So... has anyone else been really stoked recently to follow the Kickstarterphenomenon, and watch developers get to make some fairly big-budget games without even involving publishers?  I mean... a cool $3.5millionUSD for DoubleFine's point-and-click adventure is really an astounding budget... and all fan supported!

This got me thinking, however... most of the bigger games on the site are planning to release (eventually, anyways) on pretty much every platform known to man (even the Vita)... except for a Nintendo platform.  This is a real letdown...

I know that people on these forums have said that Nintendo makes it unusually difficult on indie developers... and not ever having tried to become a Nintendo dev, I'm not sure if this is true.  What i do know is that there seems to be a slow-tide movement in games, polarizing the industry between enormous, hollywood-esque AAA titles and small, homespun indie games (many of which have great merit).

Given this mounting trend (as well as the general awesome potential of giving developers a platform for making their off-the-wall ideas become reality), doesn't it behove Nintendo to make the process as easy as possible for indie devs?

hm... very thoughtful (and thought provoking) article.

as a person who enjoys both major types of games the article talks about (the "narrow" HD and the "expansive" SD, to be crass) as well as many more types of games (like small indie projects and high-concept meta-games like S&SW:EP), i never really thought about the weight of consumer expectation and how it affects the industry's ability to move flexibly between graphical styles.

while i think that the author somewhat underestimates the pace at which development tools will catch up with technological benchmarks (and therefore allow small developers the ability to make big, complex, AND pretty worlds), i do acknowledge that the industry has been heading down the road of Hollywood unsustainability for quite some time now.

Hello, my name is Narcidius, and I'm a Nintendo "fanboy"

Wow, really felt good to get that off my chest! In all seriousness, though, the description fits me better than I'd like to admit. I'm still angry with myself for owning an Xbox 360 (it's ok, Wii, it's just gaming, baby, it doesn't mean anything to me... you know you're the only one I'll ever love).

I spent my childhood being mocked by SEGA fans, and arguing furiously for the superiority of the play experience on Ninty systems. I loved my Marios (1, 2, & 3 for their own reasons), I loved my Metroid, I loved my, er, Duck Hunt... yeah, good times... as well as all the killer 3rd party stuff (go Mega Man, go Contra!). The SNES came out and I rejoiced, sinking countless hours into Mario, FZero, Secret of Mana, Mega Man X, Star Fox, Donkey Kong Country, and finally the pinnacle of all gaming goodness, Super Metroid!

I spent my early teens being mocked by PlayStation fans, and arguing furiously for the superiority of the play experience on the Ninty systems. No system reveal will ever compare to the pure wonder that attended Mario64, in all it's polygon-y goodness. My free time (and a little bit of my non-free time) was lost in the oblivion of Star Fox, GoldenEye, Mario Kart, and Smash Bros. I shook my fist in fury at the betrayal that was Final Fantasy VII, and stubbornly refused myself the experience due to wounded pride.

I spent my college years mumbling under my breath about the Xbox, and how Halo really wasn't as great as everyone said it was... though I admit that I played it and had fun. What can I say, I was growing up. The Gamecube didn't really do it for me, I'm sorry to say, and other than Smash Bros. and the very late Twilight Princess, was kind of a disappointment. I was starting to appreciate games for games' sake. At some point, though, SEGA went under; and though I was actually kind of sad to see it go, I have to admit that I still had a good, long, cathartic laugh for all the trash talk I had to endure as a kid...

Finally, I entered the workforce and bought myself a shiny new Wii. The graphics really, really sucked. I felt a little betrayed, along with all the other gamers who grew up with the big N and defended it for so long. But I didn't mind that at all as long as I was spending hours hosting WiiSports parties, Mario Kart parties, some nostalgic Smash Bros. parties, and even Mario.. Party... parties. There were some good solo player offerings (I'm looking at you, kind of updated Twilight Princess, stellar Mario Galaxy and very awesome Metroid Prime 3), but as I was now a grown-up with, er, grown-up needs, I also wanted me some big, spectacular, gritty, epic, thematically complex, engaging narratives with deep gameplay and aesthetic wow-factor. So, being a mature adult who was now past all that petty loyalism for loyalism's sake, I broke down and bought an Xbox 360... and immediately began to loathe myself for how much I enjoyed it. I know, I know... I admit I have a problem. Recovery takes a while.

