Topic: Porting up is the future?

[idolminds]

Article

If we consider a handful of data points – the successes of Blizzard with World Of WarCraft; Valve with  Half-Life 2: The Orange Box and Left 4 Dead; Apple with the iPhone; and the near-ubiquity of Flash games – it’s clear that the most powerful hardware is not what’s required for a game or a platform to succeed.

Blizzard and Valve set their minimum specs lower than many of their competitors; as a result, more people can access their games. Put that together with the Wii phenomenon, and that’s why, in a recent discussion with some of my fellow game journalists, I suggested that rather than continue to lead development on 360, PS3 and high-end PC, developers and publishers should lead on Wii, PS2 and mid-to-low-end-PCs, then up-port those games to their HD counterparts. (Blasphemy, I know, but I don’t believe that developers and publishers can simply consolidate their way out of this lopsided state of affairs.)

[W7RE]

And you can make a shitty rehash compilation of puzzle games for next to nothing and make bank on it. That doesn't mean you should. At some point you have to agree that you're making games that you'd want to play, not what 10,000 soccer moms think little Billy wants to play. Just because it sells doesn't mean it's good. (though sometimes it does)

[idolminds]

I think your reasoning is part of the problem. Not that what you say is really *wrong*, but the Wii has this stigma that it can't have good games.

Last gen the PS2 was the leader, yet it was the weakest technically. They didnt just put shovelware shit on the PS2 either, and despite its popularity no one thought it was all for soccer moms. While Nintendo might be pushing into that demographic, that doesn't mean everyone has to.

I took his comment to mean "Why is everyone ignoring the obvious console leader in favor of better graphics and higher development costs?"

[Cobra951]

I find his logic flawed, though I have argued that basing the appeal of new games on system power is wrong myself.  The problem with the Wii is not its power, but its market alignment.  The people buying seem content with things like Carnival Games and Wii Sports.  3rd-party developers who attempted to bring more hardcore games like No More Heroes have not fared very well.  With the profitability of the first-party games and the hardware itself, Nintendo doesn't have to care.  There may be a potential Wii market for real games, but its owners are ignoring the possibility.  They're a company, and the bottom line is money.  Miyamoto is a company man.  He has shown that repeatedly.  His genius is in adapting quickly to wherever the company needs him to adapt.  Their marketing people are even less apt to rock the boat.  They're raking in the dough.  Why make waves?

The Wii may be the best-selling hardware, but it is almost intentionally disqualifying itself as a hardcore game console.  I.e., it doesn't matter how much it sells, not to Epic, or Rockstar, or anyone else trying to put out real games.  That's why they generally ignore it.  They're perfectly capable of producing good software for older technology.  They did it for PS2, didn't they?  But their current market is the 360 and PS3 user bases, and that's why it makes the most sense to continue making those their lead platforms, regardless of where the best technology is at.

Edit:  Looks like idol and I are in basic agreement.

[idolminds]

Its kind of a catch 22. The hardcores are on 360/PS3 because thats where the companies release their hardcore games. While you can point to the few hardcore wii games and say they don't sell...well, thats because the platform doesnt have that critical mass of core games to lure the hardcore over. I guess its a "If you build it, they will come" situation. If several companies all put out an awesome gamers game on Wii it would be too much to ignore, and you'd get the push you need to keep it feeding itself.

The PS2 was the same way. Everyone had a PS2 because everyone made games for the PS2 because everyone had a PS2.

*EDIT*

Another good example is DS and PSP. The DS was a gimmick and full of shovelware (and it still has problems with shovelware), but the install base was massive and people made "real games" for it and the gamers followed. The PSP was thought to be for the hardcore gamer, and while it does have some great games its popularity is nothing like the DS.

[Cobra951]

OK, but my point is that everyone does have the Wii, but for a different purpose.  No one is making games for sewing machines either.  Wrong market, and Singer, or whoever makes those these days, doesn't care.  They're happy with their thread and needles, and all the boatloads of cash their successful market brings in.  Looking at a bit of fairly recent history, it appears Reggie Fils-Aime (sp?) courted Rockstar a while ago, trying to get some form of GTA on the Wii.  You don't hear that anymore.  I don't anyway.  He doesn't have to go begging any third party to bring hardcore games to the Wii.  The damn thing sells itself.  First-party games lead the charts.  Mario Kart Wii sold something like 11 million copies already.

