GBOmega's forum posts
The secondary screen concept is great, but if it's just a glorified minimap / inventory screen it's a complete waste.
The winner of the next generation won't need specs to differentiate. They'll need to produce titles that are more than just assets bolted onto an off-the-shelf engine with no depth.
Nintendo is in a good position to do this, but if they think getting repetitive blockbuster franchises and their endless stream of sequels will help, they have a rude awakening coming.
There's so much Nintendo needs to do with this title to actually make it a success, but they're clearly not willing to put in the effort.
Looks like the same old with nothing to deepen the experience in any new ways. Still waiting to see if it's worth getting the 3DS to play this.
No amount of enthusiasm or preference for Nintendo can change the fact that iOS devices are making it into peoples' hands more often than Sony or Nintendo ones. This is just the bare physical reality of the situation.
It doesn't matter which is a dedicated device or not - that's not even the question.
It's that if you made a pile of any Nintendo or Sony portable sold and all the i-crap sold and put them side by side, the i-crap pile is just that much bigger. Larger installed base, equivalent if not more horsepower, more frequent releases (how many iPhones and Androids have come out over the course of the DS?), stronger developer focus, more frequent updates to the OS that contain consumer-facing improvements...Sony and Nintendo need to learn a lot from Apple and Google if they wanna survive.
Tablets and phones are without a doubt eating into Nintendo's profits and console makers need to stop pretending like racing to the bottom is going to help them survive.
I think they all want gamers that are going to buy a lot of games and spend a lot of time playing those games on their respective systems. I don't think any of them give a shit what games you are playing so long as you are buying/playing a lot of them.
I just define a hardcore gamer by how many games a person plays and how much time they spend gaming. If you spend 80 hours a week playing Mario Kart and Just Dance you are more hardcore than a person who spends 20 hours a week playing Starcraft and Counterstrike. So yeah, they all want the same "hardcore gamers", those being the ones that game the most.
Probably a good insight into what they're looking for, yeah. A question of who is likely to buy the most, but if this ends up being true, the Wii U is not going to do so well because the quality of the games is going to suck. I think companies need to let go of the raw numbers and focus more on their products instead. The profits will flow better from a good product rather than one that tries to market or trick it's way into peoples' homes.
I'm curious about the Wii U, but after the Wii and multiple re-releases of the DS, I'm skeptical of their brand and it's potential to deliver anything of depth. So this who-buys-the-most approach isn't necessarily a guaranteed success.
Great reads, and I think this in some ways validates my own feelings. We're still left with a lot in the air about just who exactly Nintendo is pitching the Wii U at - beyond their entrenched young audience that is.
I have to agree that any self or otherwise labelled "hardcore" gamer isn't one with much of a history with gaming. They tend to be people who only like shooters with lots of machismo - they finished that genre back in Unreal Tournament 1 days.
I've been playing Animal Crossing on my DS again, which while being a fairly strong b-level Nintendo franchise is one I feel like they've never put a complete effort into. I think this series would make a great case study on how close Nintendo gets to blowing the doors off, but for some reason decide to arbitrarily cut everything short. Fire Emblem: RD as well. I play some of these games and I feel like they just stopped developing mid-project one morning and sent it to get pressed. Good games at their core, some more than others, but always falling short of their potential. Especially when it comes to online... I remember writing a blog post years ago when I got my first DS about how Nintendo WFC was a complete disaster. Some who read it got indignant and incredulous saying I had no idea what I was talking about. But fast forward to today and most of the points I made are now universally accepted. Nintendo's online offerings may as well not exist.
Anyway, some of this isn't restricted to Nintendo, but I'm simply highlighting titles & concepts where they had the makings of something they're probably gonna wanna actually pull right the way through on for the Wii U. No half-assery or else it's the Dreamcast pile for them!
I'd barely call this an RPG. It's more an action-adventure masquerading as an RPG. The game seemed to be more about mashing out the same combo over and over again. One two three, not dead? One two three, how about now? I can go from holding up my shield to stealthing around, it seems like the developer just didn't want to make any decisions on how to define your character's interaction with the world.
I diligently tried the demo and felt like I was playing Dungeon Hunters without a fixed camera angle and no class system.
Some might call that choice, but I think it's a cop-out. If only for the reason that they implemented as few interactions with the game world as they could get away with.
This post is altogether very vague and I'm not sure what you mean about Nintendo trying to build a system with complex algorithms...
Not necessarily. I only meant in terms of the games on the system, not the system itself. There's little variety amongst the majority of the titles for current consoles. They aim to accomplish a visual without putting much behind it in terms of character development or the rules system behind it. I've lost count of the number of 3rd person action-"rpg" games I've tried on my PS3 where there is absolutely zero chance to differentiate my experience from someone else. Majority of games out today - that aren't sequels - are all re-skinned clones of each other.
I have found the occasional title that impresses despite the repetition, but it seems far less often than back during SNES or PSX days when developers and publishes were more willing to experiment.
Anyway. I totally agree with Ubersmake, I think Nintendo has to focus harder on developers with their next offering than Sony or Microsoft will end up having to. I'm not sure how they'll do that. Whether it's by leveraging their licensing which could turn developers away, or by trying to set standards by example with their in-house brands. They'll need to work extra hard to get lazy game companies to do more than just make inventory and map interfaces on the second screen.
I've been reading up on Wii U a fair bit lately and part of Nintendo's stated goal comes off to me as wanting to win back customers they started losing from N64 right through to Wii.
This seems like a pretty lofty goal, but I'm wondering if Nintendo's definition of a "hard core" gamer is less about shooters and more about some of the qualities of gaming that have been lost through the years. Less focused on action-oriented blockbuster production styles and more focused on complex algorithms for the games' rules systems.
I ask not just for my own sake as I really have no taste for the similarity between games on all platforms lately - but also because if they do release it this year, both Sony and Microsoft are guaranteed to crush the Wii U with their next systems the same way the PS2 swallowed Dreamcast. It makes me want to take a harder look at just what exactly they mean with what they've said and what they're ultimately making.
It's part wishful thinking, but maybe the fact that the Wii U is holding my attention might be a sign of who they're going after? Looking for those long-lost gamers who are only annoyed by all the remakes and re-releases...