Anyway, that about catches us up. I still play my Wii (mostly Red Steel 2, Mario Bros. Wii with my wife, and Monster Hunter Tri with my bro), but I have to say that the 360 gets a bit more of my time these days, what with the Gears of War and the Halo:Reach and the Mass Effect. I was ELATED when the WiiU rumors started popping up, and my fanboyism is almost stoked back up to fever pitch over that, though its full effect will depend greatly on the nature of the IPs that get announced. I think Nintendo is genius, I respect them as a company, but they burned me a bit. Heck, I think they burned everyone. I'm such a fanboy, I even believe that I can detect a little bit of burn resentment in the voices of the Microsoft and Sony reps when they say all those hurtful things about the big N. Because we all know that deep down, they are remembering their carefree days of youth when the NES saved home gaming and provided a beacon of hope and inspiration to all the gamers of the world. Their swagger and their thinly-veiled insults are like cries of pain from a neglected child, who just wants their daddy to give them a little bit of love...

I think Nintendo can give us all that love with the WiiU, I really think it can... but we'll see. Sony and Microsoft have very solid systems with some genuinely FUN, deep exclusives, and I haven't seen anything nearly as impressive for the WiiU. Don't get me wrong, though, I'm still preparing my maniacal laughter for the day Sony dies... Mwa-ha-ha-h... sorry... sorry... I SAID I have a problem!

Sincerely,
Narcidius

This is an interesting quotation from an interview between an IGN editor and Aonuma-San of Zelda fame:

This (the time shifting in OoT) wasn't a process that started with the objective of creating an epic story; rather, it was a process in which the gameplay elements gave birth to an epic story.

Miyamoto has said similar things throughout his career, about gameplay elements driving story creation, and it strikes me as rather similar to the approach of movie companies like Pixar: create an engaging thought experiment, and then explore it until a story emerges.

My question is this... do you think that Nintendo has succeeded in generating interesting stories by this method, as of late? Personally, I thought that Metroid:Other M was not compelling in this regard (perhaps because it abandoned the formula, but that's up for debate)... and I am hard-pressed to think of a recent big N game that captivated me to the extent that Ocarina did. But maybe I'm just getting old and losing my memory... anybody that can help refresh me?

These people you're talking about? They're the PC gamers.

Kinda hard to keep track of the haters these days, and where they come from (oh, the internet... how I both love and hate you for giving EVERYONE a voice).

While I think that your core comment makes, perhaps, too extensive a use of hyperbole, I get your point. Nintendo's fans tend to look almost gullible in their sycophantic admiration of the big N (mind-bogglingly, almost in direct proportion to how little the company actually gives them to play), and the stereo-typical PS360 fan cares more about how their console makes them look to their friends than about the beauty, depth, and innovation of games as a medium of art/entertainment... yadayadayda.

I don't think that any of these stereotypes invalidate the points that many people are making here... nor the valid doubts that many core gamers have about Nintendo's commitment to making games that push the industry into new territory and actually give them games they want to play. I will pay $400 for a new system... but I want that system to be capable in terms of power (so that I don't HAVE to buy an Xbox720 or PS4 to get the best gaming experiences on market), and I want it to feature games that interest me in terms of theme, scope, immersion, tone, etc.

I'll be pretty happy if I can just get persistent access to social networking features (chat/messaging) via the touchscreen, during games and whatnot. Realistically, given Nintendo's (even recent) history with online functionality, and given the generally reliable premise that the service will be free, I can't expect miracles of networking bliss!

Now... if I'm shooting for the stars here, I would love jump in/out features to be supported, spectator modes for everything, unified leaderboards/stats accessible from friend's profiles, etc.

I LOVED this game on the 'Cube.  It was intense, it was intriguing/compelling on every level, it was expansive (multiple playable characters over centuries of timeline, and it all worked well... amazing!), and it was pretty innovative, too.  This would be a great 3rd party exclusive to have in Ninty's pocket.

As the article points out, of course, Silicon Knights needs a LOT of hand-holding.  I believe them when they say that Epic screwed them over a bit when Too Human was in development... but unless Nintendo is working with them directly on every level during development (like they did with the first one), I'm not sure that the final product will be worth the wait.

I would imagine that, more and more, publishers will be moving toward digital distribution for demos. The costs involved with making physical disks (and mailing them) are a major burden that simply doesn't need to exist... for the majority of consumers, at least.