Edit:  In response to your edit, I don't think it's the same.  Firstly, Nintendo has always dominated portables.  They were not trying to come back from a position of weakness when they released the DS.  It may have been seen as gimmicky by some, and I personally hate the gimmicks being pushed at me in Nintendo's own DS games.  But this was seen as an evolution of the GBA and compatible with it all along.  It's just a logical next step, and it was accepted immediately.  The Wii was a risk, especially coming on the heels of the GC and the N64 before it, systems beaten down resoundingly by Sony.  Conversely, the PSP was Sony's similar risk.  They had never made a dent in portables before.  There is your unlikely success story, though not to the extraordinary extent of Nintendo's.

[W7RE]

Well Iw asn't trying to say it was a bad business descision to develop for the low end PCs and the Wii/PS2, then port up. Sure, it's a great business descision. It's one that gamers like me will dislike though.  I remember when games were being developed for the PS2, then ported up to the Xbox and GCN. That pissed me off. The games looks way worse than what the systems were capable of, and all because the PS2 had more users and it would sell more copies.

The soccer mom comment was directed toward the Wii. Sure there are lots of long time Nintendo fans who own a Wii for Nintendo's games, but I've come to understand that a substantial chunk of the sales is based on the lower price and the fact that it's not targeted at hardcore gamers. So "soccer moms" want to buy a game system for their kid, so they get the cheap and "fun" looking one, instead of the $400+ one which that's big for the bloody shooters you don't want Billy playing.

Let's say a new Half-Life game was about to come out, and Valve decided that it would make them more money to use the old HL1 engine because it would play on more systems. How about a new Resident Evil using PS2 level graphics, then ported to the PS3 and 360? I'd be pissed at Valve or Capcom for giving in to the mighty dollar and putting out games that look so bad just because more people have a PS2. Sure, you develop for the system you'll sell more games for, but not to the point that it's ridiculous. I realize that that almighty dollar rules all, but most developers got into gaming because they like games, and would like to make games that look and play good to them. I would hope that a little bit of integrity would keep them from stooping to something like the "develop for PS2 instead of PS3/360" comment.

[Cobra951]

I agree.  But another factor here is the diminishing returns.  As the display tech evolves, the differences from one generation to the next get smaller, and less noticeable.  At some point Mary Poppins wisdom becomes applicable: enough is as good as a feast.  You can't develop for N64 then port up to the PC.  But developing for a PS3 or 360, then porting up is much less objectionable.  The Wii wouldn't cut it either.

[W7RE]

Well yea. You can argue all day long about PS3 vs 360 graphics and I couldn't care less. But this:

I suggested that rather than continue to lead development on 360, PS3 and high-end PC, developers and publishers should lead on Wii, PS2 and mid-to-low-end-PCs, then up-port those games to their HD counterparts.

Without even looking up screens or videos I can tell you that the PS2 is noticeably less capable than the PS3 or 360, and especially modern day PCs. The Wii I haven't paid a lot of attention to graphics wise. I agree with most of what you both have been saying, I guess get worried that someone might get the bright idea of trying it. I wouldn't put it past someone like EA (who already milks for money with things like The Sims and it's 10 expansions per game) to make a move like this with a big title.

And yea, you can look at new graphics and feel like they're not making big jumps anymore, but they are moving forward in graphics. I guess it's just that jumping to HD is a bit of a leap, but I've been noticing how bad Halo 2 looks recently. Not really bad, but it's not really comparable to anything on my 360. See, I've been playing through Halo 2 on my 360, on my PC monitor. Once in a while I'll put in Halo 3 just so I can see the graphics I'll get to play with once I finish 2 and move on to 3. There is a difference, it's just hard to notice until you go back and say, "wow, I remember it looking better than that".

