Unless things are really bad in US I cant see how someone will not play a WII game because it gets tired (It may happen a little in the first meybe even second time but not after that), or how can so little movement will help someone get more healthy (unless it is a really extreme case).
If Wii become number 1
- Thread starter g35er
- Start date
pc999 said:
The point is (as it is in much of marketing), Perception. When news stories start popping up showing the Wii as the "active console", it doesn't matter whether or not kids actually get in shape or even lose an eighth of a pound over the lifetime of the console. As with any epidemic which does not have a clear answer, anything is better than nothing. One must also consider the entire package not just this one facet. Look at it from the parents point of view:
Price (cheap in comparison)
Content (generally less "offensive" games)
Desire (kids like Mario)
bonuses:
more active control scheme (potentially hyped by media)
more educational titles like brain training
Wii is more "active" than the new playstation or 360 which makes parents feel better about themselves that they're "helping" their kids, by not feeding into the "lazy cycle" of typical videogames. This along with the edutainment (braintraining) type of games that grandma and grandpa would be happy to buy for their grandkids new Nintendo that doesn't "help feed the belly".
How many EyeToy's have been sold to US parents with fatso kids who already have PS2's to plug them into?
darkblu said:
Agreed - also this is a peripheral which attaches to a machine that goes against or does nothing for the "health movement". With Wii, this promotion of "activity" is built into the standard controller and looks like it will be a standard of the games available as well.
N64 had quite a few racing games on it, though most of them were pretty arcade-y. Gamecube, by contrast, has had very little available other than some cross-platform games.hupfinsgack said:
Except that they want to expand their audience beyond Gamecube to both new people and core gamers they lost. And as for cost, paying Konami for Enthusia exclusivity on Wii (just as a hypothetical) would be a lot cheaper than developing it in-house and make the system far more attractive to people who panned Gamecube.
Shifty Geezer said:
In addition to my last post, another possible reason for avoiding this peripheral is parental paranoia. Fear that somehow stalkers (child molestors) might be able to see their kids through the "eyetoy" (regadless if the thing is even hooked up to the internet
)Claim: Nintendo makes fun games.
Counter - Not to me they do not. Part of this is the difference in definitions of "fun." I want intensity - HALO, GRAW, racing, sports, fighting. Or I want something I can delve into like Oblivion, KOTOR, etc. I have yet to be able to look at a recent Nintendo game and take it seriously; To take it as competition instead of the equivalent of a minor online title such as Zuma, Bejeweled, etc. I cannot be alone in this feeling given the install base for the previous 2 generations. Plenty of us feel like Nintendo has not grown with us as gamers. We still get, for 90%+ of the selection, the gaming equivalent of a Disney movie. Guess what, I am really not into Disney movies anymore. I don't want Cinderella or Beauty and the Beast. I want BraveHeart, Pi, Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil and Reservoir Dogs.
Claim: Graphics don't matter compared to gameplay.
Counter: They matter for immersion. They matter for suspension of disbelief. Seen the new Superman previews? My interest was dashed when I saw how terrible the CGI flying Superman looked. Graphics do not seem to matter as much to the existing Nintendo audience, and given the nature of their titles I can understand this. How much does being able to see the shadow of Mario's enemy matter? How about wondering if you can shoot through that flimsy wooden wall? Graphics may not matter a great deal to the existing Nintendo crowd but they seem to matter a great deal to everyone else.
Claim: Nintendo is going after a different market. The non-gamer.
Counter: You mean the people who play Zuma and Text Twist? This is a very questionable claim from my point of view. Not just for Nintendo, but for MS and Sony as well. The 360, and presumably the PS3, have their own online download arcades for these types of games. We will see how succesful they are ultimately in a dollar sense, but are they attracting/going to attract a new crowd, or is it just people who are playing GRAW and waiting for the map pack who download Geometry Wars while they wait? I highly doubt there will be a bevy of new gamers that were previously put off by the existing controllers being too complex. My mother and stepfather are not going to be turned into gamers by the Wii. They simply do not understand video games and never have. The entire concept is foreign to them and the simplicity of the control scheme is not going to change this. In large part, I believe, they do not want interactive anything. Games by their nature are interactive. These ideas may represent a new revenue stream, but I cannot see people who are non-gamers purchasing any of these systems to play minor/more simplistic titles. If their still-at-home kids possess one, then I can see them maybe be a little intrigued, but they are not going to go out and buy the system at any price. Like hiding adult jokes in a "SpongeBob Square Pants" video. The adults forced to watch it with their children may appreciate it, but they are not going to watch the show when their kids are gone.
