The GHZ Forum

Also, they yell "fire", "flame" and "inferno".
So yes, we don't give a shit about their culture, they most probably don't give one for ours either. In the very end, it's better that way.

Also, Rob... okay, I can give that the Wii can't and won't kill the gaming industry as we know it, but as I said before, it sure as hell didn't reinvent it in any meaningful way, and as a bonus half of the old gameplay is rendered unplayable/ impossible unless you happen to have a Classic or GameCube controller. It's not supposed to work like that, you know; the games should be playable right out of the damn box.
It also outsold both of its "competitors" in hardware sales, but is nowhere near selling the same amount of software (you cannot count Wii Sports or Wii Play since they come free with the system and the extra controller, respectively), and that keeps the third parties from putting too much effort into developing an important title exclusively on it, because they'll most probably not see the sales' numbers worth it.
The NES and SNES, as well as the two first PlayStation consoles were truly successful by selling lots and lots of both hard and soft, the Wii's just a waggle toy for kids and grandmas (or at least that's what the horrible Nintendo marketing policy is telling me and the rest of the world).

Most of the Wii market is hardcore gamers. I forget the exact percentage, but it was more than 80%. If you think about it Nintendo's done a good job of marketing to both hardcore and casual gamers. I don't understand why everyone says that Microsoft and Sony are only aiming for hardcore gamers. I'm sure they wouldn't mind getting more casual gamers. Before the Wii it just wasn't a smart move to spend too much money aiming towards the casual crowd. It was a big risk by Nintendo that happened to pay off. The other two companies seem to be moving towards marketing to the the casual gamers more now with games like those buzzer game show games.

I don't think Nintendo has really stretched the market as much as everyone seems to think. I doubt they've expanded the market more than 8%, which is a very large amount, but not as much as everyone is talking about.

As far as I can tell Wii software is selling as well as the other consoles' (or better). It's just 3rd part software that isn't moving off the shelves.

edit: On second thought this had little to do with the subject, carry on

All this hub bub on the internet about under-performing 3rd party Wii software is kind of ridiculous. 90% of the Wii's 3rd party games are terrible, and most of the ones that aren't are the kind of obscure/niche titles (Zack and Wiki, No More Heroes, Trauma Center, Okami) that wouldn't sell any better on any other system.

The few actual blockbuster 3rd party games that the Wii has -- games with half decent production values, mainstream appeal, and major marketing -- have all done quite well. Raving Rabbids, Guitar Hero, Resident Evil, even Red Steel. Not all of those are great games obviously, but they do all serve to remind us that this "3rd party titles can't sell on Wii" wrap is pretty bogus.

Makes me think of this GoNintendo article (although the fact it's based on a /v/ post is a tad suspect).

I don't think there are just hardcore and casual gamers in the sense everyone seems to think. There are at least two kinds of what we would call a "casual" gamer: the FPS, sports and now music guys, the kind who would also play things like stealth games and action games like, say, Prince of Persia; and the really casual crowd, comprised of old people that may find Brain Age cool or something and 16-year-old girls who, in all factualness, don't play much besides Wii Sports, Warioware, Rayman Raving Rabbids and such.
I believe the latter kind are the ones who amount for at least 50% of the Wii's targeted demographic, and they're the most easily pleased crowd to ever consume a home video game system in the entire history. These are the people to whom most of the third-party efforts are targeted to since they can deliver AAA titles to hardcore and not-so-casual gamers on systems that actually cater to those demographs through the way they're marketed (i.e. the right one).

I'm not sure that the success of a third-party mini-game centric launch title counts as guaranteed success for any other endeavor on a different genre by a third-party developer, but I do acknowledge that this same kind of pandering also afflicted the GameCube even though it wasn't necessarily the same kind of marketing that led it to its demise, and I think that this warped logic coming from them has to do with the way Nintendo itself has worked with them for the past fifteen or so years.
Nintendo should really change the way they relate with the other developers so to make them know that they mean to appeal to as many people as possible, and that includes not only exclusive contracts with Capcom for specific franchises that will subsequently underperform on their machine and eventually appear on more popular systems on which games get better sales regardless of the developer, but also to quit targeting and devouting 80% of its commercials and general public image to a demograph that simply won't buy other people's games because they are "too complex/ fantastic/ realistic/ hard".

In short, I think that bad third-party games on Wii aren't the place were the problem begins, but where it ends.

^Great post.