Of course, there's no reason that a company COULDN'T put out demo disks if they wanted to... I just don't think it will be very likely, or common (because of the cost).

The real issue that this brings up, however, is how easy Nintendo is willing to make it for publishers to get demos uploaded to their online marketplace. Even Microsoft, which is by all accounts a leader in digital distribution on consoles, garners a significant amount of chagrin from publishers over capacity and format restrictions on its Xbox LIVE marketplace (as well as issues of providing adequate exposure to consumers).

man, i have just never been a fan of software keyboards (because of the lack of physical feedback). I have a USB keyboard that I use with my Wii, and I'll use it for the WiiU too, if they let me!

Ok, so... does anyone feel up to explaining what, exactly, made the original Mario so great?  I mean, it is GREAT.  I played it into the ground when it came out, and I love it to this day.  But why?  It's not like the jumping is just that much fun, or that everyone identifies with a fat plumber, or that the environments and challenges were all that awe-inspiring.  WHAT IS IT?

Looking over the true classics, it's pretty universally difficult to explain the appeal.  In plenty of ways, there have been more "interesting" block games than Tetris... but Tetris is still the best.  There have been more varied, nuanced, and deep experiences than the old text-based dungeon adventures, but I would go and replay those (or even King's Quest) long before I would replay, say, Fable III.

Recently I downloaded Superbrothers:Sword&SworceryEP for my iPhone, and it reminded me about the awesomeness of those 8-bit days... and reminded me that we've been pretty much stuck in a gaming box for many, many years, still playing by the rules that Miyamoto and others like him helped to write back in the 80s.  It wasn't the particular presentations that made those games great... it was something else.

It seems that we're still trying to make games either more like movies or more like carnival games or more like a very interesting pop-up book... but is there something else we could be doing with them (and isn't it something else that those early creators were tapping into, albeit unconsciously)?  Couldn't we be messing, somehow, with interactivity itself - with the fact that we are both manipulating and being manipulated by our environment in electronic media?  Couldn't we make a game that lived in the tension between narrative (what the story is doing to you) and personal responsibility (what you are doing to the story and the characters), and asked us to find a real equilibrium with that dynamic through our in-game actions?

Maybe this is just too "heady" or esoteric for the average gamer... but if we aren't asking ourselves what makes games great, then don't we simply run the risk of games hitting the same cultural arc as film (basically peaking early as art, then becoming a special effects arms race, then devolving into formulaic blockbuster attempts in the interest of making money)?  If NO ONE cares about this question, then I'm afraid that, like the film industry, the games industry will soon be left with nothing but the polar opposites of Call of Duty blockbusters and tiny indie offerings like World of Goo... and I, for one, find that a depressing prospect.

I'll use one of my Personal Favorite games: portal. The idea is simple; you have a gun that can shoot holes in the walls that are linked together. The execution, on the other hand, is brilliant. It makes Physics fun.

Ya, I totally agree about this game... it's such a great example of a very simple mechanic making for a really deep experience. I think this must be a central facet of truly great games - the ability to put your active involvement with the game world front-and-center through a movement or mechanic that feels good to execute.

For me it is just plainly the content... Also the content has to be good obviosly

Yeah... this makes sense to me, in terms of a sense of value. I can think of a lot of games with massive content that are not at all fun... but it seems true that wealth of available content allows for a richer interaction with the game world - allows you to inhabit that created space more fully.

What makes a game good is how much you feel like your in it. The major advantage is that you are the fat plumber. You finally get to be the hero (or villian) you always wanted to be without any real life consequences... also, accomplishment. In games such as Tetris we aren't being a great hero. What keeps us coming back is the feeling of accomplishment you get from winning. Sometimes this victory makes us feel powerful, sometimes it makes us feel smart. That is what makes a game.

I'm not completely sold that I have a secret fantasy about being a fat plumber, lol , but I get the "chance to be a hero" thing. The odd thing is, however, that the games that seem most to make me really become the hero feature heroes that I don't want to become, whereas games with "bad-a" heroes that I would love to become feel only incidentally or artificially attached to me as a player. (Sure player man, you're Marcus Fenix, *wink*)

The sense of accomplishment is a great point. There is something about victory over a challenge that is just inherently appealing (something about the way our brains are wired... curious little monkeys, yes...)

