What are your thoughts about this? I guess it's about that time...but seems
crazy.
And talk of controller with touch screen..don't know if I like the sounds of that.

I'm intrigued as to what they'll come out with, but I have no hopes for Nintendo's home consoles anymore. It's been the same formula for too long: the multiplatformers, which tend to include the only games that interest me, are by far the worst on the Nintendo console, and the only games that are guaranteed to be at least worth playing are Nintendo's franchise titles, which personally don't interest me anymore even though I know they're good quality. The N64 started this trend, although to a lesser extent than the GC and especially the Wii. It also helped the N64 that its third party games, in contrast to the Wii, were often NOT absolute drivel.

Back when the Wii hadn't been out very long, some developers said they'd shift their focus on the Wii, which I felt was believable and understandable due to the system's mass appeal. We all know how that turned out, however.

I'm slightly inclined to give Nintendo the benefit of the doubt, though, because there's a possible, but unlikely outcome here. If the next year's console will have decent hardware compared to the inevitable next Xbox and Playstation, and Nintendo puts great effort into modifying its image as a mere casual gaming system, it may also become a worthy console for games that AREN'T Mario or Zelda or some fitness game (though even those are better on the other consoles right now...) Unfortunately I don't see this happening, because with their current strategy, business has never been better.

Does this mean that idiots will finally stop referring to current generation consoles as "next-gen"?

I can't wait for the next gimmick that causes Nintendo to once again sell tens of millions of units that end up collecting dust in most people's homes after a couple months.

I suppose that it'll all come down to the types of games that are available. If there's too much "Winnie the Poo Saves Christmas" & too little "Ass-Raping Hitler with Machete" then I probably wouldn't bother.

There need to be more real games and less "appealing to families with what are little more than time wasters you'd find on any number of websites, just with crappy motion control."

Then again, on that note, make a Wii version of the falling sand game, and I'm in.

House of the Dead: Overkill is extremely fun. Before the Wii goes out, let's have a few more of those, eh?

-Namely, I want me a goddamn Star Wars Trilogy Arcade port to the Wii, dammit. Not enough swordplay games for the Wii in general, and SWTA is too awesome to let just languish in arcades.

And they are finally talking about jumping on the HD bandwagon, bout time..

i think nintendo's biggest problems with the previous 2 generations were related more to gimping the system with the game media....

N64... the cartridges loaded quick but has **** for capacity compared to CD
Gamecube... 3" disc with a capacity of (IIRC) 1.4GB vs DVD with a capacity up to ~8GB

Those "real games" for "hardcore players" get pirated to hell anyway. Making a full-fledged game, with good production values, for the Wii as a third party developer seems like suicide, or at best no real sense. Why make modest or sub-par sales when you can get more from the better consoles. Those studios who made actual, decent games during the Wii's lifetime have moved to the other consoles, abandoning the little, toasty white box.

No one even uses the Motion+ attachment. It's so stupid.

I'm withholding any judgment until I see it revealed at E3. There's a lot of rumors going around, but rumors are often wrong. Besides, perhaps Nintendo will make another shot for high performance. If it meets or beats out the PS3 in terms of power, I think that'll change people's opinion quite a bit.

Of course. Like I said in 2008, for third parties there is no sound business argument for publishing a game that requires the MotionPlus. Nintendo isn't even dogfooding it, with 3 games, all bundled with the attachment (zero risk.)

Maybe next time you and CM will listen to me.

You can't say anything specific about the system, but you can make educated guesses. Nintendo has been so successful with their current strategy that it's unlikely the shareholders would support a major change in strategy. It's safe to assume it will have cheap hardware, gimmicky controls, and will be sold to generate accounting profits on launch day.

Nintendo would be able to achieve PS3 performance (effective, not paper) while still maintaining this strategy, so I think that is a reasonable guess.

