Japan: Wii Beats PS3 5-to-1 in May

[RoleTroll]

It's think it's good as long as the Wii doesn't take too much market share.

I remember the Genny's weak support while the masses lapped up those ugly NES graphics, and the Game Gear's software drought while most gamers loved the blurry B&W GameBoy.

A lot of the PS3/360 software already produced was started years ago, in anticipation of a successful PS3 launch. We'll find out around E3 time what the devs are working on now. If Sony and MS don't drop the prices significantly, and if it appears the console sales will continue in their current direction, there's potential for things to get bad for gamers.

Core 360 at $149 would do the trick.

[Shou]

If the only way to get developers to innovate is to strip them of aesthetics, then they deserve to go under. It's kind of a weak justification to tell people to look at the Wii's underpowered hardware as a good thing, because now devs will actually think about innovation more than graphics. Everyone knows that's not what Nintendo had in mind when it designed the console, and devs should be able to do both.

What devs should do and what devs WILL do are 2 different things. It's obvious that few devs excel at everything and that's one reason why there are only a few great titles every year.

As for what Nintendo had in mind during the design of the console is a worthless debate as unless you work in design at NCL, I doubt you really know the whole story (I don't claim to know).

[Yoshi]

I guess if we're talking Japanese developers exclusively, the Wii won't do much damage. Capcom won't put its major franchises on the Wii, and Konami isn't going to put things like Silent Hill that would benefit from better graphics on it. In fact, if the Wii's relatively impotence leads to more 2D games from Japan, while the west provides games like Bio Shock, Mass Effect, Lair, etc., that would be ideal.

[Shou]

You go from complaining that JRPGs and action games are too simplistic in execution into stating games aren't intuitive enough and whining about two hour tutorials to learn how to use the controls. Which is it? If it's both then is introducing another control scheme designed around simplicity and a single button nessecarily going to fix anything, especially if simplicity and a single button is that big a problem in the first place? And do you honestly think that moving games to the Wii will give you anything besides all those same Musous, only now you're using waggle instead of mashing a button?

I also think that saying the Wii will make developers focus on gameplay over graphics is a good theory, but if, for instance, the Wii's sales turn into similar ratios for third-party support for them then the judging standard for graphics becomes the PS2, not the PS3. You're going to get the exact same laziness if the 360 and PS3 are not in favor, the focus on gameplay will only work if the Wii is not an over-dominate force and is thus in constant competition.

Design must continue to evolve, yes, but a more powerful platform isn't a limiter.

I'm talking about good game design. Yes, Musous can be simple ie easy to get into, but is it fun? Same thing for recent JRPGs, how much of a game is it really? Before this tangents off into a game experience vs game play debate, I'm focusing on intuitive fun game design. What's the point if it isn't fun to play? You're talking about franchises as they exist today and how they would translate to Wii. I'm thinking more on the lines of a total overhaul of existing ideas into new types of gameplay.

Obviously, whichever console is #1 will have a bunch of crap. That's just a consequence of being mainstream.

[bbobb]

I'm thinking more on the lines of a total overhaul of existing ideas into new types of gameplay.

[Melf]

As for what Nintendo had in mind during the design of the console is a worthless debate as unless you work in design at NCL, I doubt you really know the whole story (I don't claim to know).

True, but I doubt anyone was standing in R&D thinking "if we keep the graphics power weak, they'll have to be innovative!"

[Space Pirate Roberts]

[MechDeus]

I'm talking about good game design. Yes, Musous can be simple ie easy to get into, but is it fun? Same thing for recent JRPGs, how much of a game is it really? Before this tangents off into a game experience vs game play debate, I'm focusing on intuitive fun game design. What's the point if it isn't fun to play?

To sound like dog$: What is fun and how do you quantify that? I find GT4 fun and with the wheel it's incredibly intuitive, but most people still find it intensely boring. I like a number of JRPGs and I thought FFXII was a lot of fun, but it definately wasn't intuitive for someone that had never played an RPG before. The basic design of JRPGs, on the other hand, must be intuitive on some level as the hordes of people that had never touched the genre before didn't seem to have any issue getting into FFVII. Was it fun? Depends on who you talk to.

We had games like Cookies & Cream, an interesting co-op game that was easy to get into with good mechanics, but almost everyone ignored it. Games, like other media, are going to be tons of crap with gems sprinkled throughout because of what people will buy. Changing the interface isn't going to make developers try where they otherwise wouldn't (see: Mario Party 8).

How well did something like Mojib-Ribbon do in Japan? That game seems like a perfect example of simplistic yet intuitive design using current control methods (though to what extent I'm not sure since I don't know the language).

You're talking about franchises as they exist today and how they would translate to Wii. I'm thinking more on the lines of a total overhaul of existing ideas into new types of gameplay.

What I was talking about was:

What devs should do and what devs WILL do are 2 different things.