[MysterD]

Why should companies lead with Wii or PS2??!!? Those systems are pretty much aging pieces of hardware. They're nowhere near the power of the X360 or PS3. Nevermind even mentioning high-end PC's, which are definitely beyond the X360 and PS3.

If somebody's gonna port a Wii or PS2 game over to one of the higher-end systems in this day (X360, PS3, PC), the graphics are just gonna look extremely dated and washed-out on those higher-end systems of (PS3, X360, or PC) -- especially if the graphics engines, textures, and everything else isn't updated and enhanced to support these modern high-end systems.

But, that's how "porting up" should be done when you go from a weaker system to a stronger one -- enhance the hell out the graphics, engine, and everything else so that it feels like it belongs on its new platform. Take advantage of the superior platform and use it to your advantage.

[Cobra951]

Well yea. You can argue all day long about PS3 vs 360 graphics and I couldn't care less. But this:

Without even looking up screens or videos I can tell you that the PS2 is noticeably less capable than the PS3 or 360, and especially modern day PCs. The Wii I haven't paid a lot of attention to graphics wise. I agree with most of what you both have been saying, I guess get worried that someone might get the bright idea of trying it. I wouldn't put it past someone like EA (who already milks for money with things like The Sims and it's 10 expansions per game) to make a move like this with a big title.

And yea, you can look at new graphics and feel like they're not making big jumps anymore, but they are moving forward in graphics. I guess it's just that jumping to HD is a bit of a leap, but I've been noticing how bad Halo 2 looks recently. Not really bad, but it's not really comparable to anything on my 360. See, I've been playing through Halo 2 on my 360, on my PC monitor. Once in a while I'll put in Halo 3 just so I can see the graphics I'll get to play with once I finish 2 and move on to 3. There is a difference, it's just hard to notice until you go back and say, "wow, I remember it looking better than that".

That was my point.  I wasn't arguing PS3 vs 360.  I was saying exactly what you're saying.  Not the part about Halo 2 and 3, because I haven't played either; but even that supports my view.  It's hard to tell the difference until you compare side by side.  There just isn't that much difference anymore.  As long as we look at a flat screen in front of us for game visuals, there comes a point when the technology can do the job of filling it up well enough.  Think of audio for a second.  When's the last time you thought, this system sounds way better than my last one!  I remember that sort of awareness when going from an NES to an SNES, or an AdLib to a SoundBlaster.  Not anymore.  It's a solved problem.  Graphics are getting there too.  Took a decade longer, but they're getting there.

[W7RE]

Well, the thing is I don't really need to see Halo 2 and 3 side by side, or one after another to see that Halo 2 is behind the times. I'm used to seeing a clearer and more detailed picture, so when I look at Halo 2 I can tell it's an older game because it looks slightly inferior. It's the same way I feel about audiophiles. You can only tell the difference between a great sounding recording and an amazing sounding recording because you've paid close enough attention for long enough that you know it when you hear it. So if someone suddenly decided to develop for the PS2 and port to 360/PS3 without changing anything, the game would be ugly. I know that graphics aren't everything, but I love to see them when they're pretty. Maybe it's the artist in me, but it would take an exceptional game, or a lot of nostalgia to allow me to get used to really bad graphics.

As far as audio leveling off faster than video in gaming, I honestly think that's more about the fundamental difference in how they're used in gaming. Sound and music are just recordings. The creative element is something that usually can be heard by the naked ear, but since the shotgun or the violin aren't in the same room as us, so it's a recording that plays at the appropriate moment. Even spaceship engines and the growl of a nonexistant beast are usually just manipulated sound files that you hope to blend into what you want. Graphics on the other hand are created from scratch. It's been a while since I modelled anything, but when I did you would start with a 6 sides box and add corners and stretch them. Eventually you have something that resembles a person, or a gun, or a tree. It's a much more creative process because you're making something out of nothing. Until we have video recorders that can capture an object from all angles simultaneously, and animated at that, I don't think graphics will ever lose that level of creativity and room for growth.

Now I feel like I'm making less and less sense, and just rambling and making music and sound guys seem like deadbeats who get paid for nothing. Needless to say I enjoy the graphical creativity of video games. If given the choice, I would much, MUCH rather go deaf than go blind.

