Wii success will not last, says developer

EA's CEO Riccitiello: "Unfortunately we backed a little bit on the wrong horse in focusing so much on PS3 and Xbox 360, and [by focusing] to a lesser degree on the Wii." Full article at Gamasutra.

Edit: add quote - "after so many transitions guessing exactly right, we got this one a little bit wrong, and we're dealing with it now with strong investments on the Wii."
 
Sure.. but do you know howm nay games were possible with a gamepad and just wouldn't work with a Wiimote? (2/2.5D Fighters for one..)

Every peripheral comes with game types that it can and can't do well (ever tried playing a 3rd person adventure with non-FPS controls on the PC..? THE most horrendously poor input method for games like DMC, tomb raider and spiderman..)

The problem is the Wii was supposed to bring with it new genres it inexplicably would define through the innovations in thwe controllers design..

So far we've seen WiiSports, DS ports (Warioware, brain training), gamecube ports (same game.. now with added waggle!) and party games..

[rant]

Where has all the innovation gone nintendo..?
(not that i'm suprised.. these guys spend the past 10 yrs rehashing the same characters/games they put out on the NES.. Not the most original when it comes to content in my view..)

[/rant]


Is this like a time warp from a few years ago. I could replace Wii with DS in your rant during the first year of the DS life. It is going to take time for the ideas to show up on the market.

I would love to try out a Wii but I still have yet ever see on in stores. I even did my first real Wii hunt for MP3 last week. 2 targets 2 kmarts walmart all sold out did not make me happy.
 
Is this like a time warp from a few years ago. I could replace Wii with DS in your rant during the first year of the DS life. It is going to take time for the ideas to show up on the market.

I would love to try out a Wii but I still have yet ever see on in stores. I even did my first real Wii hunt for MP3 last week. 2 targets 2 kmarts walmart all sold out did not make me happy.

I lucked out in December and got mine with about 45 minutes of looking around. After missing out at Futureshop (Canada) I just showed up at an EB Games (Canada) and asked if they were getting any in. The guy said there would be some coming in the following day, and he reserved one for me. I picked it up a couple days later. His coworkers seemed to be mad he put it aside for me, but I'm not complaining.


I think it's way too early to say whether the Wii will show some real innovation, but there's definitely nothing wrong with the experience right now. I've had fun playing the games I own. There are a number of titles I'm looking forward to, so I don't think it will be a regrettable purchase.
 
So if I built a holodeck and than a game thats no different in any aspect of what is bolded then somehow my holodeck game or the holodeck itself would be in no way a revolution in gameplay?
Is playing chess or tennis in a holodeck a revolution in gameplay to playing chess or tennis in real life?
 
An Wii Sports: no I havent played it for long, but I can attest that it doesnt care at all for spatial movement, you can beat the ball the same way if you just rotate the wiimote compared to doing a full swing.

That is just simply not true, see Jandar's post. In that case, you didn't get how it works, that's all.
 
Is playing chess or tennis in a holodeck a revolution in gameplay to playing chess or tennis in real life?

Yes it would be. For a start physics could be adjusted to different degree's to make me not utterly shit at Tennis :) That to me would already be revolutionary.. Not to mention being able to play any time of the day, no weather problems, no problems scheduling a game with my AI partner (as opposed to a real person) ect
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is playing chess or tennis in a holodeck a revolution in gameplay to playing chess or tennis in real life?

You would be going from reality to actually running in place and swinging a tennis racket or sitting down at a table before my opponent and moving pieces in a virtual enviroment "in which objects and people are simulated by a combination of replicated matter animated with weak tractor beams, as well as shaped force fields onto which holographic images are projected. Sounds and smells are simulated by speakers and fragranced fluid atomizers, respectively. The feel of a large environment is simulated by suspending the participants on force fields which move with their feet, keeping them in one place (a virtual treadmill). Perspective is retained through use of sound damping fields and graviton lenses, which make objects, people, and sounds appear to be more distant."

You are in a enviroment that mimics reality that requires nothing other than yourself. In other words, go in a small room thats empty and try have fun playing real tennis or chess by yourself.

Gameplay is a very ambiguous term so I guess it really depends on the definition that you adhere to, but to me gameplay is defined by how a gamer interacts with a game physically and emotionally.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You would be going from reality to actually running in place and swinging a tennis racket or sitting down at a table before my opponent and moving pieces in a virtual enviroment "in which objects and people are simulated by a combination of replicated matter animated with weak tractor beams, as well as shaped force fields onto which holographic images are projected. Sounds and smells are simulated by speakers and fragranced fluid atomizers, respectively. The feel of a large environment is simulated by suspending the participants on force fields which move with their feet, keeping them in one place (a virtual treadmill). Perspective is retained through use of sound damping fields and graviton lenses, which make objects, people, and sounds appear to be more distant."

You are in a enviroment that mimics reality that requires nothing other than yourself. In other words, go in a small room thats empty and try have fun playing real tennis or chess by yourself.

Gameplay is a very ambiguous term so I guess it really depends on the definition that you adhere to, but to me gameplay is defined by how a gamer interacts with a game physically and emotionally.

I can tell someone's been watching waaay too much Star Trek.. :rolleyes:
 
You would be going from pushing buttons on a controllers
Not in real life, which is what I said. Even then, if you compare games, if the games differe in no aspect to the bits you bolded, it'd be the same game. If you change the way the player interacts, than the aspect bolded is no longer maintained. As it is, the aspects T Ghost bolded I don't think are true, because the obstacles placed in the player’s way in order to difficult him to reach victory status are different. The obstacle is moved from being one of hand-eye coordination and fine digital motor skills and timing, to various larger movements, different muscle controls, 'pointing' control, and such.
 
Not in real life, which is what I said. Even then, if you compare games, if the games differe in no aspect to the bits you bolded, it'd be the same game. If you change the way the player interacts, than the aspect bolded is no longer maintained. As it is, the aspects T Ghost bolded I don't think are true, because the obstacles placed in the player’s way in order to difficult him to reach victory status are different. The obstacle is moved from being one of hand-eye coordination and fine digital motor skills and timing, to various larger movements, different muscle controls, 'pointing' control, and such.

I changed the previous post to reflect the proper reading of your post and I agree with what you are posting here.

But you have to agree that there is something revolutionary about going from playing a tennis match against a virtual McEnroe in his prime than playing one of your poorly skilled cronies and placing an imaginary face of McEnroe over your opponents face and him yelling "Who the **** is John".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top