well first party games are by far rated (T) that means there wont be games that  are good for all consumers specialy who love (M) and (A) rating.

NO saint row, no blackops, no gta ,

Actually make sure your responses are clearly referring to something in the quote; that entire line was horrendously non-sequitor

all the last few months have taught me is this: that consumers are dumb as hell, 3rd parties apparently can't do anything with Nintendo systems unless their hands are held every step of the way, and if someone tries to act like they know anything about advertising and marketing then it's advisable to promptly ignore them. It's worked well so far.

these issues are typically resolved in advanced. So looks like any doomsaying got negated quickly

y'know, we need a new section for badly written articles like this. We should call it "Riffwords: My god Games Journalism is Bad"

Why does everyone think ditching the Wii U is a good idea? That'd probably make Nintendo lose more money plus lots of people would be ticked about having their fairly new console obsolete so quickly.

Because Western media pundits have no attention span and can't grasp the concept of long-term thinking. Hell, Western gaming in general can't seem to think long-term as evidenced by reducing themselves to living from one AAA release to another. Not exactly a stable model to live on.

Ahaha...AHAHAHHAQHAHHAHAHAHA! Oh man, IGN never cease to disappoint me in how dumb they are. That's just rich.

....really? HORRIBLE news? They still turned a profit despite that fact that Q2 is historically a lean period for gaming in general. Calm the hell down. Furthermore, what makes you think they HAVEN'T got plans even well before those results?

multiplayer is a big deal these days as not only do you get a full campaign game, you also get an online separate game giving the gamer more for their money.

In theory; most of the time it's just a waste of resources, energy, and money. You're better off doing one or the other rather than trying to do both.

I'm just wondering why this game has multiplayer in the first place. Seems like a waste of resources. Furthermore, considering Splash Damage's last game didn't light the world on fire I'm getting the feeling we're not missing much.

yeah, that was a non-answer. Real answer, I would guess: "We're just too lazy." God, today's dev talent is comprised of too many spoiled brats who can't even wipe their own ass.

Unless there is an XP or Leveling system implemented, then enemies would level up as you do

Except those never work. In Skyrim for instance you'll just plow through enemies like a hot knife through butter despite the fact that they're the same level as you. And why does this dilemma exist? Because the player earns more than just more Health or Mana, they also learn new abilities, something that the enemies never get. So the difficulty durve in Skyrim not only never goes up, it actually DECREASES.

Another reason an open world Zelda wouldn't work is this: level design. Zelda's dungeons and just maps in general are an intricate clockwork of architecture and structure. Thing is, in an open world game the level design actually has to be very similar otherwise the difficulty curve makes no sense. And that is why it could never happen. Levels in Zelda get more and more complex little by little as the game progresses in a very precise manner in order to balance player resources, specifically tools, in order to be challenging but never irritating. If you take away the pacing then the game just becomes a bunch of samey dungeons which is a serious blow to the design.

There's more
 

 

I take back what i said, i don't think bias played any part in this.

...Not selling the 3DS. Well, there's definitely some idiocy going on here and it's not on Nintendo.

Yet another wishlist pandering to the more shallow expectations of Zelda players. The Skyrim part especially makes me call BS as if you made a Zelda open-world then the pacing and difficulty curve would be DESTROYED.

reading Digital Foundry is like watching The Deadliest Warrior; it's a bunch of idiots sloppily doing tests despite not knowing what the heck they're doing or talking about.

Square Enix would like to have a word with you, also how is that ironic?

Because people like to whine and moan about Zelda and Peach (and their chronic kidnapping syndrome), unaware that Nintendo probably has more positive and diverse female protagonists than almost the entirety of every other company in the gaming industry. As for Square, they DID have good female protagonists. In the past. Not so much anymore.

Ironic how Nintendo seems to be the ONLY company putting in female characters in their titles.

definitely a possibility; Atlus has been putting out more and more games for Nintendo systems, such as the Devil Survivor series, Soul Hackers, Etrian Odyssey, and now Shin Megami Tensei IV. Furthermore, I don't see Nintendo letting SMT x FE die. The thing is, pretty much EVERY Japanese pub has issues right now. CAPCOM just laid off staff (though it was from their American branch), SEGA has been having money troubles for awhile, Square Enix is a mess, Sony is on the brink of the PS4, etc and I doubt Western companies would even cast a second glance at Atlus.

a lot of it seems like lazy devs, though because developers have let production become so complex it's turned counter-intuitive. Furthermore, it seems like ALL devs just want every system to be the same, thinking you can just press a button and get the exact same result every time. It doesn't work that way.

Agreed.  I think dev teams as well as marketing budgets are becoming extremely over inflated.  Obviously to the point where they aren't able to even recoup costs on games most of the time.  

One of the problems regarding dev teams is that they're just throwing HUNDREDS at development, thinking it's an easy way to get things out faster. It's like trying to make a cake and thinking you can cut down on the baking time by just doubling the temperature. Doesn't work like that. For SOME games, large dev teams are inevitable (like Grand Theft Auto, The Elder Scrolls, and ANY MMO), but I don't see why we need 600+ man dev teams for everything. Pubs have become one-trick ponies by just doing blockbuster after blockbuster instead of doing blockbusters, but also SMALLER projects throughout the years.