[gpw11]

This is a shitty blog post from shitty Destructoid, but i found it actually kind of interesting and think it applies here (at least somewhat):

http://www.destructoid.com/blogs/mistic/save-the-wii-before-we-kill-it--118443.phtml

[PyroMenace]

So, if you own a Wii and another console, maybe consider getting a multiplatform game in the Wii-format next time, sure it won't look as spiffy, but a lot of the times, the experience will be more fun then it's more serious counterparts, and isn't that what it's all about in the end, the fun you get from playing these games? Trust me, contrary to what a lot of us claim, there are some great experiences to be had on that white-waggle-box!

Hahahaha, Im not going to force Nintendo to try to make more core games by buying some of the shitty Wii ports. If they want to go down there casual game market and not make any more Zeldas or Marios that is absolutely fine by me. The Zelda games were getting stale and im betting this recent rendition of Mario is the best its going to get. Its time gamers moved on to other franchises other than what Nintendo has done. Theres always going to be a core gaming market. If one leaves another will pop up.

Who knows, maybe Nintendos success right now it only temporary. I almost feel like they are going to think too big of themselves again and go crazy and make something like the virtual boy losing their casual gamers, and those people will just go back to splooging on their Apple products and everything will be fine again. But thats mostly wishful thinking.

[W7RE]

Yea I kinda feel like Nintendo brought this on themselves. Well, not just kinda. Gamers have been referring to Nintendo as "kiddy" for years. Now, I enjoy Mario and Zelda (moreso when they were 2D), but they are cartoony and silly. That can be fun, but almost all of their games are like that. I'm not sure what drove the 3rd party devs away on the GCN, but it's obviously happening again. Then Nintendo comes out with the Wii, they push out Wii Sports, and then directly market non gamers. They also made the hardware cheaper, and ignored HD, so they could put out a less costly system that more casual people would be willing to buy. Did they really expect anything else?

There are enough games to go around on the other 3 platforms that you can enjoy being a gamer without a Wii. I'm not saying to avoid it, but why buy the inferior version of a game to help out the big N? They did this to themselves, and they did it in the name of easy money.

[Cobra951]

Well, the thing is I don't really need to see Halo 2 and 3 side by side, or one after another to see that Halo 2 is behind the times. I'm used to seeing a clearer and more detailed picture, so when I look at Halo 2 I can tell it's an older game because it looks slightly inferior. It's the same way I feel about audiophiles. You can only tell the difference between a great sounding recording and an amazing sounding recording because you've paid close enough attention for long enough that you know it when you hear it. So if someone suddenly decided to develop for the PS2 and port to 360/PS3 without changing anything, the game would be ugly. I know that graphics aren't everything, but I love to see them when they're pretty. Maybe it's the artist in me, but it would take an exceptional game, or a lot of nostalgia to allow me to get used to really bad graphics.

As far as audio leveling off faster than video in gaming, I honestly think that's more about the fundamental difference in how they're used in gaming. Sound and music are just recordings. The creative element is something that usually can be heard by the naked ear, but since the shotgun or the violin aren't in the same room as us, so it's a recording that plays at the appropriate moment. Even spaceship engines and the growl of a nonexistant beast are usually just manipulated sound files that you hope to blend into what you want. Graphics on the other hand are created from scratch. It's been a while since I modelled anything, but when I did you would start with a 6 sides box and add corners and stretch them. Eventually you have something that resembles a person, or a gun, or a tree. It's a much more creative process because you're making something out of nothing. Until we have video recorders that can capture an object from all angles simultaneously, and animated at that, I don't think graphics will ever lose that level of creativity and room for growth.

No argument with any of that.  I was saying that the PS3 and the 360 are close to that "good enough" plateau.  The PS2 and GC aren't, and weren't even in their day.  They fell visibly short of allowing full creativity and detail with good fluid visuals.

