Is Wii bad for the games industry...?

[Entropy]

This point is mirrored in EyeToy. The original Play shifted millions of peripherals. Subsequent Play's were better games, adding coop for one thing, but were reviewed and bought far less because the novelty was gone. "More of the same" doesn't sell units over the long term. The games need to evolve.

I often wonder about this because real games don't change much.
Tennis hasn't changed, football doesn't change, chess hasn't changed nor has backgammon, golf is played now as it has been for over a century....

They all have very simple rules, the appeal lies in accessibility and the potential to improve your skills.

Why has computer gaming to date been so novelty driven? Economic reasons are obvious - produce a new shooter, reap new dividends from sales. But do gamers really have the same desire for novelty? Some do, obviously. And the industry will tend to accumulate these, as the people who prefer to build long lasting skills will gravitate to other pursuits. But we see in the success of mutually different games such as Starcraft, Sims, and to some extent WoW, that novelty isn't really necessary to be wildly successful, it suffices that the values you offer are compelling enough.

My feeling is that the industry generally cuts its own potential short by being so narrowly focussed on selling the old concepts and franchises in new and ever more expensive clothing.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Why has computer gaming to date been so novelty driven?

My guess is a combination of reward and sheer amount of experience.

For reward, sports are physical. It's not just the challenge of the game that appeals, but also the getting out and about. Games see you spending hours and hours in the same spot, same vague position (even Wii and EyeToy to great extent), and there isn't what I could call a kinetic experience, which has a particular appeal to people. For example people will happily waste an hour or two in the sunny chucking a disc back and forth between each other. No-one is going to play a computer game like that, just tossing a virtual Frisbee back and forth with online players. The appeal can't come from the 'game', but instead from actually doing something.

Regards quantity of experience, backgammon and chess aren't being reinvented every generation, but then people aren't playing these a few hours a day every day. Because computer games are experienced a lot, over time they wear thin. Unless you're seriously absorbed with a game, as some folk are chess, and others are some particular computer games, you need novelty to keep it entertaining. This is no different to TV and books etc. There aren't many passive entertainments a person can experience over and over again without getting tired. Where sights and sounds are concerned, we seem to get tired and fancy a change.

So even though practically computer games fit more into the realm of sports and games as an active pastime, on the perceptual level they fit in more with passive entertainments, fashion, and things that society is constantly reinventing. A style of car that was good-looking back in the 70s looks rubbish now. Same with clothes from Medieval Europe, and a lot of TV from the 50s, etc. Houses are another great example - people live in them day in, day out, and often fancy a change, whether a change of colour or furniture or whatever. And TVs are replaced, sets that were good being replaced with better sets as standards improve. Computer games have far more similarity with all these things.

 

[Entropy]

I think your analysis is spot on Shifty, separating the interactvity and the perceptual.

If anything, the Wii helps highlight the degree to which computer gaming in general does not resemble sports or physical gameplay, but rather resembles watching TV. The Wii extends that experience somewhat adding a more kinetic experience, and of course is then accused of being "bad for the games industry...".

I still wonder if the gaming industry isn't selling itself short seemingly spending most of its effort producing gaming equivalents of Spiderman3. (Same product but with more spectacular visual effects.) There is an audience for such products, obviously, and a quite vocal one here at that, but my argument is that the titles I gave as examples, and the success of the Wii demonstrates that other approaches have huge potential.

My other contention is that the desire for novelty, and the desire for satisfaction from building game play skill are somewhat mutually exclusive. Seen from the positive side, this means that producing titles that emphasizes skill building, (be it Q3A style, or Wii play style) is a market opportunity in addition to appealing to addicts of the new and shiny, and attracting a somewhat different, and therefore additional, group of people. Wins all around.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If anything, the Wii helps highlight the degree to which computer gaming in general does not resemble sports or physical gameplay, but rather resembles watching TV. The Wii extends that experience somewhat adding a more kinetic experience, and of course is then accused of being "bad for the games industry...". :smile:

Well for those that like the status quo and 'progression' of games if Wii were to turn games into something resembling sports with the same few games played forever, it would be bad!

I don't think that'd ever happen though. The kinetic possibilities of living-room entertainments just aren't going to compete with real physical activities. A complete shift to broad physical inputs like Wii and EyeToy would just produce a different yet still repetitive entertainment IMO. As long as you're watching a screen, I doubt they experience can be extended beyond though, although I'm not sure why that would be. I guess intrinsically people like reality, and virtual reality just doesn't cut it.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

I guess intrinsically people like reality, and virtual reality just doesn't cut it.