Here's a few questions:
If Wii has the highest install base, mainly due to being bought as a cheap second console to the 360 and PS3 plus their dedicated following, but when it comes time to buy a multiplatform title like Madden, everyone buys it for the PS3 or 360, how much of a success is the Wii? If you are a developer, which version do you spend more time/money/talent developing? The more thought I have given to the Wii, the less interest, at any price, I have. Let's assume for the moment that in games like Tennis, there is a more complex control scheme available that allows and rewards you for controlling your characters feet. How many of use have screens of a size and a room of the size necessary to for 4 people to play? Even 2? Considering some of the livings rooms I have seen, my own included, they are oriented towards sitting, not standing or moving. There is no way to even use some of these features without reworking the room in some fashion. Will there be a requirement for each game to support standard control schemes on top of the motion sensing? What does this do to play testing and programming requirements for nice implementations of both? What about the gaming marathon when the equivalent of HALO3 comes out for Wii? 12 hour play sessions, sometimes more, for days at a time? I don't care how in shape you are, that is going to hurt.
Counter - Not to me they do not. Part of this is the difference in definitions of "fun." I want intensity - HALO, GRAW, racing, sports, fighting. Or I want something I can delve into like Oblivion, KOTOR, etc. I have yet to be able to look at a recent Nintendo game and take it seriously; To take it as competition instead of the equivalent of a minor online title such as Zuma, Bejeweled, etc. I cannot be alone in this feeling given the install base for the previous 2 generations. Plenty of us feel like Nintendo has not grown with us as gamers. We still get, for 90%+ of the selection, the gaming equivalent of a Disney movie. Guess what, I am really not into Disney movies anymore. I don't want Cinderella or Beauty and the Beast. I want BraveHeart, Pi, Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil and Reservoir Dogs.
Claim: Graphics don't matter compared to gameplay.
Counter: They matter for immersion. They matter for suspension of disbelief. Seen the new Superman previews? My interest was dashed when I saw how terrible the CGI flying Superman looked. Graphics do not seem to matter as much to the existing Nintendo audience, and given the nature of their titles I can understand this. How much does being able to see the shadow of Mario's enemy matter? How about wondering if you can shoot through that flimsy wooden wall? Graphics may not matter a great deal to the existing Nintendo crowd but they seem to matter a great deal to everyone else.
Claim: Nintendo is going after a different market. The non-gamer.
Counter: You mean the people who play Zuma and Text Twist? This is a very questionable claim from my point of view. Not just for Nintendo, but for MS and Sony as well. The 360, and presumably the PS3, have their own online download arcades for these types of games. We will see how succesful they are ultimately in a dollar sense, but are they attracting/going to attract a new crowd, or is it just people who are playing GRAW and waiting for the map pack who download Geometry Wars while they wait? I highly doubt there will be a bevy of new gamers that were previously put off by the existing controllers being too complex. My mother and stepfather are not going to be turned into gamers by the Wii. They simply do not understand video games and never have. The entire concept is foreign to them and the simplicity of the control scheme is not going to change this. In large part, I believe, they do not want interactive anything. Games by their nature are interactive. These ideas may represent a new revenue stream, but I cannot see people who are non-gamers purchasing any of these systems to play minor/more simplistic titles. If their still-at-home kids possess one, then I can see them maybe be a little intrigued, but they are not going to go out and buy the system at any price. Like hiding adult jokes in a "SpongeBob Square Pants" video. The adults forced to watch it with their children may appreciate it, but they are not going to watch the show when their kids are gone.
