Wii Are the Champions

[Anaphyis]

If they don't, it'll be casual shovelware from here on out. Because that's what's driving the market right now. Do I really need to remind anyone what happened in 1983?

The video game crash had a number of issues (all conveniently listed on Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_crash_of_1983]) and the number of poor games is the most prominently debated yet most unimportant in my opinion. Everybody and his dog could (and did) make a video console or even more easily a game, that's not the case anymore. Shelf space was a major issue, that's not the case anymore. The ability to make an informed decision before buying a game was virtually nonexistent, that's not the case anymore. Also, PC gaming never died despite the lack of the Nintendorian licensing regime we had in the NES days.

I can see where you are coming from, market forces and so on. Growing demand equals growing supply of shovelware. This is true to some extent and there always will be developers jumping on the current bandwagon to get some of that easy money too. However, would you play a game from those guys in the first place? You should actually appreciate that these vultures are feeding of another carcass right now instead of plaguing your favorite genre like they already did during the FPS hype, the Sim hype, the RPG hype, the MMOG hype and so on. This isn't a new phenomenon and Bioware or Valve won't start making Bejeweled clones just cause thats where the money apparently is right now.

 

[onelifecrisis]

From the article:

The most common lamentation to rise from the chanting faithful is that casual games are "ruining" mainstream games. But last time I checked, Hideo Kojima wasn't working on the script for Peggle III, and John Carmack wasn't writing a new "shiny things" engine for Bejeweled VI: The Jewelening. Romantic comedies didn't "ruin" action movies, they just got a different group of people to go to the movies. Games are still evolving and inbreeding the way they always have, and I don't think we're getting less just because someone else is getting more. This is how things work when new markets open up.

Up until that paragraph I was agreeing with the article although I was uncertain what the point of it was. Then said paragraph arrived and Shamus finally got to the crux of the matter, and the article went somewhat pear-shaped IMO.

John Carmack, for example, recently stated in some keynote speech or other that in the near future he wants to focus on games for mobile phones rather than PC games (which, he said, are dying). Now I'm not sure whether a "casual" gamer is someone who casually plays games or someone who plays casual games, but either way I reckon a mobile phone gamer qualifies as one, and so Shamus' use of John Carmack as an example of how casual gaming is not ruining "hardcore" gaming somewhat backfires in his face.

The action movie analogy is similarly flawed. I'm not really an action movie fan, but if I were then I reckon I could cobble together a decent argument supporting the idea that action movies really were ruined by the increase in the popularity of romcoms. Once upon a time Sly and Arnie were... oh nevermind. The point is that all products, including movies and video games, are driven by their markets. Someone has to pay for the product to be produced and that someone is invariably only interested in forking out the cash if it means they'll get even more cash when the product is finished and sold. Shamus' notion that the whinging of hardcore gamers is going to have any effect on that is as flawed as the logic behind said whiners' whinging. And no, I'm not sure about the grammar of that last sentence.

 

[shansta619]

i for one welcome our new casual gamer overlords

 

[Lord_Ascendant]

I've played casual games, usually to cool down after playing many many hours of a game that's frustrating me. The Wii in my house is usually just for playing multiplayer games, the 360 is for all my more violent and mainstream titles.

 

[elvor0]

I know this is a specific case, but it is the general way of things right now.
I present case World of Warcraft:

Vanilla, Hardcore, you raided or you didn't play basically, raiding was bland and took aaaages. (Molten Bore ahoy). Raiding became more dynamic in AQ20/40 and Naxxramas.

The Burning Crusade: Raiding is awesome, starts off difficult so only the best guilds can beat it, then is slooowly nerfed down, near the end of TBC people branding themselves as "Casuals" cry, and cry, and cry and whiiine that the game is too hard for them and thus the content is made easy to the point where a drunken monkey can do it.

Wrath of the Lich King: EVERYBODY can do the content, no matter how bad you are, most guilds are all fully geared, there aren't enough raids to do and people are bored. Complaints from Normal-Hardcore people that the game is too hard are met with responses such as "If you don't like it quit" regardless of how hypocritical that is, because they blatenley didn't when the game was too hard for them.