I've enjoyed every console iteration of Nintendo and have no reason yet to believe it'll be any different for their new console. However, I've also not been one to care about technical achievements, nor have I thought the motion controls for the Wii-- or the 360's Kinect for that matter -- were "gimmicky" (though I do feel developers never realized much of the potential to advance gameplay possible for video games). I dislike the trend that videogames need to be "mature" (re: violence, etc.), "high tech" (re: MUST BE 1080 or it's UNBEARABLE TO LOOK AT), and resemble movies (re: pre-rendered Final Fantasy/Metal Gear Solid cutscenes PRESS A TO MOVE TO NEXT CUTSCENE) with only "not gimmicky controls" (re: gamepads based on the SNES/Dreamcast controller and NOTHING ELSE) to be considered "real" games. I place the blame both on producers and consumers in this regard.

You should care about technical achievements. Technical achievements aren't just about CPU power.

The main reason I consider Nintendo's new systems "gimmicky" instead of "innovative" is because they under-engineer everything to the point where it seriously affects the utility of the device.

The DS, for example, used (uses?) membrane touchscreens which are less durable, negatively affect image quality and are extremely inaccurate compared to capacitative alternatives. The 3DS uses a two-view lenticular filter, which is why you have to hold it so still (five-view parallax barrier is standard in modern practical applications.) The standard Wii Remote uses an extremely cheap IC accelerometer - ADXL330/ADXL335, very noisy and unresponsive - \pm 3 G with 10% accuracy on three axes (the Sixaxis/Dualshock 3 is better.)

This isn't a recent problem for Nintendo - e.g. the GBA not having a backlight, the GBA SP not having a headphone port - but it bothers me a lot more because their cheap hardware engineering is affecting the quality of their first party games.


I consider the Kinect a gimmick because it is a solution in search of a problem. Same with Move.

I have to agree with Geb on this one. Don't get me wrong; I'm all for technical quality, but unless its completely broken, it doesn't significantly affect gameplay for me.

Also, I'm a fan of PC games, and I HATE how the specs required keep skyrocketing, so that you practicalky have to buy a new comp every year to keep up. I exaggerate, but not much. But its because the diehard PC game fans insist on maximum quality. This is good for the economy and technological progress, but it sucks for me.

However, unlike Geb, I'm not a big fan of Nintendo games. They're not bad, by any stretch of the imagination, just not my thing. (I tend to be an rpg fan, in the vein of bioware and bethesda.) Disclaimer: almost any game can be enjoyable, when you're playing it with friends.

What? System reqs have been frozen for 5 years. A 7 year old computer can run New Vegas.

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. I own a Wii, and yes it doesn't have a significant number of games (most games I own are Nintendo's), but honestly I would have bought it just for Smash Bros., so I'm not disappointed. Zelda, Smash Bros., LostWinds, Mario Galaxy, Super Paper Mario, MP3, etc., they were all good games. I believe I actually still own more retail games for the Wii than I do the 360.

Of course, I also use the Wii for homebrew gaming as well quite often. Looking back, it has had a similar fate as the Playstation Portable.

When Nintendo announced the MotionPlus, I said that third party developers weren't going to use it, and even Nintendo would treat it like a one-off gimmick. You and ECHOMAN disagreed. I said that if I were wrong I would write my words on a crow and then eat the crow.

toxxclause.txt


I'm not talking about the Wii in general, just the MotionPlus. I don't hate the Wii, I'm just disappointed by it - some of the games turned out pretty good, once developers figured out that the motion controls don't work as advertised.

God, I hope you're right. Maybe I won't have to get a new comp for awhile.

I don't recall that but I'll take your word on it. I never bought anything with MotionPlus anyway

Are we talking about that Wii Fit/Motion+ discussion about 2 years ago?

In this thread?

[quote=ME FROM THE YEAR TWO-THOUSAND AND EIGHT] I personally believe WiiMotion Plus isn't going to win over mainstream customers and developers alike.[/quote]

If they delay Skyward Sword and make it a launch title for the new console I will kill them all.