In Mario 3, the rules of engagement are simple... Due to the simple mechanics (run and jump left and right) and the flexibility afforded to the player in how to overcome challenges, the game becomes fun and intriguing to try to complete. Hell if I get a Tanooki suit I start being super careful because it's so rare and so awesome, I don't want to lose it. What is there in Galaxy to REALLY make you care about your playing like that?

This also makes a lot of sense to me... and this is really what sets Mario apart from other great games featuring simple mechanics (like Angry Birds)... the fact that your performance is carried over between levels. It adds a requirement on the player, while keeping the challenge basically related to the simple core mechanic of moving, waiting, jumping.

Again, I think that this kind of greatness really stresses the interactivity of gaming - the fact that the machinery of the game world revolves around your input.


But now... what about the other side of gaming? What about the narrative aspect? Is that really (as Miyamoto has told us before) incidental to the experience, rather than central? Are games just being crazy in trying to integrate narrative with interactivity? Should they simply be providing backdrop to the mechanic, or framework for the mechanic to hang upon, rather than innovating a path toward real interaction with deep narrative?

Boy do I look forward to something like this... The Other M Samus was a bit of a train wreck (sooooo sensitive), but there's no arguing with the Metroid style, and this is a franchise that could get a lot of mileage from the HD treatment.

As for Retro... man, I've been crossing my fingers that Miyamoto-San will toss Star Fox their way.  The thought alone sends me into delirious rapture.

I play with friends any time I can (which is less often than I like)... especially when co-op is available. On the Wii there just wasn't much available in this area, but the WiiU looks to have a strong focus on connected play. Drop-in/out co-op seems to be quickly becoming the new industry standard for major releases, and I like the trend.

while i somehow doubt that crytek will choose to put a lot of specific love into this title for the wiiu, i would still really like to see it come to the system. i thoroughly enjoy the franchise (yes, even crysis2).

i could really see crytek doing some work on a ground-up title for wiiu - just seems like something that they would be good at, and interested in doing (especially considering some of the comments that have been made) that really pushes the system's hardware. no telling when this woud happen, though... so i'd take crysis 3 for now!

Ya, there really need to be more answer options in this poll. The jump will almost certainly be more noticeable than the indiscernible difference between 360/PS3 (which I defy anyone to truly demonstrate via video sample with commentary on specific visual features), but it will not be NEARLY as big as the truly embarrassing gap between Wii and PS3/360.

So as not to be a hypocrite, here is a video from IGN detailing some of the exact differences that I think will exist between the WiiU and its future competition. The video outlines the differences between Crysis 2 running in DirectX9 (WiiU will be able to push 10.1, so it will be capable of doing slightly more than 9, but none of the advanced tesselation or real-time reflection mapping) and DirectX11. It seems likely that Sony, at least, will wait until they can produce hardware that will run DX11 (though even this would be prohibitively expensive if attempted right now... the commentators referenced major framerate issues at points, and this was a top-of-the-line gaming rig). Still, say what you will about Sony, they spring for the best stuff out there. The PSVita is a good example of that, and evidence against the people who keep saying that Sony has "learned their lesson" with the PS3 and its lack of profitability. And please, for the love of God, don't throw that one quotation from the windbag Sony rep at me... let's look at concrete decisions the company has and is making, not off-hand comments.

Now, I say this looks pretty good for the WiiU. I'm no Sony fan (in fact, most days I think I would open a bottle of old bubbly if the company went under)... but I think they will make a top-of-the-line machine with their next console, and I still say that, even this being the case, the jump is not that big of a deal. Do I like real-time reflection mapping and advanced particle tracking with motion blur effects? Sure... but I can wait six or seven years for them to find the hardware to run them cheaply and efficiently without losing any sleep at all (and my wallet will thank me).

I would LOVE a new, numbered entry in the series... and it certainly wouldn't hurt if they atoned for the betrayal that was FFVII by making it WiiU exclusive (never happen, I know, but I'm still sore about the old PS1 days).

I guess the title of the topic is broad enough to post usage ideas for games... right?

I'm thinking...

- tablet screen for endoscopy in surgery games (or robot/nanoprobes fixing circuitry or spying) while the main screen can keep an eye on vitals...
- LOVE the build management in rts games (or minimap/unit grouping management) idea
- LOVE the persistent sniper-scope idea (oddly enough, this also allows for the most precise aiming possible, given that there would be the sticks for movement and camera as well as the controller positioning for pinpoint aiming on-screen, potentially eliminating the complaints with both bounding boxes and fixed-center dual-stick or mouse aiming... though the whole system of movement together might prove disorienting or overly complicated)
- tablet player controlling a gunning turret on a vehicle, while the main screen player drives/flies
- dashboard for complex simulators, with flipable switches and pushable buttons represented on the tablet screen.