It isn't which is the point I was making.  It's actually very easy to code for, but a little harder to completely optimize (considering its the platform with the most divergent architecture and the most custom logic, and actually incorporates bold new hardware direction) whereas you'll see more out of the other platforms earlier on but it will more than likely stagnate, because more RAM can only take you to a point where you have a beautifully detailed slideshow presentation, it doesn't actually help performance at all.  The GPU performance difference for what we know of the Wii U GPU logic and the PS4's advertised specification aren't spread enough to make a big difference performance wise, especially considering they can both technically do all of the same things, however Nintendo has added custom logic to make certain things more efficient (we can speculate about what it is, but I think this makes sense as is).

i.e., too many devs are obsessed with doing only brute force methods, which there's a limit to how much you can do with that. Like with the Wii architects realizing that consoles were going to start seeing diminishing returns in graphical quality boosts, they realized that simply through ever increasing amounts of RAM at the thing is not going to help performance further down the line. Best gt used to it NOW rather than later.

Nintendo = franchises. Blockbusters.

If it doesn't make money, it stops being made.

Mario 64, the Rare N64 games, Metroid Prime, etc. all had high production values for a Nintendo game. They really went for it.

Then with the Wii they got lazy.

They got away with it because the world was ready for a casual market. That was a fun pit stop that has been taken over by mobile devices.

It's a blockbuster world. That's why people were clamoring for a Mario Galaxy scope of a game and disappointed in the excellent 3D World announcement.

Nintendo is most definitely "blockbuster."

But when they venture away from that, that's when they get bit.

People want great games that are fun to play, have great graphics, interesting stories (single player), and protagonists they care about. Franchises provide that.

But Nintendo needs to market!

It's obvious they've put the development time a nd production values in. The upcoming wii u titles look insane. But all that will be for peanuts if they don't market.

They stated their mission was the recapture the core audience. If they don't market, then they only sell to their dwindling fans, who are being won over by the prospective marketing of Sony.

Market the games to everyone. On tv. On the r audio. In print, YouTube commercials, etc. put banners up at GameStop. At the malls, etc. don't post stupid chart/spreadsheet/explanations...

Ubi soft gets it.

A few years ago, no one was talking about them. Now, with great Rayman commercials, lots of Watch Dogs marketing, etc., everyone is talking Ubi.

That's because they are marketing.

You have to have a good product. Thy do. So does Nintendo. But you have to market it. Sell it. Saturate people's brains with it.

Especially when they release so few games each year.

-leans forward-

They don't care. It's not how they do things, it's NEVER been how they do things because it's just not their style. They choose their actions carefully and doing a bunch of stupid, loud, same-as-everyone-else, wannabe-Hollywood marketing is not something they're interested in doing and there's a good reason for that. They'll advertise when the time is right. That is all.

Quite true.  The beauty of the RAM limitations for the PS3 and 360 (it was limited even for 2006) was that it forced them to work harder to actually improve the visuals over time, and they have done a wonderful job with it over the years.  Of course devs are always going to want more RAM.  That will never change.  Whether they are willing to learn to develop for a particular platform in the end comes down to whether they believe that they can make money on that platform.  Wii U can do anything the other consoles can do for the most part, its just a matter of how much effort developers are going to put into extracting that performance.    The good thing is that its actually the PS4 that is the odd man out.  That's the platform where I think developers will get a little lazy with their memory management.  XB1 is architecturally more similar to Wii U, just with a larger main RAM pool, which in the end isn't going to be the limiting factor for any of the consoles.  Dev talk is swirling that XB1 performs more like Wii U as well.

 

Using anecdotal evidence from developers who have released games on the platforms, we have a system that is really easy to develop for, but a little more difficult to completely optimize.

Which is what devs HATE nowadays; they hate having to actually put EFFORT into making something work. They want to able to just push a button and have everything be perfect. This is what happens when you let game development become prohibitively expensive. If it has gotten to the point where doing a simple port is too much work, then that is a problem with YOU, not the system. This is why indie devs have had absolutely no trouble with the system while big names whine and moan CONSTANTLY.

Nintendo needs to listen to these guys about marketing. We do live in a blockbuster world and never has that been more apparant than with the damage done by not marketing wii u, no matter how heavily invested in the hardware and software are.

Gone are the days of " if you build it, they will come."

Now you have to build it. Then advertise like mad.

And Nintendo goes AGAINST that typical blockbuster mindset because it's not who they are. Ubisoft (and by extension a LOT of other publishers) try to do this blockbuster mindset with EVERY game they release and that's not a good business strategy. This is like if in Hollywood EVERY film needed at least a $100 million budget (including the Oscar bait titles). Nintendo realized before everyone else that that mindset wasn't a good one. They release a variety of games of all shapes, sizes, and niches. So far their biggest hits this year have been a strategy RPG and a life simulation game. Not exactly something the other companies would think of as potential hot sellers. Furthermore, there's no point doing marketing right now, because it's the summer. There's nothing going on and there's little point competing against movies for ad space. They'll pump up their marketing when it's time.

Right, and even though honestly disc streaming along with the main ram bandwidth is enough for most applications (textures aren't as bandwidth hungry as some would think) prioritizing commonly used textures to be housed in EDRAM would be effective, but it depends on the game being developed.

They aren't using the EDRAM 'yet'.  Many of them simply hadn't figured out what they were doing with the system, and Nintendo's tools weren't very good (you could argue even Nintendo didn't really know what they were doing with the system yet) when the current crop of games was released.  Obviously there are a couple that use it lightly, like Shin'en's game and Trine 2.  Just goes to show you that the indie guys were able to get more acquainted with the system in a shorter period of time than big house publishers.  A testament to their engineering prowess.

Considering that most developers have let themselves become factory production lines I get the feeling they don't really WANT to learn architecture more complex than "let's just keep throwing a bunch of RAM at it!" AAA production has just become such a mess that even the SLIGHTEST deviation throws wrenches in their beloved plans. It's kind of sad