About audio, I meant the technology, not whether what we hear is recorded or synthesized.  Once you can do multiple channels of 24-bit audio at a high sampling rate across the entire spectrum of human hearing, you're done!  Too bad so sad for Creative if they can't convince people to upgrade sound cards anymore.  They are already what they need to be.  Graphics on high definition screens will get there too, and single-gen improvements are hard to see already.  Now if we move on to holograms . . .

[W7RE]

Now if we move on to holograms . . .

I often wish I were born during a time of higher technology. I want holograms. I want to visit Mars.

[idolminds]

I was reading something interesting the other day. Why doesn't Epic offer Unreal Engine 2.5 on the Wii? All these devs work with UE3, and using UE2 wouldn't be any problem to make games with. Seems like a lost opportunity.

[Xessive]

They never really seemed to take full advantage of the earlier engines, rather they seem to always jump onto the next iteration of the Unreal engine.

[scottws]

This thread is hilarious.  It reeks of fanboyism.

I don't see what the problem is.  It's like some of you are complaining that the Wii has the largest userbase which draws (or has the potential to draw) the attention from developers away from the "hardcore" (lol haven't heard the terms "hardcore" and "kiddy" since I was on IGN eight years ago) platforms, but at the same time saying the Wii is nothing but shitty casual games anyway so I don't get what you are bitching about.

Why does it have to be like that?  Who cares?  Don't like a Wii, don't buy it.  It sounds like most of you don't like anything on it anyway so the decision seems obvious to me.

As to the whole "system power" argument, I really could care less.  XBLA, and to a lesser extent Steam, has shown me that you don't need astronomical production values to make a game that is fun.  I probably play more Heavy Weapon than any disc-based 360 game.

[MysterD]

As to the whole "system power" argument, I really could care less.

The bigger companies that want to use cutting-edge graphics and technology, they're gonna head to the big three -- the PC, PS3, and X360. They'll just skip the Wii version, basically -- or they will make a special new iteration in a series and/or just remake of the game ONLY for the Wii, based around the Wii and its strengths (i.e. the control scheme).

XBLA, and to a lesser extent Steam, has shown me that you don't need astronomical production values to make a game that is fun.

Indeed. My examples: just see Mount & Blade, World of Goo, and Audiosurf. But, all of those titles lack something, for sure. Though, of course, these Independent games have a lot of soul and creativity you often just won't find in the bigger budget titles -- though these Indies often lack the voice-acting that many of the bigger budget titles have. And obviously, those games look nowhere as technically good as something say Crytek would put out; i.e. see Crysis and Crysis: Warhead.

If only somehow, there could be a way for more Indies to gain some of the higher-budget title luxuries and the bigger-budget titles could find some innovation and soul that often many of these Indie games own.

[Xessive]

I still play with little green army dudes. They're awesome. Also cheaper than a Warhammer 40k set.

I've always thought of high production value as a polish, a sugar coating. Obviously no matter how much you polish or sugar-coat a piece of crap in the end it's a piece of crap. If the basic idea is successful then there's a chance a high production value will only add to the product's appeal.

I guess in general I've always associated high production value with high gameplay quality just based on "well, if it sucked why would they have invested so much into making it?" then I lost my innocence and saw the naïvité behind my question.

[Cobra951]

I'm sorry that Scott feels compelled to turn the most in-depth discussion thread we've had here in months into something negative.  Observing facts and drawing conclusions is not fanboyism.  I bought a Wii with hopes and expectations.  Over a year later, they are still unfounded and unmet.  The unit sits silently just off to my left.  I bought the fucking thing along with the half-dozen real games it has to offer.  A fanboy is someone who argues blindly for the one platform his limited means allowed him to get, not someone who has consistently gone out of his way to experience firsthand as many avenues to gaming as he can.

The issue is not technology.  My feeling on that has been expressed repeatedly.  The Wii dominates the hardware sales.  Why isn't it the console of choice for good-game development?  I already provided my answer, and my reasons for that conclusion.  I am open to alternate conclusions to the obvious facts.  I am not open to insults from anyone who should know me better by now, and should just plain know better.