This is what "entitled casuals" do to the game market my friends, casual gamers I'm indifferent to, sure they play casually but I'm sure they like some of a challenge, which WoW currently provides none, the new breed of "entitled casuals" has done this, with the mantra that they are ENTITLED to see EVERYTHING because they payed for it. Its essentially the same as playing with infinite ammo and god mode turned on currently, sure its fun at first but there's no challenge or sense of accomplishment and thus becomes boring pretty quickly.

If you aint good enough, that's the way, you don't see me screaming I'm entitled to get in the olypmpics because I'm not good enough to do so.

Games these days are short, easy (cough fable 2 cough) and bland, there is no innovation and there continues to be none and causes mediocre games like Halo to be branded the BEST GAME EVAR.

I rest my case.

 

[Shamus Young]

I am more and more convinced we need better terminology.

There are "casual" players who like games that are easy to learn and can be played in 20-minute stretches. Bejeweled, Peggle, those item-hunt games, LEGO games, puzzle pirates.

There are also "casual" players like the ones elvor0 just mentioned, who will work a character in WoW up to level 80, but who want a low-key experience and aren't competitive in a PvP sense of the word. Wow, Sims, Animal Crossing, Harvest Moon.

These are two VERY different sorts of players, and they both end up labeled "casual". I think this leads to a lot of confusion in the discussion.

 

[eviltim]

it's great that you think like people with common sense, but the trolls and flamebait you're trying to turn won't accept it.

 

[peachy_keen]

Honestly, I think this entire casual gamer war started because people were (rightfully so) butthurt about Nintendo essentially giving them the middle finger. But, I don't think it's fair that it's turned into something spiteful and elitist.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

Honestly, I think this entire casual gamer war started because people were (rightfully so) butthurt about Nintendo essentially giving them the middle finger. But, I don't think it's fair that it's turned into something spiteful and elitist.

I think you have a very good point when discussing the reaction to the Wii, but the snubbing of casual games/gamers in general by the self-declared "hardcore" predates the Wii by years... and alas always was spiteful and elitist, sadly.

-- Steve

 

[Shamus Young]

You, sir, claim that we need better terminology. Now's your chance. Where do I fall?

"Pushy".

 

[Booze Zombie]

I always wondered why Nintendo didn't make the Wii a bit more graphically pleasing.
Would it really have raised the price so much?

If you've ever played The Godfather on the Wii, then I think you know what I mean. Great game, shame about how everything looked.

That seems to sum up every game on the system, actually. Now, I'm not some elitist who thinks everyone needs to know what a graphics card is and that if you don't know, BURN IN HELL!

No, but having things look a little prettier on the Wii would definitely improve the experience.

Oh and the Wii-mote IS a gimmick. There's no hiding that.

 

[rated pg]

I agree with some of your points but still...

Firstly, those old school NES games are NOT equivalent to Bejeweled/Peggle etc. and I'll tell you why. 2 reasons. 1. DIFFICULTY CURVE (basically starts high and stays there usually). and 2. That was all that was possible back then. That's not to say flash based and other basic games aren't fun, but the older consoles were doing what they could with the technology they had at the time.

Secondly, I don't feel the Wii opens players up to new experiences and games...not just because of the quantity of shovelware but the lack of anything else. Even when they aren't buying shovelware, they cling to the familiar stuff (Mario, etc.) which isn't particularly challenging or fresh. Another good example of this is No More Heroes...a pretty easy to play game, and won a few Wii GOTY awards last year, and it dropped to $20 within a few months.

"They will then begin to look for new fare, greater depth, and more challenge, and some of them will end up joining us here in the world of quick time events, experience points, and space marines."

That is a fairly broad assumption, especially based on the number of people buying the Wii and only playing Wii Sports.

And the comment about the Wii being more affordable is just ridiculous. It may start out with all you need for 1 player in the basic kit, and games may be slightly cheaper, but that is still more than an Arcade Xbox360 and 360s/PS3s don't have half the accessory/necessory costs.

