Gamasutra interviewed a bunch of industry pro's and asked them which system they would be buying.
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20061117/qotw_03.shtml
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20061117/qotw_03.shtml
Game industry pro's choose their launch system
- Thread starter ninzel
- Start date
Anonymous said:
Uhm... unlikely? That's a bit on an understatement!
These comments are quite funny though, especially the one from the EA guy... who's this guy? I want to be him.
Shark Sandwich
Regular
Wow. It sounds like a total Wii lovefest. I suppose that's not surprising, though, considering that PS3 doesn't yet have any must-have games.
I really liked this quote (taken from the last one on the page):
I've found that my tastes have evolved similarly. I just can't tolerate filler anymore. I NEVER thought I'd hear myself say this, but I'll take 8 hours fighting for my life in Gears of War over 45 hours of running around in sewers and tombs, killing the same monsters over and over in Final Fantasy XII (and yes, I own both).
I really liked this quote (taken from the last one on the page):
I've found that my tastes have evolved similarly. I just can't tolerate filler anymore. I NEVER thought I'd hear myself say this, but I'll take 8 hours fighting for my life in Gears of War over 45 hours of running around in sewers and tombs, killing the same monsters over and over in Final Fantasy XII (and yes, I own both).
Last edited by a moderator:
I need to go try out the Wii. Too much damn hype to ignore it
As for the PS3, I have to agree with some of the comments. If you already have a 360, there's no immediate need for a PS3. The desireable exclusives won't be out for a while and we still don't know how they'll rank. The Online needs to mature as does the console and the price needs to drop. Maybe in holidays 2007, with a price drop, a matured Online system, a large game library but for now, I'll pass. Having the cross platform games performing better on the 360 isn't helping much either.....
As for the PS3, I have to agree with some of the comments. If you already have a 360, there's no immediate need for a PS3. The desireable exclusives won't be out for a while and we still don't know how they'll rank. The Online needs to mature as does the console and the price needs to drop. Maybe in holidays 2007, with a price drop, a matured Online system, a large game library but for now, I'll pass. Having the cross platform games performing better on the 360 isn't helping much either.....
Heresy!! Blasphemy!!! To be totally honest, i'm kinda dreading starting up FF12 again... i will but i need some easy stuff now...
I really want reviews after 3 months with Wii. I can't help thinking of things like Furbies! It may prove popular as it's different, but has it got staying power?
I'm also intrigued why all these people are saying they love Wii's innovative controls, yet there weren't many innovatively controlled games last gen. No-one really tried to do much different with the standard controller, or incorporate Eyetoy in some ways. It gives an impression of perpetually disgruntled developers writing games they don't want to to the publiushers specifications, wanting to innovate and instead regurgitating the same tired ideas.
I'm also intrigued why all these people are saying they love Wii's innovative controls, yet there weren't many innovatively controlled games last gen. No-one really tried to do much different with the standard controller, or incorporate Eyetoy in some ways. It gives an impression of perpetually disgruntled developers writing games they don't want to to the publiushers specifications, wanting to innovate and instead regurgitating the same tired ideas.
Thats exactly what I'm worried about with the Wii. It looks innovative and fun but will the fun factor last? I'd expect after the excitement wears off, you won't be enjoying waving that controller too much. Thats only me expectation but I just can't see the novelty.
youve gotta take a most of these comments with a grain of salt
(ive read one by some game company president not buying a ps3 cause he couldnt afford it!!, um so how many hundreds of thousands do u make a year, not to mention its something directly related with what u do for a living! sure i can understand not spending $600 on a lawnmower )
the reason for the overpriced comments are due to they want the ps3 to be as cheap as possible, so more ppl will buy them, more consumers == more ppl that buy their games
(ive read one by some game company president not buying a ps3 cause he couldnt afford it!!, um so how many hundreds of thousands do u make a year, not to mention its something directly related with what u do for a living! sure i can understand not spending $600 on a lawnmower )
the reason for the overpriced comments are due to they want the ps3 to be as cheap as possible, so more ppl will buy them, more consumers == more ppl that buy their games
I do pretty well for myself, I've owned every console except an XBox1 since pre SNES/Genesis days (including a 3DO, an FM towns, and 2 neo geos) and I fnd it a difficult decision to spend $600 on a console.
I'll buy one and likely at $600 but it'll take something I have to play to come out before I do.
Price isn't about having X dollars in the bank it's about what something is worth to you, people take statements on the internet far too literally.
Nintendo has a lot of respect in the games industry (from the people who actually do the work), a lot of people love their games, because we grew up with Mario, Zelda and Metroid. It really doesn't surprise me that most of the responses are pro nintendo, a lot of people really want them to succeed, but in the end game developers are a really lousy sampling if you want to project the results to a larger audience.