[W7RE]

Here's some fanboyism for you. I bought a Gamecube because Nintendo made it. I didn't care what games were coming, what games it had, or what developers were supporting it. I bought it because it was from Nintendo, and Nintendo has been the central part of my gaming since the NES. I just decided to skip the Wii because the gimmicky controller seems annoying, and my GCN collected dust. Nintendo is catering to a casual audience now, and I don't feel like that would cover my gaming wants. By casual I mean non gamers. Mothers who will play Wii Bowling or Wii Fit on the Wii they bought their kid for Christmas. The add to that the fact that I think Mario, Zelda, and Metroid were much better in 2D, there's not much left for me on the Wii.



Hey I just had a thought. Maybe this is part of a master plan by Nintendo to get everyone into gaming. They start with the stuff that non gamers will play, then slowly move closer to something long time gamers would like. Eventually, the non gamers are gamers and the industry as a whole has a larger customer base.

[Cobra951]

Haha!  I like that "conspiracy" theory.  String everyone along innocently into game addiction, er, fandom.

[scottws]

Cobra, my post was in response to comments Pyro and W7RE were making, not any of yours.  I agree with virtually everything you've said in this thread.  Just wanted to clear that up. 

I feel no need to defend the Wii and I'm not doing it here.  I've stated numerous times that whatever people thought about the Wii when it first came out is irrelevant.  The machine is fun way to spend some time with others, and that's about it.  While Nintendo themselves have released a few single-player titles and they have been quite good, the machine is primarily a multiplayer system.  Quirky baseball, tennis, golf, football, and mini-game games that you play with other people are its bread and butter.  Yes, the Wii brought along a more casual audience and game-makers are taking advantage of that.  So what?  You have to remember these companies' number one goal is to turn a profit.

You don't like the games on that are on the Wii?  Don't buy one.  Nintendo franchises seem getting stale?  Same answer.  I don't really understand the complaining here.

For people like Cobra that bought it in the hopes that it would be something else... well I don't really understand what else you could expect.  Nintendo consoles haven't been the go-to platform for hardcore gamers since the SNES.  I too had an N64 and a GCN and they had some games I enjoyed quite a bit, but I won't pretend I wasn't jealous of the hoard of good games that I couldn't play because that were only available on a PSX or PS2.

I personally never was under the impression the Wii would be some amazing revolution for Nintendo that would bring all the AAA 3rd party titles along for the ride.  I played Wii Sports with my brother and sister and had a blast.  That's what sold me.  The low price only further solidified my decision because I felt that even if I only had another couple of games, it wasn't that big of an investment to me in the first place.

Regarding the technological capability, I really don't care.  Don't get me wrong, I can salivate over graphics like anyone else, but they don't make or break a game for me.  All that matters to me is how much fun I have.

[Quemaqua]

Heaven forbid that anyone express dissatisfaction with a company and brands they've been loyal consumers of for years after said company abandons their interests.  How impudent of them.

[scottws]

Heaven forbid that anyone express dissatisfaction with a company and brands they've been loyal consumers of for years after said company abandons their interests.  How impudent of them.

How did Nintendo abandon the interests of their longtime fans?  They have released a Zelda, Metroid, and Mario game as well as other stalwarts like Mario Kart, and Super Smash Bros..  Those are pretty much all of their heavy hitters and they all were released early in the lifetime of the Wii, something that can't be said for the N64 and the GCN. 

With the N64 you had Super Mario 64 early, and then it was an extremely long wait until Zelda.  They released a second Zelda in short order but there was never a Metroid.

With the GCN you had SSB:M early, but none of their other major franchises for a long, long time.

What Nintendo is lacking now is help from 2nd parties.  The N64 would have been more of a glut than the GCN if it weren't for Rare.  Rare didn't do much during the GCN days, but Silicon Knights helped out with Eternal Darkness.  Even with the lack of meaningful games from 2nd parties considered, I think they've done better with their major franchises on the Wii than they did on the GCN.  The Wii SSB game is better, the Mario Kart is better, and the Mario is better.  Zelda is obviously the same on both and I haven't played the newest Metroid so I can't comment on that.