In general or just for sports? because I dont think people will really enjoy real life fps games. I already thought the beach landing in saving private ryan did a good job of trying to have me look the other way and that just lasted a couple of minutes. I doubt anyone would want to watch stuff like that for 20+ hours for fun. But yes for sports ofcourse the real thing is probably better. Though you have to keep in mind some people might not be able to play the real thing or might lack the skills. If you play in a low soccer team for example I could understand some people preffering a videogame as in the low teams sometimes people tend to just screw around and there isnt alot of fun and reward involved for playing, mostly you'll get annoyed because you might want to play well but the others just dont help you.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

In general or just for sports?

In terms of physical pastimes versus virtual. It's not just sport, but 'doing stuff'. How many people would enjoy a computer simulation of walking around a woods versus walking around a woods for real? Or casually chucking a Frisbees around, versus playing a game where you casually chuck a virtual Frisbee (in contrast to a Frisbee game with points, bonuses, boosts and special powers, etc.)? A lot of physical pastimes aren't trying to reinvent themselves to keep people interested, whereas games need to keep reinventing themselves as people lose interest. So of course no-one wants to play virtual games in real life, but if it is a choice between a real-life game like football as their only hobby, or a choice on one singular computer game, be it shooter, racer, whatever, I expect the majority who are doing the real-life pastime will find more enjoyment in the long run than those playing the computer game - those playing the computer game will get bored and want a new, improved game, whereas those doing the physical activity will be content for it to stay the same every time.

 

[AlphaWolf]

In general or just for sports? because I dont think people will really enjoy real life fps games.

You mean like paintball and laser tag? Quite a few people play them, there is even professional leagues.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

I can agree with that. Though your examples maybe arnt the best. Ofcourse walking in the woods is more ''fun'' in real life but that is more because you are getting fresh air, smell stuff etc, you dont do it so much for fun as you might play sports but more for the other things that cant be duplicated in games (yet). Same goes for frisbee. Its boring as hell, but on the beach in the sun with some friends its a oke way to pass some time and do some stuff together. The freesbee concept wont work in a game.

My brother would be the exeption to your rule though. He really likes playing soccer in real life, but he spend god knows how many hours on playing fifa and he really only cares about playing the matches and not stuff around that.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

You mean like paintball and laser tag? Quite a few people play them, there is even professional leagues.

I mean as a real life version of cod4, with guts and stuff flying around. Ofcourse paintball is different as you dont really get hurt by it and dont see brains splattering around.

 

[obonicus]

I mean as a real life version of cod4, with guts and stuff flying around. Ofcourse paintball is different as you dont really get hurt by it and dont see brains splattering around.

You usually don't see those in FPS games either. Soldier of Fortune is the notable exception.

 

[AlphaWolf]

I mean as a real life version of cod4, with guts and stuff flying around. Ofcourse paintball is different as you dont really get hurt by it and dont see brains splattering around.

That's only because there are laws and moral issues and the possibility of dying. If you could have a special pair of glasses or something that turned laser tag into rainbow 6 I'd be surprised if it weren't very popular.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I can agree with that. Though your examples maybe arnt the best. Ofcourse walking in the woods is more ''fun'' in real life but that is more because you are getting fresh air, smell stuff etc,

Yes, that's what I was getting at. This is why, going back to Entropy's point about sports etc. not evolving' I think those pastimes don't have to - because the being outside is in itself a reward to the activity. Inside, looking at screen, we get a different set of rewards, which get worn out in a way. Spending time on a nice day in the sun is always good. Playing a game, even a fabulous, gets tiring after a while and we want something new.

My brother would be the exeption to your rule though. He really likes playing soccer in real life, but he spend god knows how many hours on playing fifa and he really only cares about playing the matches and not stuff around that.

There are plenty more exceptions too, like WOW maniacs. Still, how many gamers are there in the world who bought a NES and happily play that same machine over and over without any interest in buying newer hardware and playing new gamers? Compare that to how many people are content to play the same soccer game all their lives, or go swimming, or cycling, or whatever. Consoles run with the fickle interests of man where we like things to be different. It's just the nature of the beast, and console developers hardware and software, have to keep changing things if they're to keep us interested.

 

[AlphaWolf]

WoW isn't really an exception, they keep adding content to keep it fresh or it would die.

 

[nintenho]

well I don't think the wii was designed with only the casual gaming industry in mind. The controls were supposed to be simpler and more intuitive but a lot of devs decided to just make casual games and now that's a very large part of the wii market. some games like Metroid Prime 3 use all of the Wii's buttons/functions and make a very enjoyable and fleshed out game. However, most devs probably can't get funding for something that creative/niche. It's a shame and I think that that market/stigma will continue with the Wii's successor but hopefully it won't be as bad. I hope that Nintendo and third-parties try to spread out from the casual gaming market and announce something good at E3.