I think furbies is a baaad analogy.
Wii controls = better interaction.
I guess than when you play some FPS with the gamepad, you did never think "if only i had something better suited controls to play this".. or did you ?
There is a concrete demand here ! And when something is made that fulfills a very tangible need, it's not a gadget.
Surely at the time there were some ppl to say analog thumbstick were a gimmick.. "Analog thumstick ? How ridiculous, real men need nothin more than a digital cross."
Even though this wasn't pointed to me I might aswell answer that question of yours. Yes, I did. Mouse + keyboard thank you.
So I'm curious,where would you go with controllers?
*Puts on Sony ****** hat and matching socks*
I'd probably go with a Sixaxis style controller and EyeToy,...
*Awaits for accustaions of blind fanisms*
...or perhaps better, Fusion.
Wii's actually great, because it has different modes of operation that covers all the above. However, it's key strength and the reason everyone's excited is in unconventional games, and it's only these unconventional games with lots of arm waving that I'm doubting. More conventional games that have sedate controls but are still motion senstive sound great...but then Wii isn't the only solution for that.
Since PS1 I've felt motion control in a standard two-stick controller would be an ideal addition for normal games when you watch how people physically respond to games. You'd also want the other types of controller too though, for swing a tennis racket or sword. Sony have apparently got props working with EyeToy, and they'd be pretty ideal. If you could use a piece of DayGlo orange foam as a sword and tennis racket, it'd offer the intuitive gmeplay of Wii and remain versatile. If the EyeToy isn't up to the job (and we haven't heard squat in the HD camera, which had all sorts of rumours like IR based depth perception) then something like Wii's sensor setup or Fusion would allow props. The downside to those ways is the cost of a custom controller is relatively high. You might be looking at $20+ for a lightgun controller (without a Wiimote design to plug things into) whereas a camera based system could use a 50 cent piece of foam - which you can also use for hitting people!
I'll mention here that I'm disappointed PS3 doesn't come with a camera as standard. Any efforts to add unconventional large-movement control to games will be limited by peripheral adoption. If they release a few killer applications, it might take off, but it's unlikely to ever get the use it woud have got. With Wii, you know there's going to be devs targetting novel approaches as the controller is standard. If EyeToy were capable of much the same with props, the fact it isn't standard reduces the chances of diverse software being developerd for it.
I'd probably go with a Sixaxis style controller and EyeToy,...
*Awaits for accustaions of blind fanisms*
...or perhaps better, Fusion.
Wii's actually great, because it has different modes of operation that covers all the above. However, it's key strength and the reason everyone's excited is in unconventional games, and it's only these unconventional games with lots of arm waving that I'm doubting. More conventional games that have sedate controls but are still motion senstive sound great...but then Wii isn't the only solution for that.
Since PS1 I've felt motion control in a standard two-stick controller would be an ideal addition for normal games when you watch how people physically respond to games. You'd also want the other types of controller too though, for swing a tennis racket or sword. Sony have apparently got props working with EyeToy, and they'd be pretty ideal. If you could use a piece of DayGlo orange foam as a sword and tennis racket, it'd offer the intuitive gmeplay of Wii and remain versatile. If the EyeToy isn't up to the job (and we haven't heard squat in the HD camera, which had all sorts of rumours like IR based depth perception) then something like Wii's sensor setup or Fusion would allow props. The downside to those ways is the cost of a custom controller is relatively high. You might be looking at $20+ for a lightgun controller (without a Wiimote design to plug things into) whereas a camera based system could use a 50 cent piece of foam - which you can also use for hitting people!
I'll mention here that I'm disappointed PS3 doesn't come with a camera as standard. Any efforts to add unconventional large-movement control to games will be limited by peripheral adoption. If they release a few killer applications, it might take off, but it's unlikely to ever get the use it woud have got. With Wii, you know there's going to be devs targetting novel approaches as the controller is standard. If EyeToy were capable of much the same with props, the fact it isn't standard reduces the chances of diverse software being developerd for it.
I didn't realize the controllers strengths were already determined and set in stone. That's part of it I'm sure but time and developers will determine what works and what doesn't.
To the second point I think it's already been debunked over and over that you need to flail your arms around.
Not the only solution but depending on what you are looking for the Wii controls could be better and isn't that the point.
The Wii pointer for example could be a much better solution to aiming than the analogue stick. If all the Wii does for conventional games is offer better aiming,that would be more than enough of a start for me.
I like where the Wii is going because the wand is looking to be an extention of your arm and hand.
