By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Wii Game Selection = Lose/Lose/Lose/Lose/Lose/Lose/Lose Situation

steven787 on 02 June 2008
LordTheNightKnight said:
 

Lazy

1 a: disinclined to activity or exertion : not energetic or vigorous

b: encouraging inactivity or indolence lazy summer day>

2: moving slowly : sluggish

3: droopy, lax lazy ears>

4: placed on its side <lazy E livestock brand>

5: not rigorous or strict <lazy scholarship>

 

Neither of those has to do with the outcome of work. The team was working their asses off to have the game completed in time for the Wii launch. You don't have any grounds to call the result lazy, because there is no defintion of lazy that has to do with results.

 

And setting a precedent doesn't count either. The developers only looking at the waggle part of the game, makes THEM the lazy ones. Lazy isn't defined as the cause of laziness in others. Their laziness is the laziness.

So it's still bullshit to call it a lazy port. Your grounds are not part of the definition, and the work they put into it makes it not even the real definition.

 


I know you didn't see where I admitted I was wrong (because I edited it in), but your reasoning is also wrong. The first definition is what we are talking about, as in the results (the port) appear to be of laziness. (Edit: it could also be the last definition, i.e. the port was not worked on rigorously)'

(Edit2: Just to further explain, the use of an adjective on a noun which represents a inanimate object (a game) usually is describing some quality of that object which is held because of the actions of people. In this case the noun "port" isn't refering to the game it is refering to the action which makes the game, which is why we don't say lazy game. Other examples: quick build, hasty assumption)



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

Around the Network
alpha_dk on 02 June 2008

Anyone who has used the controls in LoZ:TP cannot say that it was a lazy port. So much thought and awesome went into those controls, and it very much made the Wii version definitive in my opinion. One could just as easily say that it was built for the Wii (without using the system to its fullest) and ported to the GC.



Please, PLEASE do NOT feed the trolls.
fksumot tag: "Sheik had to become a man to be useful. Or less useful. Might depend if you're bi."

--Predictions--
1) WiiFit will outsell the pokemans.
  Current Status: 2009.01.10 70k till PKMN Yellow (Passed: Emerald, Crystal, FR/LG)

bardicverse on 02 June 2008

I agree with Alpha. TP was a solid game, the true successor to OOT. A shame that so many people tore it apart for the graphics, because it wasn't an HD game.



Fayceless on 02 June 2008

 There is hope yet:

 

http://wii.ign.com/articles/867/867498p2.html

http://wii.ign.com/articles/874/874796p1.html 

From the first article(quote by a developer of the game):

"Most of the games on the Wii look like crap. We want to change that, so we've invested heavily in our Wii tech over the past year. We have real-time normal mapping, reflection and refraction, post process full screen effects, real-time shadows, projected lights and textures, specularity and fresnel effects, emissive and iridescent materials, interactive water, morphing, and much more all running with a rock solid frame rate on the Wii. Our goal is to be the most technically innovative Wii developer on the planet."

At least somebody is making an effort.  I do plan to get this game, whenever it's released.  Last I heard there is not a publisher for the game yet.



akuma587 on 02 June 2008
Grey Acumen said:
I'd love to see someone try to beat metroid prime 3 in half an hour.

Ookaze basically summed up all the fallacies perfectly. Developers have an attitude that just isn't survivable with the success of the Wii. The Wii will be successful whether developers adapt to it or not, and if they don't adapt to it, they may make money in the short run with quick cash in games, but they will ruin their reputation and will be even less successful in the future.
Developers aren't adapting, and they NEED to adapt. That's the whole point of this thread. I'm saying this as much for the developers as I'm saying it for the Wii. If you're trying to make excuses for the developers and pretend the Wii is just a cheap toy that only has waggle, sorry, but you are wrong. You're only contributing to the problem by encouraging the developers and fooling them into thinking they'll somehow survive by making half-assed games.
It's not like you're going to buy any of those half-assed games, so what possible justification for it can you have to support their production of half-assed games?

 The average person outside of people on the internet has little to no idea about who publishes games or the different game developers out their outside of Nintendo, whose Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Wii Sports, Wii Fit, titles are pretty obvious to pick out.  I really don't think more than 20% of Wii owners (and probably only 30-40% of PS3/360 owners) pay any attention to who makes their games, let alone let it influence their future purchasing decisions.  They go off of game name recognition more than anything.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
Thatmax on 02 June 2008

On the plus side wii ware has some good titles and will have many more great ones all from third parties ie BOMBERMAN! :P



akuma587 on 02 June 2008
bardicverse said:
picko said: " The other reason why the Wii does not receive quality third party software is incentives. There is little incentive for developers to make quality software on the Wii. Whilst it would be difficult to get numbers on this I would imagine that Wii gamers are inelastic to game budget (with budget as a proxy for quality), that is you can make cheap games without losing a significant amount of sales and you don't gain a significant amount of sales by increasing budget. Therefore why spend more on a game?"