The 360 has managed to strike a good balance by offering quite a few easier and more casual experiences, the PS3 is trying to and somewhat getting there, but the Wii is a complete sellout; if it was a music artist, it'd be laughed off stage by their early fans. Some argue that "Oh but it's introduced so many more people to gaming.". I would argue it had only introduced them to mini gaming, or perhaps casual gaming, then told them "Yep, this is as good as it ever gets. You'll never get any better than this. By the way, The Adventures of Lame-O in Suck World II is out...". And that is just as easily achieved by having them bored out of their skulls and playing a flash game (for free I might add) online. But what I'm more afraid of is it ruining a future generation of gamers unable to cope when faced with real games so they go decide to do something healthier...Or that Microsoft and Sony might get the same idea and sell out too (though hopefully one or the other will retain the common sense to either strike a more reasonable balance or just not do it at all).

Although it would mean less 12 year olds on Xbox Live.

 

[thiosk]

I enjoyed this article very much so. Now that the developers know the wii is the champion, expect to see actual development time devoted to it rather than just dumping shovelware on the console.

I think console gamers who consider themselves 'real gamers' are redonkulas anyway... everyone knows real gamers use the PC.

hurr i luv rome total war hurr

0

 

[Anton P. Nym]

I always wondered why Nintendo didn't make the Wii a bit more graphically pleasing.
Would it really have raised the price so much?

Yes.

Not directly, not for the hardware, I agree; but the software development costs would've risen, because of the additional work needed for graphic assets in the titles, and that'd make the games more expensive to make. (Which would probably up the retail price, because I can't imagine them being willing to eat a cut in their profit margins.)

Nintendo came right out and said they weren't going to run in the HD race... looks like it's working for them, so they made the right decision at least in their target market.

-- Steve

 

[Shamus Young]

You, sir, claim that we need better terminology. Now's your chance. Where do I fall?

"Pushy".

Now you're just being juvenille.

I'm not sure what you want from me. I pointed out that two different types of gamers were both called "casual", which often confuses the discussion. Then you came in and demanded that I define you as a gamer. The only person who can do that is you.

 

[elvor0]

I am more and more convinced we need better terminology.

There are "casual" players who like games that are easy to learn and can be played in 20-minute stretches. Bejeweled, Peggle, those item-hunt games, LEGO games, puzzle pirates.

There are also "casual" players like the ones elvor0 just mentioned, who will work a character in WoW up to level 80, but who want a low-key experience and aren't competitive in a PvP sense of the word. Wow, Sims, Animal Crossing, Harvest Moon.

These are two VERY different sorts of players, and they both end up labeled "casual". I think this leads to a lot of confusion in the discussion.

So then I ask you, Mr. Young. How would you classify me?

I play games, I play them simply to play them. I am not competitive in the least. I do not devote my life to the hobby. I enjoy a game for what it is, a way to spend my spare time and a personal challenge as well. However, I am not interested in playing Bejeweled, Peggle or Wii Sports because I find them ungratifying and underwhelming games. Too simple to hold my interest for longer then a minute.

I do not go to tournaments. I see no point in coughing up $5 to have some twitchy, propeller-headed gamer kick my ass and laugh about it. I take interest in a good story and take interest in good game play. I'll break the game if I feel it's worth my time, but it usually isn't.

You, sir, claim that we need better terminology. Now's your chance. Where do I fall?

That merely makes you a casual then, you like decent gameplay and decent game values, great, I'm glad you have fun, its the entitled casuals that gripe me, its the people that want a game to be easy and give rewards to them instantly without every having to put in any effort, want no challenge and care not for the state of things, or if they do its because they are not good enough to beat it.

(That sounded really like "I am the guy who titles people, rawr" trust me it wasn't meant to be intended that way ><)


It's like say.... someone demanding they get payed when they turned up to work but didn't actually do any work, but the industry decides to pay them anyway, and give them a promotion, the hard working guy who enjoys his job is obviously going to get pissed off, given he doesn't get any extra bonus stuff for his hard work, he gets the same as the lazy demanding person.