Also my greatest worry about the Wii is not the fact that right now it has almost no real games but instead is flooded with pathetic shovelware. Not, it's the fear that this trend might take over the other consoles as well. Apparently it's possible to make easy money by selling shit games to inexperienced casual gamers and make tons of money with that - so why produce real games anymore?
Another reason I hate the Wii is how ever since its release, Nintendo kept on butchering their old franchises to make them simple and shallow enough for casuals. Take Twilight Princess for example, it's got few unique ideas, is rather poor in execution for a Zelda game (but still a great overall game) and lacks sidequests or any reason to go back to it after beating it. It's also pretty unrefined - the Twilight Realm is cool, too bad it disappears forever after about 1/3 of the game. And the wolf form is also another wasted opportunity. It's fresh and interesting if you only transform in the Realm, but as soon as you can (and must) do it in normal Termina, it just gets annoying. And other small things like the uselessness of items outside the dungeon you found them in and so on.
Or Super Mario Galaxy, the in my opinion worst 3D Mario platformer thus far. Graphics are pretty, music is great... but it lacks substance. It almost never offers at least a bit of a challenge, except perhaps in a handful of missions (Purple Coins in Toy Time is very hard though, but at the same time the most fun level in the whole game. Makes you sad there isn't more of it.), and the whole Wiimote support and star bits affair are both quite tacked-on and don't really add anything. But the worst part is the level design. Often fun the first time, the stages offer absolutely no reason to go back after you got each star once: They're too linear and closed to explore them like you could in previous 3D outings, but at the same they're too tedious and "long" to just play them for a burst as you could in the 2D Marios.
I think both these major disappointments were what turned me into a Wii- and modern Nintendo-hater in the first place. It's really saddening how Nintendo rapes its own past and scares away its fans. Then I go back to playing Wind Waker or Sunshine (best 3D platformer ever btw) on my GC and am amazed at those masterpieces, with the bitter taste of all this being gone now.

Dude. If you really do personally prefer Sunshine over Galaxy, that's fine, but I think you need to acknowledge that you are in the minority there. Galaxy is one of Nintendo's real greats! It might not be your cup of tea but that has nothing to do with it being "butchered" or "dumbed-down" for casual players.

It sounds like you just didn't dig the more linear obstacle course-style stages... just like many other people didn't enjoy Sunshine's focus on endless, endless non-linear coin collecting. But that's a personal preference, not a casual/hardcore distinction. The same goes for people who like/dislike Twilight Princess's focus on dungeons over sidequests.

People like to attack Nintendo for this now that "casual" is the new dirty word in the gaming industry. (Replacing X-treme, I think.) But quite frankly, outside of Wii Sports, Wii Play, and Wii Fit, Nintendo's Wii output is no less "hardcore" than what they were doing on the Gamecube, which had it's own mix of traditional (Metroid, F-Zero) and more accessible (Mario Party, Animal Crossing) titles. As far as I'm concerned, the only thing that's changed is the marketing.

I always thought that if Sunshine dropped the "clean shit up with water pump" mechanic, the blue coin hunt, the retarded attempt at a plot, and some of the more ridiculous death penalties, it would've been right in par with Galaxy and maybe even SM64. I'd kill to see a Mario game that has the same set-up as 64, the same scope as Sunshine, and the same epic, grandeur, nostalgia-ridden presentation as Galaxy all in one package.

This current console generation has left a bitter taste in my mouth ever since it first began 2 years ago. The Xbox 360 has basically become the PS2 of this generation in the US, but everyone else in the world (especially those Japs) still don't acknowledge it. The PS3 was too expensive for most middle class citizens when it first came out and was generally ignored. I kind of admire Nintendo's campaign for attracting non-gamers, although it would be nice if there were more Wiis to go around. I wouldn't be surprised if another video crash were to happen in the near future.

Esrever wrote:It sounds like you just didn't dig the more linear obstacle course-style stages...

Yet when Sonic does it, there's constant whining about bottomless pits. I mean sure, there's a serious lack of polish to Sonic games, but why is the same formula considered the downfall of one series considered the saving grace of another?

Also, from what little I've played of Galaxy, it seems overwhelmingly overrated.

One Classy Bloke wrote:Also, from what little I've played of Galaxy, it seems overwhelmingly overrated.

Seriously, this is key.

The brilliance of Galaxy is it's ability to constantly surprise you with each new stage. It's just overflowing with an impressive amount of imagination.

Linearity and bottomless pits have been components of many of the best Mario games... that kind of design works for Mario because he has solid acrobatic controls and doesn't travel at 400 miles an hour.

I regard both Sunshine and Wind Waker as the darkest spots on both series franchises. They both felt like they were aimless and had no sense of direction. Wind Waker had this world that was way too big and frankly had very few actual interesting things to do. Sunshine's main mechanic was fun for the first few hours and then I felt it got boring - it didn't have the longevity. And frankly, the tropical island and water theme both games had got very old for such big games, with few variations in it for both of them.

That's what I said before. All Sunshine needed was a theme overhaul and no extra gimmicks and it would've easily dethroned SM64.

Esrever wrote:The brilliance of Galaxy is it's ability to constantly surprise you with each new stage. It's just overflowing with an impressive amount of imagination.

Linearity and bottomless pits have been components of many of the best Mario games... that kind of design works for Mario because he has solid acrobatic controls and doesn't travel at 400 miles an hour.

Something that the Sonic series is in dire need of.