As for the kinect vs the move :



Shame that it blows for GAMES though.

All these rumors about touchscreen controls and such so that players can see things on their own screen that others can't see just reminds me of this...



It was mildly fun being a dick with Tingle, but it got old quickly.

I think there's plenty of reason for Nintendo to change their strategy.

Apparently something like 10 million Kinect units have sold so far and I want to know who the hell is actually buying it. :/

People who aren't stuck up hardcore gamers that mock every new device as a gimmick without actually evaluating any potential uses

I mean that by now I'd have thought that I'd have heard of someone that's actually seen the damn thing in action.

lol, nice high horse. Let me know when this "potential" finally kicks in and they make a kinect game that isn't Wii Sports, dancing or generic fitness game for menopausal women.

Game developers didn't ask for it, game developers don't want it, game developers don't know how to use it. As awesome as the technology is, it's just another me-too motion control system that only becomes interesting when you hook it up to a PC.

I only know one person who bought a Kinect and he's using it for his phd.

I don't mean to suggest it's somehow a revolutionary device, but there IS a market for those games. I know it's not going to replace a controller or keyboard/mouse. I just don't like how a lot of people immediately dismiss it without considering that it could be good for SOME things.

Umm..i know a couple people with them. They say the dancing game is awesome drunk.

That sounds like a great idea

I only seen the Kinect in action at a store. But I haven't even seen the Playstation Move thing in person. How many games actually support the damn Move? I know I can just do research, but the Move pricing system isn't clear at all for the layperson. You have to buy the controller.. and that Move eyetoy thing ... and some Playstation connecting feature... and of course the PS3 itself...do new Playstation model come with the thing attached ... can you use the old eyetoy or new one? Atleast the Kinect is just one peripheral.

they are coming out with a star-wars fp game for kinect. controls look like they might be a little wonky but, still...

And it's probably going to be terrible.

I got a Wii shortly after it came out, used it for 3-4 months, got bored and gave it to my brother for his young kids, they use it once a week if that. The Wii has it place, for parties and groups of people but if you're a single adult, I found it gathered dust very quickly between these parties. I did look at the games collection out there but nothing really grabbed me, I got the standard stuff like mario kart, super mario, super smash bros but maybe I'm just a bit old now, I got bored really quick of them when by myself.

I haven't got a Kinetic, but I plan to, but I look at it as the Wii-addon for the 360, it gives the 360 the party capabilities of the Wii for when you have mates/friends over who aren't into sitting down holding a controller.

I think Nintendo lost quite a few "hardcore" fans with the Wii, but as others have said, they gained a lot more "fad" fans who got the Wii, used it for a few months and it has since gathered dust. Lets not forget that they made a load of money from it but I get the impression they have alienated what was their core fan base from the early 90's with this model.

They should be able to build something that matches the graphics produced by the 360+PS3 now and still sell the device at a price point that doesn't lose them money. The big thing for me though is that they are going to have to come up with something special to make me considering buying it and it was through me that they got 3-4 extra sales in my family. I won't be touting the new Wii to my family unless they can show it has more than some brief party appeal.

Bingo. When I heard about this, it just made sense given the Wii's release as well. Nintendo I think realizes you can make quite a bit of money with a staggered release relative to the other consoles, simply because people like buy new stuff (not to mention with the cheaper hardware)

Actually, I know one game development team using it, though it also falls under "only becomes interesting when hooked up to a PC". The Overgrowth dev team is using the kinect as a cheap method of doing motion capture for their animations. I'm actually amazed at the depth perception it has.

-And anyways, all gaming hardware and software is more interesting when hooked up to a PC. Every game looks better on PC, every game runs better on PC (assuming the developers aren't stupid), it's generally a superior platform in every way, but I imagine consoles are easier to develop for due to consistent and frozen tech specs.