Does the Wii nead *real games* ?

[vimes]

Beside Twilight Princess, there is not a lot of *real games* on the Wii - assuming this means games with a serious scenario and that you can play hours in a row. This makes Wii's owners sad apparently, because it's believed these *real games* need to be the future of Nintendo's console...

...and I don't think so : the Wii is the first social gaming console ever, it would be stupid to put that in jeopardy by doing what everybody and their mothers already do.

Have you played Twilight Princess while friends were at your house? I did and we stopped playing after 15 minutes because it was boring the hell out of us. So, as a single player game,Wii Sports was remained unchallenged for approximatively 100 hours. I don't think the only problem is that Twilight Princess is bad or that the genre makes it impossible for people to watch and enjoy; I think the issue is that with what you could do with the wiimote everybody felt it was completely stupid to play such a game.

So, here, the Wii should leave blockbuster games to other platforms (the XBox 360 and the PC know how to do this very well) and investigate social gaming : games that you can enjoy under 30 sec and leaves content after 30mins; games that are really enjoyable from an audience point of view. I'd like to think that games with a strong sense of scenario can be appealing to a non-playing audience, but I don't think it can be done. Not with the current controllers philosophy or in a everyday environment.

So, should I shut the fuck up or do I have a point ?

EDIT : the original title was Does the Wii nead *real games* ? . Hence, Rodi's jokes just below. I changed it because I misspelled need and I didn't want to make any possible gross pun in the trend of what's been denounced lately

[Roderick]

I think the former. Of course the Wii needs 'real' games to diversify their audience and maximize their use. The Wii being a social machine doesn't mean that it should work itself exclusively into that niche to the detriment of a huge market segment.

Also, the 'real' games can benefit greatly from the control scheme of the Wii as well. Why not explore those possibilities? They'll be set apart from the rest regardless, just because of their controls alone.

So, the Wii 'neads' real games. Ball-kneads!

[vimes]

Do you really think that most people bought a Wii to play the same kind of games they had on the 360 or on a Playstation systems but with a different controller schemes ? I'm not sure they have.

I've always thought that the Wii would create another kind of gaming entertainment... in the same way consoles are different from PC, I've thought that, maybe, the Wii would be different from other consoles.

In fact, I wouldn't have said that several weeks ago, but I'm beginning to doubt that the Wii's controller paradigm can be eficient for these *real games* : I've played a bit of Red Steel and Zelda, and I didn't feel I could keep on playing for hours. Maybe it's because of these titles, but having played a bit of this and that I have yet to find a game that pretend to be a grand solo experience and that manage to be so.

But, anyway, it's in my nature to be agnostic, so I'll just stand on this until a particular game proves me wrong.

[Roderick]

To me, Zelda was actually the proof that 'real' games did work terrifically on the Wii and that the controls added a layer of depth to them that made them shine. I for one, bought the Wii just as much for that as for the party games, which I historically play only on parties with friends. And since I don't have a lot of parties in a given year...

[Ginger]

I'm with Rodi, just because the Wii lends itself so well to party gaming doesn't mean that it should be one dimensional.

Imagine how good a single player game, that has been designed for the Wii from inception, could be. I agree that simply porting games from the 360 or PS3 would be quite meh, but if they tweak them slightly it they could be fun and a lot of people don't own more than one console per generation.

[Tanukitsune]

The Wii has the most "real" games ever, it's has the Virtual Console!

[manny_c44]

Basically 'real games' are the only reason I play games to begin with...I'm sure first party titles specifically designed for the remote will show that so called big games have a place on the wii. The big Metroid and Mario franchises are coming out soon enough, so we'll be able to tell how well-funded studios with long development times fair with this system.

[LOPcagney]

I too am with Rodi. While Nintendo had always been the most family-friendly and socially-oriented system (with the arguable exception of XBox with Live), I'm afraid Nintendo is going to forget that some people simply want the next generation of gameplay very familiar to them, not an entirely new, exclusively social experience. Games like WarioWare and Rayman RR are perfect examples of how party games work infinitely better on the Wii than previous systems, Nintendo or otherwise. However, Monkeyball obviously tried to be too much of a party game itself, and sometimes, that's just not what the customer is looking for.

With that said, there are plenty of upcoming games both "serious" and "casual", including Super Mario Galaxy, Paper Mario for the Wii, Mario Party, Dewey's Adventure, Fire Emblem, FF: Crystal Chronicles Wii, etc., so I wouldn't say there's a deficit of either style of game.

My main concern is that developers forget that it's not absolutely necessary to use the motion-sensing capabilities of the Wii in every game. Thankfully, Zelda used these controls fairly nicely, but I don't always want to shake the controller around to do tasks that would in fact make more sense to perform with a simple press of the A button.