One Classy Bloke wrote:

Esrever wrote:It sounds like you just didn't dig the more linear obstacle course-style stages...

Yet when Sonic does it, there's constant whining about bottomless pits. I mean sure, there's a serious lack of polish to Sonic games, but why is the same formula considered the downfall of one series considered the saving grace of another?

Also, from what little I've played of Galaxy, it seems overwhelmingly overrated.

Play it further, you'll like it even less. I loved it the first time I played it, then as I started collecting 60 Stars slowly lost interest and after the far too easy and soon Bowser boss fight I began to hate it. I collected all the 120 stars so I could say I completed it and became the jaded hater you read here.
Also about linear Sonic stages being bashed: They weren't like that in the olden days. There were few to no bottomless pits, lots of branching paths and actual platforming parts and so on. The post-SA1 stages ditched all of that, spare Sonic 06 (which still had bottomless pits, but at least open levels with platforming segments).

Esrever wrote:The brilliance of Galaxy is it's ability to constantly surprise you with each new stage. It's just overflowing with an impressive amount of imagination.

Which you'll play once (for each star). I agree with you there, but where's the replay value? My favourite sort of game is the one that you can beat once but then can still go back to, to unlock stuff, to beat high scores/time records, or just to enjoy myself. Galaxy has nothing of any of these.

It sounds like you just didn't dig the more linear obstacle course-style stages...

Linearity and bottomless pits have been components of many of the best Mario games... that kind of design works for Mario because he has solid acrobatic controls and doesn't travel at 400 miles an hour.

In the 2D Mario games (not saying "old" because I <3 NSMB), Mario was fast and agile though, in Galaxy he's clunky and slow. Or it just seems like that because he's constantly on small spheres and flat but small planets which don't even let him go as fast as he could. In the 2D Marios, the level were linear platforming levels, you'd slowly advance forward through them the first time you play them but as you replay them you'd keep getting better and faster, eventually able to gracefully run though them with well-timed jumps and moves. Galaxy always limits you to tiny globes or surfaces with wacky gravity, and you can't really go fast because you're always caught on them before you kill/activate/collect shit. So you can move to the next small planet.
And remember Sunshine had these FUCKING AWESOME, surreal sublevels that you could access in usually 2 missions per main level, which are half the reason I <3 the game so much. They were very challenging, fun, and the closest a 3D Mario has ever come to the 2D ones. Too bad you're given FLUDD from the second time on you enter them. :(

just like many other people didn't enjoy Sunshine's focus on endless, endless non-linear coin collecting.

It had one or two of these per stage. But all Shines of a level were very unique to get, always giving you a refreshing way to the goal that has not been before. Reducing SMS to the (optional) blue coin collecting is just silly. Also SMS's stages were so open and huge that I would often just enter them to explore them, to toy around with FLUDD, or to approach different solutions to a mission I've beaten before. Whereas SMG's levels are more or less always them same when you play them.
EDIT: Also climbing to the very top of Noki Bay, and then diving down into its water, what an amazing feeling.

Using "<3" to say "love" is so gay.

Before this argument continues, has anyone noticed something wrong with the thread title?

No, amgios, I have noticed no such problem at all.

Not amgios, amgio. There is the problem; there's only one of 'em.

I don't really feel I can give a solid argument until I've fully played Galaxy, but my preference in platforming gameplay is exploration-based. I actually think Super Mario Sunshine is excellent and the FLUDD was pretty cool for getting about.

I don't like this whole linear obstacle course style Galaxy has. It seems like cheap, mission based "jump on that shit, spin that shit, fly to that shit, point and grab that shit" crap to me. As I've noted, it lacks replay value, because you simply do the same shit again and again. You don't get different routes or solutions to situations. It's like riding the same slide a hundred times in a row.

That's my observation from three hours of gameplay. Maybe Nintendo is up to it's old tricks again and brainwashing people during the final boss, as they did with Earthbound.

Although Earthbound is awesome.

Y'know, I didn't mind sitting through a laundry list of PPA's complaints on Mario Galaxy the first time. Because it was in the Mario Galaxy thread, and the whole point was to read each others' opinions on the game. You among others didn't like it, other people did like it, and the game's not changing for either camp. No one is brainwashed. No one has forgotten what "Mario is all about." We just want different things from our games and Galaxy hit the pleasure center of some of our brains harder than others. Didn't we just get done talking about this principle in the Unleashed thread?

And these lengthy point-by-point posts on a dead topic are nauseating. If you didn't care for the game, just coldly condescend to the people who liked it, like we usually do here.

I just wanted to participate.

I wasn't talking to you. Your posts fit on my screen.

Sorry, I sometimes get a bit carried away. *ahem*
Usually when and opportunity arises to spout my questionably relevant opinions about "Sonic 2/Twilight Princess/Mario Galaxy/the Wii sucks" and/or "go Sonic CD/Mario Sunshine". >_>

...by the way, where did the smilies go?