Here's a few questions:
If Wii has the highest install base, mainly due to being bought as a cheap second console to the 360 and PS3 plus their dedicated following, but when it comes time to buy a multiplatform title like Madden, everyone buys it for the PS3 or 360, how much of a success is the Wii? If you are a developer, which version do you spend more time/money/talent developing? The more thought I have given to the Wii, the less interest, at any price, I have. Let's assume for the moment that in games like Tennis, there is a more complex control scheme available that allows and rewards you for controlling your characters feet. How many of use have screens of a size and a room of the size necessary to for 4 people to play? Even 2? Considering some of the livings rooms I have seen, my own included, they are oriented towards sitting, not standing or moving. There is no way to even use some of these features without reworking the room in some fashion. Will there be a requirement for each game to support standard control schemes on top of the motion sensing? What does this do to play testing and programming requirements for nice implementations of both? What about the gaming marathon when the equivalent of HALO3 comes out for Wii? 12 hour play sessions, sometimes more, for days at a time? I don't care how in shape you are, that is going to hurt.
Silenti said:
you missed RE4? man, that must've sucked!.. and f-zero was rather intense, i'd say.
btw, arguably the best fighter last gen, soul calibur, was multiplatform and ran on nintendo too.
try out metroid prime. sheez, you keep missing the good stuff!
you know, some of the darkest, most gruesome stories i've seen to date were in the comic books medium. i guess we just have different ideas of 'mature'.
and superman is such a mature, immersive story to begin with.. yes, poor CGI can really ruin it..
pal, you don't want me to get stared on the graphics in some of the 360 titles.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fun comes in many ways diferent people like diferent ways, it just hapeens that lot of people like Nintendo way. Plus it also seems they are trying to get more mature games for Wii.
I would disagre that one can compare a game to a film.
I guess I do have a very personall concept of imersion as I cant get any more imersive in Tetrys played in the GB than in any of this new machine with many colors and HD, or would a chess game be more imersive if the gfx look like pure crystal? No for me. Personally I cant think any thing here gfx beyond some point matter anymore unless 1) does have a direct impact on gameplay 2)are doing some very important job for this specific game (personally I think that in this case it is tied to gameplay too).
I know many people how dont play because 1)controls are too complex, 2) there are those how dont play because they think it is to expensive/takes to much time etc... 3) they jsut dont like the game that exist today.
1) I know many in this case and I think there would be many people how would like a game like RTS but this is by far one of the most complex, very hard to start dont you think this mean something for stop people playing.
2) People usualy like games like Tetris or BT but they would not pay much money for it, they like of it to relax, get some fun etc... others even like "normal" games but just tink they are too expensive, I also know many like those. (Opera, DVDs, all the domains, etc... can help a lot here, marketing it not as a gaming machine bit a entertainment one)
3) For example how many games for 360/PS3 would a woman like? Althought many like playing things like Tetris, Sims or Nintendo dogs. How many wouldnt like to go back home a make a few swings with Basebal (wii sports like) or Tennis or a Light Saber I think that many would like althought many of those would never play eg TopSpin.
BTW for every game we know you can perfectely well play it when sit down.
When people talk about the others they should also think in their perspectives.
I would disagre that one can compare a game to a film.
I guess I do have a very personall concept of imersion as I cant get any more imersive in Tetrys played in the GB than in any of this new machine with many colors and HD, or would a chess game be more imersive if the gfx look like pure crystal? No for me. Personally I cant think any thing here gfx beyond some point matter anymore unless 1) does have a direct impact on gameplay 2)are doing some very important job for this specific game (personally I think that in this case it is tied to gameplay too).
I know many people how dont play because 1)controls are too complex, 2) there are those how dont play because they think it is to expensive/takes to much time etc... 3) they jsut dont like the game that exist today.
1) I know many in this case and I think there would be many people how would like a game like RTS but this is by far one of the most complex, very hard to start dont you think this mean something for stop people playing.
2) People usualy like games like Tetris or BT but they would not pay much money for it, they like of it to relax, get some fun etc... others even like "normal" games but just tink they are too expensive, I also know many like those. (Opera, DVDs, all the domains, etc... can help a lot here, marketing it not as a gaming machine bit a entertainment one)
3) For example how many games for 360/PS3 would a woman like? Althought many like playing things like Tetris, Sims or Nintendo dogs. How many wouldnt like to go back home a make a few swings with Basebal (wii sports like) or Tennis or a Light Saber I think that many would like althought many of those would never play eg TopSpin.
BTW for every game we know you can perfectely well play it when sit down.
