paid less, thus a B or C team game on HD would cost less than the AAA team. And besides, isn't part of being an AAA team the ability to adapt to changes? If you can't do that, you're not an AAA team. A true AAA team could make a great game for the Wii and a great game for HD systems. And, given this, the Wii game would be cheaper due to several other factors. (Technically, the AAA team is paid less, but only because of the shorter development time. Their payrate remains unchanged.) But the fact is, the AAA teams aren't even assigned to Wii games. No, the compromise of lower costs isn't only using B and C teams. That creates a further discrepency in costs, and is why companies can afford to whine about "bad" Wii sales. Spend a little more per manhour, and actually have the AAA team make a Wii game. If they do, it will sell. If not, well, then, it should be considered if they're really an AAA team or not, and their pay equally under consideration.