And it's not just in the world of gaming this exists, lets take Firemen for example:
You used to have to be 6ft-ish, to be a fireman so you could reach ladders and carry people etc etc, however people too small screamed that this was discrimination, and now you have people too short to actually help a team of 6, thus reducing the team size to 5 because the small person is useless. I quite agree "casuals" should have games that are fun, I don't care, its great that more people can get into gaming, that's what gaming is about, having fun. But when it becomes bland and easy to the point where it isn't -fun- that's where the problem is, due to people being "ENTITLED" to see the end game regardless if they're absoloutly terrible at a game, you shouldn't see the end, because it defeats the point of there being challenge if you dont need to overcome it to see whats on the other side of it.

There needs to be some limit to how low you set the difficulty curb, not just where you trip over it ranging to stepping over it, there needs to be new player challenge ranging to hardcore masochistic challenge levels, casuals and hardcores both need to be catered to, but "entitled casuals" can go die in a fire.

 

[teisjm]

I think what does/did piss some people off was the fact, that they excpected something different from the wii, well at least people like me who got bought the wii, without knowing that it would be a casual console.

I wouldn't bother wasing money on casual games, seeing as i i can play them for free on the interwebz, and i didn't find wii sports interesting for more than a few hours, but whatever, i don't loose money because someone else pays for bejeweled.

For a while i was kinda pissed. i can live with the wii beeing graphically inferior to 360/ps3 because if u actually care about the game and not the shiny-factor the graphics are not limitating the wii games, just like i don't think dvds have gotten worse because blu-ray is visually better (though i would ofcourse watch blu-ray over dvd if it wasn't for the fact that i had to pay shitloads of money for a 1080p tv, a blu-rayplayer/ps3 and blu-ray movies)
But what pissed me off was the abscense of good non-casual games on the wii.

Now im not really pissed anymore, i've currenty got LoZ:TP (which was a fanboyish reason for picking the wii)mario galaxy, no more heroes and smash brothers: brawl, which in my oppinion are all great games (and red steel which is... less impressive). i'm planning to get force unleashed, and i think deadly creatures and madworld looks exciting as well, so between work, friends, girlfriend, other hobbies, more work and other stuff i actually have more games than i have time to play, i haven't even gotten to crack open the copy of metroid prime: corruption i picked up cheaply half a month ago.

I've got friends who's got the PS3, and they don't have shitloads of good titles either, because most of the games for the PS3 are also quite bad, especially when compared to the good PS3 games, I wouldn't wanna buy 5 different space marine FPS games, becasue frankly i find most single player FPS's quite booring (also i don't like most analog stick fps, PC FTW), and i prefer to stick with a few multiplayer-games at a time, since i usually end up spending countless hours on multiplayer games, and i just don't have time to play countless hours x5 (currently most of my game-time is spend playing DotA)

Back to the wii, another thing that bothers me is the wii-mote... when i got teh wii i was as excited about it as cartman in the cartoon wars dual episode of South park (freezez himself to get past the w8-time b4 the wii comes out) but i just don't see it living up to it's pottential, though i'm still hoping force unleashed is good, getting it soon.
Instead of using it apropriately, it has become just another button, for instance,
"get out of this hole in the ground - shake the wii mote
do a backflip roundhouse-strike - shake nunchuck
backflip over barbed wire while throwing a hatched midair and hitting ur target - join spetznas... oh w8, that has nothing to do with the wii...

I liked how the wii-more works in LoZ:TP, u use it to swing ur sword, use it to aim with your bow, it's mostly there when it needs to be there, and not just OH it's a wii game, make sure to cram as much wii-mote-wanking in as possible. i also hope/think that that's the case with force unleashed, seeing as the wii controllers are BEGGING to be used for lightsabers/swords and spells/force-powers

also, i read somewhere that sega was planning on making wii-games more appealing to the hardcore crowd and not really care about casual games (easy games) and fammily-friendly games, which basicly means games stripped of any sort of violence so the little kids can play them without mommy suing.
Just look at the prewievs og madworld, u'll know what i mean.

In the end i guess my point is that there are good games for the wii, and i don't think the wii will end up beeing a no-go consule for any1 not casual.