--------

What an odd point of view, which very much is the polar opposite of what is actually happening. Much of the crowd buying Wii's are not parents in low income families, but the upper echelon who see it as the "trendy" system, the system that people are impressed they have, the ever elusive Wii. You won't see Muffy and Buffy having company over and after discussing their stock shares, they say "oh, we just got a PS3/XB360. Care to try it?" but you will see these people egging their company to try a game of bowling, etc. Of course, these people likely aren't going out to buy a Resident Evil game, unless they have gamer roots.

Yet, back on your statement. Wii development costs a LOT less to make a AAA title than it does for the HD systems, which means a quicker profit point. Combine that with the dominating marketshare for the Wii, and you have a system that you can put a big game on and turn a profit with better success. Publishers like buffers, and the buffer is the market share numbers. To drive the point home the Wii has double the market share of the PS3. This means that even if every PS3 owner buys a copy of a game, it only equates to half of the Wii owners.

So in the end, it is less profitable to make a AAA game for the HD consoles. The other issue is competition. Since the HD consoles focus heavily on graphics, there is a higher potential for the gameplay to suffer. THis isn't always true, but some games go so far out of their way to bring a good visual experience, they forget they're making a game. So unless that HD system game is top notch and is well-received, it might get ignored over a better game. On the Wii, as long as the controls are done well and gameplay well done, it's easier to get a game noticed (with proper advertising of course).

So the incentive to develop AAA games on the Wii is high, because the game can shine through the lackluster games easily.


 Tell that to Ubisoft and Activision who raked in gobs of money largely because of the sales of their PS3/360 games Assassin's Creed and COD4.  Activision also made quite a bit off the PS3/360/Wii/PS2 Guitar Hero III.  But even still the PS2 version still sold more than the Wii version, although the Wii version did trounce the PS3 version.

Do you really think they would have made as much money if both of those games hadn't pushed the graphical and technical envelope which convinced even people like me, who generally stray away from FPS's, to buy COD4?  I planned to buy Assassin's Creed since its announcement because of its ability to create a dynamic world all rendered in real-time, something the Wii would have to make large sacrifices to do. 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

bardicverse on 02 June 2008

akuma - Im not sure about assassin's creed, but for COD4, yes, it would have even if it didn't push the technical envelope. It was a refreshing setting to the genre, one sensitive to current times and matters in the mideast. it touched the american people who are gung ho on taking out terrorists, etc, which is what pushed a good chunk of the crowd that normally doesn't buy such games, the big selling point for COD4 was the excellent online play. I think that people would have been driven to the game without the shiny graphics due to the excellent gameplay.

As for worlds rendered in real time, I've already burnt myself out on MMORPGs that offered the same, so its not exactly new technology for me, but that's the case with all consoles vs the PC. Playing a new console game is like playing a new game with 3+yr old pc technology. Thus why I do my share of PC gaming. Right now Im playing games with quality you'll find on the NEXT gen consoles.



ameratsu on 02 June 2008
bardicverse said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
Here are a few 3rd-party PS2 games from either 2000 or 2001. The list is not extensive, but neither are they shovelware (even if some are ports and rehashes, there was still some work).

Ace Combat 4
All-Star Baseball 2002
Armored Core 2
ATV Offroad Fury
Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance
Burnout
Devil May Cry
Dynasty Warriors 2
Dynasty Warriors 3
Final Fantasy X
Grand Theft Auto III
Guilty Gear X
Half-Life (which included updated graphics and a co-op mode)
Ico
Klonoa 2
Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver 2
Madden NFL 2001, 2002
Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty
Midnight Club: Street Racing
ESPN NFL 2K
NHL 2001, 2002
Onimusha
Resident Evil Code: Veronica X
Shadow Hearts
Silent Hill 2
SSX
Star Trek: Voyager: Elite Force
Summoner
Tekken Tag Tournament
TimeSplitters
Time Crisis II
Tokyo Xtreme Racer: Zero
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3

And this is not the full list of 3rd-party games, that were given due effort in development (or at least porting them, where the were made with effort on their original systems).

Fair enough, but many of those games weren't pushing the PS2. As you said, some were ports (and in opinion, there's a lot of shovelware on that list). If I wanted to list the general list of games on the Wii, I could, but it doesn't prove my point. I don't think I'd call THPS3 a game that really pushed the hardware on PS2. To clarify, look at God of War on the PS2. It can be argued that it is one of the most advanced games on the PS2. This game didn't release until the PS2's 4th's year

THPS3 was very good graphically for when it was released on the PS2. In addition, it was the first PS2 game to support online play. If looking great and being the first with online play isn't pushing the HW, then what is.



Demon's Souls Official Thread  | Currently playing: Left 4 Dead 2, LittleBigPlanet 2, Magicka

ctk495 on 02 June 2008

That why I don't want kingdom hearts for the wii if no third party is taking the wii seriouly then why would kingdom hearts go there it makes no sense.