[artwking4]

I don't know if I would actually buy "real" games for the Wii. I bought Twilight Princess, but haven't had enough time to invest in it to give it to much of chance just yet. As it is, I love Wii Sports for it's potential to bring extra excitement and motivation to fitness. And I still have yet to try the Wii for how well it can perform with FPS games (i.e. Call of Duty 3 -- I'm trying to finish CoD 2 for Xbox 360 first before I continue on in the series). I think the Wii adds a different kind of gameplay, so it's not well suited to traditional methods of gameplay (including "adventure games", I believe, that would be better suited to using a mouse pointer than a Wii remote for control). It's a different gaming system and it deserves different games. Not just ports. I'm probably more inclined to buy a 360 or PS3 version of the same game as opposed to a Wii port. So for me, the Wii would be better off having original games than trying to compete with other consoles. I want the Wii to succeed, but I don't necessarily want it to "beat" the other consoles. To me, it's apples and oranges. They're both delicious and good, but neither is a supstitute for the other.

[Roderick]

In the games industry, apples can sometimes become oranges, or whatever that correlates to in the fruit business. Genres and games aren't static things. Who said the 'real' games need to be exactly the same as on other consoles? To my knowledge, Vimes started this discussion by asking about a specific type of games; namely epic singleplayer games. Twilight Princess proved that this type can fit the Wii very well.

What you're pondering about is whether regular games with the same controls should be 'ported'. But epic singleplayer games on the Wii will make use of the unique controls anyway. I think it's pretty stupid to argue about which types and genres are or aren't "valid" on a console, especially if it isn't even for technical reasons, but rather for some perception of what that console 'stands for'.

[Marek]

I think there's almost nothing to talk about.

Remember the first six months after the launch of the DS? The same discussions were had. Except DS had even less titles then.

It will be a non-issue for Wii in six month, probably even earlier.

The defining feature of the system remains the controller, not a focus on party gaming. Lest we forget, up until Wii the PS2 was the party game console (Singstar, Buzz, etc.) and Peter Moore said not so long ago that Microsoft will commit itself to bringing broad appeal party games to the 360.

[Ginger]

PS2 was the party game console (Singstar, Buzz, etc.) .

I always saw the cube as the party game console, double dash, Mario party, smash bros, Wario ware, but then when the titles stopped coming for the cube the void was partially filled by some innovative games on the PS2, but to say the PS2 was the party game console in the last generation is a step too far.

[Marek]

In terms of number of games you may be right, but measured by popularity I think it was really the PS2. There's shitloads of casual gamers playing singstar, buzz and eyetoy. Those games are more like the touch generation games and less like mario kart / mario party.

[BooJaka]

I think the Wii needs a healthy mix of both "real" games and "party" games. I don't own a Wii so I can't comment fully but it seems to me that the whole minigame after minigame formula is already starting to grow tired despite the innovations of the Wiimote. That leaves me to wonder how many more party games are really left in the Wii, bearing in mind that the average life span for a console is 7 years.

So because of this, it kind of needs some more real games on it which will undoubtedly come into its own once Mario and Metroid come to the scene as someone before me said.

As for competing with other consoles, bear in mind that the Wii reaches out to those not so up to speed on gaming and so, obviously not wanting to spend loads of money on buying more than one console, they will choose just the one, in this case, the Wii. Those people then would not be buying the same games again but buying the "real" games to try on their first system.

[Moosferatu]

Hey, loonyboi, how about a wii civ?

[BooJaka]

And speaking of Mario, does anyone know if there's a new Mario Kart coming to the Wii?

[LOPcagney]

I always saw the cube as the party game console, double dash, Mario party, smash bros, Wario ware, but then when the titles stopped coming for the cube the void was partially filled by some innovative games on the PS2, but to say the PS2 was the party game console in the last generation is a step too far.

Agreed. Playstation may have had brand recognition and some good rhythm titles for older players, but you can never beat Nintendo for mass appeal and all-around wholesome fun.

Hey, loonyboi, how about a wii civ?

That would be so nice. I really wish they made an effort to adapt older games to the motion sensitivity. Classic Sim City from the VC is one example that sounds particularly appealing to me.

[Wrestlevania]

My main concern is that developers forget that it's not absolutely necessary to use the motion-sensing capabilities of the Wii in every game. Thankfully, Zelda used these controls fairly nicely, but I don't always want to shake the controller around to do tasks that would in fact make more sense to perform with a simple press of the A button.

I think Marek's right on the money here: just look at the diversity on the DS nowadays, and how developers have learned not to shoe-horn in pointless features just because the platform offers them.

In fairness, it could be quite bewildering to developers, who are tasked by their publisher, to create a title for Wii without first having any real concept behind it.

[miffy495]

Zelda was a great "real" Wii game, but the controls did feel a little tacked on. For me, what's really going to prove that it'll work will be Battallion Wars. When that hits, we'll see how a single player experience built specifically for the Wii will do.