The stuff people loved about Nintendo is there.  I agree that for someone hoping for more top-notch single player experiences, the future with the Wii does not look bright.  I don't follow upcoming releases very closely anymore, but there doesn't seem to be much indication that Nintendo is going to release a sequel to any of its major franchises anytime soon, and third parties appear to be yet again ignoring the Nintendo console for major releases.  That's a shame I guess, but really it's par for the course.  I don't see what really makes the Wii a greater letdown than the GCN was.  There is more shovelware on the Wii, sure.  But Nintendo has actually done more this time around with their franchises than they have in the past.

In any case, again I repeat that the number one goal of any company is to make a profit.  Sure, they were making a profit with the N64 and GCN, but it was clear they were slipping.  The number of installed N64 units was somewhat of a disappointment, and GCN units alarming.  Now they have a large installed base and are rolling in cash.  I for one certainly would expect them to foster what is making them successful rather than try a strategy they had less success with.

Sure, they are milking their franchises to no end, but it's not really any different than Square Enix making yet another Final Fantasy sequel, spin-off, and movie.  It's not different than Eidos making yet another Tomb Raider, or licensing the concept to studios to make movies.  Again, it comes back to money.

You know, sometimes I wonder if Nintendo is really trying too hard to cater to a more casual audience, or I have just grown up or at least evolved as a gamer.  There are many facets to consider.  If you asked me today what my favorite genre was, I would say first person shooters.  I still enjoy good games in other genres, but it's really FPS games that get my blood boiling.  There was a time when the ever present platformer was my favorite back in the NES days but my tastes have changed a bit.  Also the technology has changed.  Super Mario World was a technological marvel when it was released.  Now everything is expected to take place in three dimensions and obviously there is going to be a change in gameplay when something goes from two to three dimensions.  I think it was W7RE who mentioned that he liked the 2D Mario games better.  I agree, and I still play the old Mario games emulated and have a blast.  Even the technologically primitive original is still great fun to play.  They've done a good job reinventing Mario in 3D (aside from SMS), but the 3D Marios are simply not the same.  Is Nintendo really failing to maintain pace with its fans, or are they still targeting the same audience they always have and the OG's (original gamers) have simply outgrown them?  It's not necessarily a bad thing.  It's not like without Nintendo there aren't any good games.

[W7RE]

Yea, I thought Mario, Zelda, and Metroid were all better in 2D. That's probably a really big part of me not paying much attention to Nintendo this generation.

I'd probably be really into the DS, except the touch screen feels forced and gimmicky. When my brother told me a new Nintendo handheld was coming out, I asked if it was smaller than the DS. He said it's about the same size, with bigger screens. Bah, I'd rather have another small single screen device. Plus I get motion sickness if I play in a car or a bus, so that cuts out a lot of the time I'd like to play it. I do steal my brother's DS once in a while to play Picross though.

[scottws]

Jennie's son has a DS but I can't really speak on it other than it seems to be a huge hit with the kids.  Practically all his friends have one.  I've never played anything on it myself.  Actually the GBA is really the only handheld I've spent any length of time with.

[gpw11]

Let me explain this simply:  The DS is like the best shit ever. 

[PyroMenace]

This thread is hilarious.  It reeks of fanboyism.

I don't see what the problem is.  It's like some of you are complaining that the Wii has the largest userbase which draws (or has the potential to draw) the attention from developers away from the "hardcore" (lol haven't heard the terms "hardcore" and "kiddy" since I was on IGN eight years ago) platforms, but at the same time saying the Wii is nothing but shitty casual games anyway so I don't get what you are bitching about.

Why does it have to be like that?  Who cares?  Don't like a Wii, don't buy it.  It sounds like most of you don't like anything on it anyway so the decision seems obvious to me.

As to the whole "system power" argument, I really could care less.  XBLA, and to a lesser extent Steam, has shown me that you don't need astronomical production values to make a game that is fun.  I probably play more Heavy Weapon than any disc-based 360 game.

While Im sure my comment was a little harsh on Nintendo, but I still wont admit the Wii is everything it was setting out to be from the start.

Anyhow, way to skew some comments into some ridiculous extremes. By your analysis you fit the perfect portrait of fanboy. There... now we're both guilty.