When people talk about the others they should also think in their perspectives.
Last edited by a moderator:
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
I believe this is the biggest misconception in gaming, and it's been lasting for years. Every month there's another article on 'why there aren't enough female gamers', or some such drivel.
Could it possibly be that women are different then men? That women need a different sort of stimuli in order to be entertained? That women in general, aren't likely to sit in a single spot doing the same repetitive exercise for hours on end by themselves?
You should watch my girlfriend workout. Sure, she does it for 3 hours a day. And during that time she goes through all different configurations of 'steps', ankle weights, free weights, pilates bands, medicine balls, and goes through an average of 4 different videos every day.
Do these things actually produce a more complete (balanced) workout? Maybe to some degree, but not really. The real reason is that all the switching and changing reduces boredom.
Which is why she'll play Snood for a half hour or so a couple of times a week, and then switch to bejeweled for a little while, instead of playing the Sims (which she bought) for hours on end. Sure.. she did when she first got it. Played it for about 2 hours and then got bored. Then bought an expansion pack, played that for an hour and got bored. Bought the Pets expansion pack and never even bothered to install it, because she'd rather go play a game of Snood for five minutes.
So are you saying that women don't like video games, or women don't like video games that are made for men? From what I gather, the majority of Nintendogs owners are girls.RancidLunchmeat said:
So maybe women do like video games, you just have to give them the type of game that appeals to them. Your girlfriend might like a workout "game" that includes Tae Bo, pilates, aerobics, etc...
Silenti said:
And yet, you settle for Judge Dredd, Last Action Hero, Godfather III, and Starship Troopers.
On a more serious note, I think Silenti is a great example of how popular consumer perception works against Nintendo. When most gamers think "Nintendo," they think of the first-party Mario, Donkey Kong, and Zelda titles. Period. They're not going to think of any of the 3rd-party exclusives because none of them have been solidly established as "This belongs to Nintendo." It doesn't matter that Nintendo will be getting 4 more exclusive Square-Enix RPGs on its platforms (Children of Mana, two Final Fantasy: CC titles, and Final Fantasy III). The three exclusive Namco RPGs don't count either. Resident Evil 4 doesn't matter in the slightest. They don't even think of Metroid or F-Zero. As far as they're concerned, Nintendo doesn't have any serious action/adventures or anything to even compete with Wipeout.
But on the Playstation, they think primarily of 3rd-party games (both cross-platform and exclusive) like Metal Gear, Madden, Burnout, Grand Theft Auto, and Final Fantasy. These somehow properly belong on Playstation. Any appearance on other platforms is an aberration to be ignored. And, unfortunately, this is a perception that I doubt Nintendo can change without a real marketing disaster of the PS3. They need Red Steel to be a Game of the Year title, Madden Wii to make a huge splash in EGM, and Crystal Chronicles Wii to break sales records to really grab the attention of gamers like Silenti, of whom there are legion. And I doubt that will happen.
Last edited by a moderator:
fearsomepirate said:
they say you can bring the horse to the water but you can't make it drink. i guess that at the end of the day those people who for one reason or another insist to not play on a nintendo console will find their reasons not to.. anything from 'but these are not the mature titles i meant - i meant exactly the *insert their favourite console here* titles!' to 'i can't allow to be seen playing a nintendo! i'm a pimply teen with maturity complexes and my peers will ridicule the living snot out of me' will do for a reason for those people.
fearsomepirate said:
People also have short memory (or, some people, depending of the person, can learn and change his mind) a good marketing based on games like Reed Steel, Resident Evil, Madden, CoD3, Medal of Honor ... would change that very fast for many people.