[Marek]

I wonder if you (and other people) are just saying it's "tacked on" because a GameCube version also exists and therefore have the benefit of comparing the two and/or are assuming that the Wii controls were somehow determined at the very last moment in development, which was not the case.

I really don't get the "tacked on" criticism at all. Clearly there's no Wiimote bonus controls randomly thrown at it or anything... it's got a completely different control scheme in every possible way, and it was designed specifically for the Wii.

[miffy495]

I haven't played the GCN version, so I can't really compare. I mean tacked on as in unneccessary. While the aiming was fantastic and very nice to see, the sword controls just felt goofy most of the time. There were incredibly satisfying moments during boss fights when I was up and swinging with all my might to bring that fucker down, but the rest of the time I was just flicking my wrist around feeling dumb. Don't get me wrong, the game was great. Still, it felt superfluous. I'm worried about the new Mario Strikers being the same way. I loved the first game (fucking great at parties) and am wondering how it's going to translate over. The game will definitely be fun, but I'm waiting for Battallion Wars because it'll be ground up. We've seen that the Wii can handle games made for other systems, but not that it can really get its own yet. I'm sure it'll prove itself. Question is, what'll it take?

[LOPcagney]

I wonder if you (and other people) are just saying it's "tacked on" because a GameCube version also exists and therefore have the benefit of comparing the two and/or are assuming that the Wii controls were somehow determined at the very last moment in development, which was not the case.

I really don't get the "tacked on" criticism at all. Clearly there's no Wiimote bonus controls randomly thrown at it or anything... it's got a completely different control scheme in every possible way, and it was designed specifically for the Wii.

The game was in development originally as a Gamecube game, and I believe, though I could be wrong, that porting it to Wii was a last-minute decision. The Gamecube controls had been mapped out long before the Wii version.

[Aussie Ben]

In fairness, it could be quite bewildering to developers, who are tasked by their publisher, to create a title for Wii without first having any real concept behind it.

No, the problem, which I have seen this happen before with the DS, and again with the Wii, is that the publisher says "Hey you'll be making a game for [system name]! It has to include [rudimentary amount] of this feature usage, [rudimentary amount] of this feature usage, and [rudimentary amount] of this feature usage."

"But it wouldn't really work well trying to make a --"

"CHOP CHOP!"

[lobotomy42]

I wonder if you (and other people) are just saying it's "tacked on" because a GameCube version also exists and therefore have the benefit of comparing the two and/or are assuming that the Wii controls were somehow determined at the very last moment in development, which was not the case.

I really don't get the "tacked on" criticism at all. Clearly there's no Wiimote bonus controls randomly thrown at it or anything... it's got a completely different control scheme in every possible way, and it was designed specifically for the Wii.

The biggest problem, to me, with the sword controls is that I feel like they could be more motion-sensitive. They already built in stabs, horizontal slices and vertical slices. Why should I have to Z-target and move forward AND swing to do a forward stab? Why can't I just, you know, do a forward stab with the Wiimote? Why does it just ignore which direction I'm swinging the Wiimote?

This, combined with the fact that at E3 2005 we were *assured* repeatedly that it would it in November 2005 for the GCN (it was Nintendo's centerpiece by far) and the Wii version wasn't announced until a year later at E3 06, makes the controls seem "tacked on."

[Jake]

Given that Ubisoft is porting seemingly every game they've made in the last 3 years to the Wii (after renaming them to make them sound new), and EA has turned the gaze of its flame-wrathed eye from the PS3 to the Wii as well, I don't think there's going to be a lack of traditional console games on the platform. Plus on the first party front Nintendo has things like Super Paper Mario, Smash Bros Brawl, Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, etc etc all on the way.

So my answer is "yes the Wii does need *real games,* and yes it will get a fuckton of them, so don't worry!"

As for the Zelda controls, I don't think they're "tacked on" so much as "they ran out of buttons on the remote, and realized that a limited gesture system worked just fine, so they killed two birds with one stone." There might be a bit of tacking on there, but I think the solution the developers came up with was a good compromise, and requires no more or less a learning curve or complex/nuanced control setup than the Gamecube version would. (and that's good enough for me)

Also, personally, I'm glad that I don't have to do a forward jab, vertical swing, etc etc gestures with my hand to get Link to do that move. The small flick of the wrist is a nice representational iconic gesture, but it's good that that's as far as you have to go, and can modify it on top of that with buttons. I want to know that my sword swings are doing what I want, and not leave it up to chance that when I really want to do a forward stab motion, the game might misinterpret my contorted wrist as a vertical slice or spin attack. Like in Wii Sports Baseball, I'm really glad you don't have to start from some crazy twisted wrist position and uncurl your hand to throw a curve. If that was the case, I don't think I'd ever throw a successful curveball.