Define mature games please.Halo? gow? gta? Or?

I'm pretty sure the Wii was designed to be profitable even if they only sold half or 1/3 of what they did up until now, so yes in a sense they did play it save.

As for the article, WereKitten said everything that needs to be said about it in the other thread (and I hope he doesn't mind I'm qouting him here):

"Anyway, going back to the OP: I simply don't believe in Malstrom's big bogeyman. I don't think that there's an evil entity ( the "Game Industry") that became separated from the light side of the Force ( the "Gaming").
I think that there's lots of studios, and publishers, and indie developers, and journalists. There are economic interests, there are different ideas about what development should be like and what journalists' and publishers' roles should be, and what gaming is about.

I -just today- watched all the bonus featurettes of Uncharted 2. In the many interviews of Naughty Dog's crew I saw some very talented artists, game designers, writers and coders. All passionate about their job, happy about the hierarchy-free and bureaucracy-light environment, and obviously immensely proud of the result of their work.

Should I think that these are minions of the evil Game Industry because they don't aim for the same kind of gaming experience that True Gaming represents in Malstrom's eyes, and they would probably shun developing on the Wii even if they were not under some business obligation with Sony?

I am a developer, though not a game developer, and I can relate to them. There are passionate people for which a job is not just the way to earn enough money to pay the bills and buy food. And some of these people will love to express their personal -dare I say intellectual- growth into increasingly complex works of craft and projects.

Would many people rather appreciate simpler, more immediate works ( the disruptive ones, the True Gaming according to M.)? Sure, but that's an economic problem of the creator: as long as it works for them we should be happy if they at least cater to a minority of the public - to which I personally belong.

As such I see no malice or hate in Infinity Ward's or Id's stance on Wii development. I see no hate or fear in SE when they don't have a Wii version of FF XIII or XIIIvs planned. They are not expression of a big Gaming Industry being afraid of disruption. They're simply people wanting to do their things the way they like, the way they know, the way they think they can be better at. It might not be the most business-savy decision if you only measure revenues, but the public and the critics will judge them through their works.

People eat much more bread than elaborate dishes. More bread needs to be produced every day than novell cuisine or cajun. And yet I don't think that a chef that is in the midst of a twenty-year long career in such elaborate, niche specialization could be forced to make just bread day-in day-out with any joy or passion. And maybe not even with great results, when it comes to the bread she/he will make.

Let's look around for more bread makers, let's ask ourselves how come nobody wants to make bread, as it is great every day. Asking the chefs to stop doing their thing or saying that they are part of an evil, bread-afraid conspiracy won't take us far."

He makes good points, but some of those points I wouldn't say companies and developers are doing it "knowingly". They see Nintendo as a game company, the game company specializes in making great games for their console and sells gangbusters, so third parties would rather go where the competition is equal.

Tradition basically said, with advancing tech and graphics, so the industry will follow, based off last gen the big consoles were PS2 and Xbox for western developers, they made the advanced systems, the PS3 and 360, the 360 came out a year sooner so developers already hopped on board, with all of this, and then the Wii comes out, using the same architecture of the gamecube (the console they rarely supported to begin with and lacked teams that specialized in the tech) that they couldn't even port their games to without some serious work put in, it was easy for them to think the industry would move along with technology.

The vitality sensor is what they showed off, not the only thing they came up with. They also have R&D for software and the next generation DS and Wii. They could be exploring all sorts of control interfaces or how to do 3D graphics, but they won't show any of that off until the next console is announced.

a lot of people are saying "Nintendos policy is not to announce games/priducts till they are ready...unlike sony and MS" so they must be working on something that they aren't talking about.

I don't buy that anymore. Metroid M, Zelda Wii, Mario Galaxy 2 were all announced over a year before they are coming out.

You could be right...and I could be wrong. I guess future will show... Maybe Nintendo sees what makes publishers not want to make wii games and they will come back with an ultimate machine that is innovative, technologically current and has all the best games.

Hahaha, are you kidding me?

I bet I could name 10 original IPs from the 80s for every licensed game from the 80s you could name.

The 80's were an explosion of creativity in gaming.  Every developer actually had to try different ideas to differentiate themselves in the mind of the consumer.  Now there are 3 super-publishers, and a few giant developers under them, and they all rehash the same crap over and over and try to make things bigger, louder, faster, and shinier.

Did you even play games in the 80s?

o9ne of the truest things ive ever read on this site.

You say underappreciated I say overrated. It did well enough to warrant a sequel so it couldn't have been that underappreciated. But I'm sick of the Wii being used as a scapegoat for why certain titles don't sell. So I guess that is what's wrong with me. CW did well enough on DS now but you probably saw threads claiming how DS can't sell "hardcore titles" and all the other bull shit that follows and it was quite annoying to read such gribble on an otherwise insightful website. We even had ppl believe it should have been released on PSP because it would have sold millions...Now with sucky psp sales it is other excuses as to why it hasn't sold well..but the common idea is that a top down gta just isn't as mainstream as the 3-d ones. SO it wasn't the DS' fault.

So bottomline, you ask what's wrong with me? Nothing. What irks me? devs and publishers blaming an audience for their failings instead of themselves.

pong was based on a movie, show or sport?

Pac-man?

Ultima?

Oregon Trail? =P

Gaming in the 80's oh boy if those guys could of seen your line just now in their time, they wouldn't have wasted so much time.

I forget when SimCity was released that was a good game, 2000 ripped it apart.

Btw by the time I got to Oregon trail I forgot where I was going with this post and I'm sure like 50 people posted already. Malstrom articles...

I've noticed with all things that people seem to hate with him that it's either you love or hate him or your a witness to it. Eitherway it's his blog.

Is he right... try applying what he sais to something you'd do in real life as disruption is a universal thing in it's application. You'll find that you need to destroy a particular habit and replace it with a method under the context of disruption, the result will also be clear.

The prof just made one of the most ignorant statements I have ever seen on this site. I could list nearly a dozen games that were not based on any of those off the top of my head.

Mega Man, Final Fight, Double Dragon, Gradius, R-Type, Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Phantasy Star, Castlevania, Super Mario Bros, Zelda, Fire Emblem, Famicom Wars, Metal Gear, Ghosts & Goblins, Adventure Island/WonderBoy, Zillion, Metroid, Adventures of Lolo, Ninja Gaiden, Contra, Crystalis, Dizzy, Tetris, Guantlet, Paperboy, Q*bert, and so on and so forth.

Did the prof even play games from the 80s?