Really, they will not market this thing as a simple Nintendo console, they will probably make diferent ads for diferent people, for some they will present Nintendo games+ VC, for parents they will present it like a cheap fun thing that can even help the kids on school (BT like games), for older people they will present it like a multi feature machine very easy to use etc...
darkblu said:
I only consider the RE4 game a real miss. Tried an F-zero game previously and hated it, just didn't work for me. Played MP at a kiosk, didn't really care for it. As to the "comic book" medium, always disliked them myself. Too little takes place in a given issue for starters. Very few seemed to have transcended the medium. Neil Gaiman being a rarity. For Superman, not everything I play/watch has to be along the vein of the movies I mentioned, but more often than not they do. My statements regarding the majority of Nintendo titles stands. People didn't just stupidly tab Nintendo with the "kiddie" label, they earned it and seem ill inclined to change it. Afraid I don't know what your problem with the 360's graphics are. I'm rather pleased with the first gen so far. Granted I only play GRAW for now, still waiting for more games that are in line with my tastes at prices I would pay.
pc999 said:
That is very much my point. Graphics don't matter so much for certain kinds of games. I would argue they matter a great deal for say a FPS. If your game has a cartoon/cell shaded look, they don't matter as much even in an FPS or 3rd Person Shooter, but the closer you get to simulation and the farther from fantasy, the more it matters for suspension of disbelief.
pc999 said:
Here's some of the difference in our experiences then. I don't know anyone who plays/ has an interest in playing because of control complexity. The only complaint I have heard even close to game difficulty was "I don't like dying." Yet she still plays at times. She apparently wants a Wii. Not for any reasons relating to ease of use, but for nostalgia. She likes Mario.
pc999 said:
Please clarify. I'm not quite sure what you are saying here and I don't want to assume. Other than RTS is about as complex as it gets short of maybe some MMORPG's like Eve. Even that would be arguable.
pc999 said:
Strangely enough, the women I know who do play games, play YoHoHo Puzzle Pirates, Sims, etc. I'm still not sure why. They will play RTS sometimes, so it is not being intimidated by the control scheme. The closer to a sim the game comes, the less they seem to be interested in it. Oddly, they love to watch something like GRAW or HALO and shout out instructions, but are reluctant to play themselves. Haven't quite figured that one out yet.
pc999 said:
Please clarify. Sorry, but I have learned not to try to read too much into what people are trying to say when I have trouble figuring it out. Causes all kinds of trouble. I am trying to take others peoples viewpoints into account, the only people I know.
fearsomepirate said:And yet, you settle for Judge Dredd, Last Action Hero, Godfather III, and Starship Troopers.
On a more serious note, I think Silenti is a great example of how popular consumer perception works against Nintendo. When most gamers think "Nintendo," they think of the first-party Mario, Donkey Kong, and Zelda titles. Period. They're not going to think of any of the 3rd-party exclusives because none of them have been solidly established as "This belongs to Nintendo." It doesn't matter that Nintendo will be getting 4 more exclusive Square-Enix RPGs on its platforms (Children of Mana, two Final Fantasy: CC titles, and Final Fantasy III). The three exclusive Namco RPGs don't count either. Resident Evil 4 doesn't matter in the slightest. They don't even think of Metroid or F-Zero. As far as they're concerned, Nintendo doesn't have any serious action/adventures or anything to even compete with Wipeout.
But on the Playstation, they think primarily of 3rd-party games (both cross-platform and exclusive) like Metal Gear, Madden, Burnout, Grand Theft Auto, and Final Fantasy. These somehow properly belong on Playstation. Any appearance on other platforms is an aberration to be ignored. And, unfortunately, this is a perception that I doubt Nintendo can change without a real marketing disaster of the PS3. They need Red Steel to be a Game of the Year title, Madden Wii to make a huge splash in EGM, and Crystal Chronicles Wii to break sales records to really grab the attention of gamers like Silenti, of whom there are legion. And I doubt that will happen.
This is the kind of comment I find particularly funny. To my "casual gaming" friends, I am the hardcore. I delve into places like Beyond3d, avscience, arstechnica, have a history in the networking industry, setup and internet business when it was still hard to do, was asked to help design a few MUD's as well. To the crew on here, I'm not a programmer or an artist so I'm the "casual gamer." It just like politics, to liberals I'm a conservative, and to conservatives I'm a liberal.
My question about the Wii and its success stands. If it the most purchased, but the owners primarily use it as a secondary console and purchase multiplatform games on their primary, then how much of a success do you consider Wii? You want Wii to grab my attention? IT DID. Then I read about the implementation. Disappointing so far. I know people are tired of hearing it, but the name doesn't help shake the perception. It reinforces it. Do I REALLY care, no. What does it say about Nintendo's intentions and target audience that they would use a name like this knowing the consequences?
Similar threads
