Switch Needs a Wii Sports/Nintendo Land/Wii Play.

[Johnw1104]

Soundwave said:

Johnw1104 said:

Oh I certainly don't think they should ever use the "wii" name again lol, but there's definitely still a market for fun motion control games. The main issue is that they shouldn't be the norm, nor should they be shoehorned into games like they were with the Wii/Wii U.

I actually love a lot of old NES sports titles, and totally adored one series of games that had a certain look and feel that was just so hilarious and funny that I knew must somehow be connected to River City Ransom as a kid... these ones specifically:

For the most part since looking back I've found that the majority of truly fun and memorable sports titles weren't actually developed by Nintendo, though. I'd say the best arcade sport experience I've had from them recently was Punch-Out!!! for the Wii, which is another example of when and where motion controls can work wonderfully. Also, the characters have that perfect balance of not being Mii's/Nintendo Characters but also being exaggerated and slightly cartoonish. That's probably my favorite style for their games.

Still, I disagree with your reasoning for why they're not selling well... they weren't selling well because they were exclusive to a failed platform that only the more hardcore of Nintendo fans owned, and the primary market was gone. The Switch is a superior console in just about every way, and I can easily see these games selling again should the Switch actually prove to be a hit.

Most people I speak to have very fond memories of those games, they just aren't huge selling points on their own. That can be said for most games outside of Zelda and Mario, though.

Is there really a big market for "motion" games? Which one was the last one to be a big hit? Anything in the last 5 years?

I'm with you otherwise.

IMO keep all that Wii/Touch Generations stuff away from the Switch for a while. Let the system establish it's own identity, it doesn't need to be overly associated with old fads. 

The market for "motion" games is often misunderstood in my opinion. Many people would love to pop in the occasional motion control game to play with friends, but no one wants all of their games to be motion control.

Much like any other genre, it's a lot of fun when done right but not something you want to be restricted to. For whatever reason Nintendo and, to a much lesser extent Microsoft and Sony, have taken something of an "all or nothing" approach to motion control.

It should be utilized for those games that really benefit from the addition (especially in multiplayer games designed for friends, where motion control really fosters that communal fun in a way sitting still and staring forward can't), but shouldn't be required or included when it adds nothing to the experience (and more often than not actually hurts said experience). It's a simple concept that they struggle to grasp, forcing it into games that don't need it and then abandoning it entirely when people complain.

The truth is motion control no longer is a "fad"; it's actually present to some degree in just about all controllers now and, as someone with the HTC Vive, it's becoming incredibly accurate and increasingly accepted. I personally still prefer sitting still with a conventional controller, but with the introduction of VR those motion controls are becoming more and more accepted as being a useful control scheme for certain games and experiences.

I think the error in thinking and judgement we were guilty of back when it truly was an overnight sensation/fad was that we attempted to suggest one should entirely replace the other; there's a time and place for both.