The games we are playing are 3d,the standard controllers are still routed in 2d. The Wii extends that control to real time 3d.
And then there's the separating of the hands,which I like.
I don't think the Wii is meant to be the forever and ever standard,more of a pointing in a particular direction.
Either way I think Sony and Nintendo are going in the right direction with motion control,I just think Nintendo's is more advanced and integrated.
i'm pretty sure that there is untouched potential in the wii controler.
we are seeing the premises.
no only it will not fade away but things will become more interesting. game designer will think of new concepts. we'll have some killer apps.
mouse + keyboard is good for FPS but is it really available on consoles ? and i think wii-mote is even be better: more practical, more intuitive.
something about these people who praise wii and its controller:
they are game industry professionnals,
they know about the gaming culture, you can expect them to be critic, have hindsight
they're not the kind of fool who would be excited about the next gadget.
if these people are impressed this means something.
we are seeing the premises.
no only it will not fade away but things will become more interesting. game designer will think of new concepts. we'll have some killer apps.
mouse + keyboard is good for FPS but is it really available on consoles ? and i think wii-mote is even be better: more practical, more intuitive.
something about these people who praise wii and its controller:
they are game industry professionnals,
they know about the gaming culture, you can expect them to be critic, have hindsight
they're not the kind of fool who would be excited about the next gadget.
if these people are impressed this means something.
So you're saying these dev quotes are all keen to play conventional games just like they've been playing for the past ten years, only with a pointer? Every positive remark about Wii's controller is about having new gaming ideas. If all we were getting were the same games with the same interfaces (conventional) there'd be no Wii buzz!
I have always agreed with that. I didn't word that second point too well. Perhaps better is it's only the unconventional games with lots of arm waving that I'm doubting.
There'll be different applications of the controller, some more sedate than others. I think though, that it's the more arm-waving type that's going to attract greater attention and the new audience Nintendo are after (I don't know any people who tried games and gave up because they couldn't get to grips with the controller. They've just never been interested in controlling on-screen characters in the first place, and thus it'll take a departure from the norm to attract them), and it's that which I think may lose its appeal pretty quickly.
Everyone always quotes FPSes and aiming, but they're only a part of the conventional games out there! But this is a discussion on Wii's Wiimote now, and there's plenty of threads already for that discussion.
I agree with that.
I disagree with that. Most games operate mostly in 2.5D movement (or even 2.1D), moving left/right/forwards/backwards with the 3D dimension being walking up stairs or hills, or jumping.
Sure. The change in controllers is definitely good. The question here is whether the application of motion will grow a lot of large-motion games, or whether it'll be applied to conventional games to enhance them. If Wii offers great FPS interaction, that'd be good for existing FPS gamers, but won't attract the new audience that Nintendo are after. The only way we'll know if the masses want motion-games is to wait and see. I just have my doubts.
Its strange that they choose Wii, but there is nothing on it yet that may justify that choice. There are some impressions from consumers who got it, and althogh they find the controls fun and original, they didnt show any kind of excitement like playing an AAA or unique launched game so far. Its more of something simple and different.
Saying that Wii is the choice now that it just launched, its like claiming that PS3 is a better choice than a 360 when its still very far from showing its offereings.
Currently nothing justifies any of the purchases. And if I were in their shoes I dont know if I would have been able to answer.
Personally I dont even see a point of comparing Wii with any of the other consoles. Its like comparing an immobile surround stereo system with an i-pod. They bpth play music but they arent substitutes to each other. They offer different utilities.
And one of the reasons I was planning to get both a Wii and one of the other consoles was because I could have an HD next gen console which doesnt take anything from what I loved previously in gaming but improves it instead, and another hardware which is only trying to be simple, fan and different.
With other words should I get an "I-pod" or a high tech "surround stereo system"? The answer is, why do I even compare and ask such a question?
Saying that Wii is the choice now that it just launched, its like claiming that PS3 is a better choice than a 360 when its still very far from showing its offereings.
Currently nothing justifies any of the purchases. And if I were in their shoes I dont know if I would have been able to answer.
Personally I dont even see a point of comparing Wii with any of the other consoles. Its like comparing an immobile surround stereo system with an i-pod. They bpth play music but they arent substitutes to each other. They offer different utilities.
And one of the reasons I was planning to get both a Wii and one of the other consoles was because I could have an HD next gen console which doesnt take anything from what I loved previously in gaming but improves it instead, and another hardware which is only trying to be simple, fan and different.
With other words should I get an "I-pod" or a high tech "surround stereo system"? The answer is, why do I even compare and ask such a question?
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
