Ubisoft definitely released a lot of junk to the Wii. That's exactly why I hope RS2 will be a great hit if the game proves to be as good as I think it will. Ubisoft have to receive the message the consumers doesn't want cheap crap but can appreciate well polished innovative titles.

I have some experience with fencing and I agree with the producer it is not feasible in a videogame without a sense of depth. In the same way I don't want a baseball game to be a real 1:1 experience -- in which I have no chance to hit any ball from a professional pitcher -- fencing will need some concessions in exchange for a better gameplay.

I don't see how your points hurt his argument. He's not saying that bad games should get sequels. What he's saying is that to hit it off with the Wii audience you have to make something that's original and fun, and get it right the first time. In other words, you can't throw sub-par experimental games at them and expect to be able to 'build on that' if one of them turns into a miraculous hit.

If it is a quality title, it does hold the appeal for those who haven't bought it yet, though. A sequel would of course take away that appeal.

And those who did buy it already and, like you, need something new, will according to this article, rather buy something different and not a new version of the game they already own.

Innovation > Iteration

I totally agree with him and frankly I've been saying that say thing in these forums for a while now. Innovation sells games on the Wii. Shaun White sold tons because it was innovative. Snowboarding on the balance board! Sounds like fun. To Ubisofts credit, it was well done the first time.

But why would anyone get the sequel? Everyone already did that, or if they didn't they'd rather get the cheaper older version.

Same with Boom Blox. Although the sequel is far superior, it should have been the original and then EA could have maybe made more money selling more levels Pay for Play.

Same with all sports titles on Wii. It's very common to see last's years version outselling this years (even Tiger Woods... sadly) in the same week. Wii gamers will go with the cheaper title because they don't perceive the difference. And frankly, there usually really isn't much of one anyway. A few gameplay refinements and updated teams. Whoop-de-f---ing-do.

Wii owners want new, fun and accessible games or at least fun and accessible. But they aren't going to buy the same title over and over. Why would someone who is only buying 2 to 4 titles a year, buy the same game they got last year? They want something new and by new I mean completely different. Heck, they probably never finished the original. I know I rarely do.

I said it before and I'll say it again, you kinda have to create a 'fad' on Wii. Some new novel experience that immediately looks like fun. Boom Blox and Let's Dance are good examples of that. People play it with their friends, then want a copy for themselves. But this analyst is right, while Nintendo searches and searches for the 'fun' factor of an idea and then polishes the hell out of it, 3rd parties toss a few ideas out there, see which one has traction and then want to make progressively better sequel after sequel.

That won't work on Wii. Find the fun factor and then make it the best it can possibly be, give it whatever development time it needs to be addictive fun and highly polished and then rake in the dough from that one game for years, while you develop all new, all different games.

Maybe I didn't explain myself well. My point is that his solution amounts to:

1- Making a  very good game

2- Not launching a sequel.

Clearly the second part is easy... the first part is the bitch, if most developers could do it there probably wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

But there the "spend a little bit of money, make something barely acceptable — because screw ‘em, right, they’re casual gamers, they’ll play any old thing!" thing mentioned in the article appears.

There are enough talented minds to create quality titles, given the needed resources and time. but most have never really tried on the wii. - it's their loss...

spin-offs of spin-offs with 1/20 budget of the publishers "real" (read: hd) games just won't cut it with a competition like nintendo.

...and so won't riding on a "fad" wave. "just dance" imitators will probably fail... and rightly so!

Well it's a strategy that isn't really being tried, is it? He's saying that cheap experimental games are a waste of time, you have to do something new and interesting, but do it well from the beginning. Publishers on the other hand think that they can get their ideas out there in cheaply made experimental games, and build on what works. Nintendo on the other hand does make sure to get things right the first time, they didn't make a cheap experimental Wii Fit, they made a high quality game, etc.

No cookie-cutter sequels. Makes sense, really. You've got a market that is much more fickle about its attachment to any given brand-name, in the sense that they are hungry for new content in the brand.

Continuous innovation, while very cool, is too expensive and risky. The safest thing to do when you find something that works is, stick with it . Games like Galaxy aren't broke so they don't need to be fixed. There's certainly room for improvement, but the core gaming experience doesn't need to be completely overhauled or revamped. Story-centered sequels should be designed to satisfy those who bought the the original first and entice noobs secondly. Also, sequels on 360 and PS3 aren't always lazy shinier updates. From the 3rd game on, Criterion has changed Burnout's layout extensively and continuously with each game. Even though they got it right in the 3rd game.

Not if it's done in the right way.   Nintendo has many small teams, between 1-4 people, developing an idea.   They work on it from months to even years until they nail it, so that's it's instantly and continually fun and accessible.    Then and only then does Nintendo put a development team on it and build the game within a few months, and then polish, polish, polish, which again is usually a small team.

Nintendo rarely has a dud this way, and even their duds do reasonably well (Wii Music, Punch Out, Super Mario Sluggers).

3rd parties would rather have a team of 200 working for 2 years to make a HD game and pray it doesn't fail.   No wonder they're losing money.