I do very much enjoy some open world games (Red Dead Redemption being foremost in my mind)... but I think that it definitely needs to be the right kind of game. I think that a Monster-Hunter-esque dragon-slaying epic in a fantasy setting would really suit Nintendo well, and would make for a great open world game.

I liked some of the suggestions above as well... though many of them seemed more like what I would consider "sandbox" games or even RPGs, rather than open world games. I do think that Nintendo needs a good open world game, in any case... and any new IP would excite me!

Link to the story on WiiUBlog.com
Sure, Nintendo's late to 'the HD party', but, in a certain sense, Sony should have respect for its 'elders'. Nintendo's been part of this business since 1985. Sony came along like ten years later after WORKING with Nintendo in the first place. Welcome to the party? I think that this is honestly the first time Sony can tell Nintendo that about ANYTHING. I love the PlayStation brand, but I have to say that I hate its bigwigs.

Oh man, don't tempt me to go hating on Sony... the 12 steps have been going so well.

Honestly, though, it seems that this interview has been getting pretty universally negative press, as opposed to the interview with Shuhei Yoshida about the PSV, which impressed me with its earnestness, its positive tone, its concerted avoidance of pot shots, etc. Genuine excitement about innovation and possibilities always makes for a better interview than hip-fired, juvenile bravado.

"americanized-militaristic-mindless"? I don't think that's a very descriptive title as far as the behavior sets you are objecting to... it sounds like some political rhetoric is getting mixed up in your otherwise very careful analyses... also, it's kind of offensive to me as an American.

If you mean that the kind of gamers that like games such as CoD are accustomed to rapid killstreaks, twitchy or knee-jerk play mechanics, and simple structures of play, then I could understand what you are saying... but I'm still not sure about which of those elements you find objectionable. Are you saying that you would prefer the Metroid multiplayer to differ from one of these (or similar areas) in terms of mechanics?

Or maybe do you mean the social ettiquette of players on many of these types of games? The swearing, trash-talking, whining, threatening, belittling, and berating of new or inexperienced players? I could also understand that objection... do you want a kinder, more polite and more inclusive "crowd" for social gaming?

I agree that the best use of multiplayer for a Metroid game would be for co-op... I would really like that... though I also get the point about Prime being so successful due to its sense of loneliness and isolation. A versus mode would have to include some of these great ideas about complex maps with world enemies, or interesting objectives and puzzle-solving elements included.

I really don't understand the term "mindless" as it is commonly being used on these forums, and I don't think that it has proved a very helpful term. Many gaming enthusiasts from across the world have been rather devoted to games that feature simple, repetitive processes which demand little higher-order thinking. I find "militaristic" similarly unhelpful, as I doubt that it is being used technically. If we're simply talking about a fascination with the military and/or military operations, then I don't see the problem. Cultures across the world and throughout history have been fascinated with (and even glorified) the military, and many great games (not talking about CoD here) have used this fascination as a foundation. If you find CoD itself to be irreverent toward life, misleading in its politics, or dangerous in its sanitization of violence, then I might see a productive dialogue (and I might agree with you).

To be honest, I'd pay a fat stack of cash for Xboxlive if the WiiU's online is crap, 13 year olds or no 13 year olds.

Ya, me too... I was really angry, at first, about the idea of paying for online functionality. But I'm remarkably happy, in a way that really surprises me, with my experience on Xbox Live... if a monthly fee is what it takes to make and maintain a truly first-class online hub of connectivity, then Nintendo needs to do it. I will be a big N fan regardless... I just won't use the WiiU to connect with information and with other gamers, and that will definitely cut down on the time that I play it.

As far as "competition" goes, I really do believe that Nintendo's biggest competition is itself at this point. Will the company utilize its influence and its potential, or will they fall back on the security of what has worked before when push comes to shove. They need to be bold and daring - to take some big leaps (which is not really in the history of their corporate culture, strangely enough, though it has been in the culture of many of their designers).

The hardware worries are, I believe, a red herring and a non-starter in terms of prophecies of apocalyptic doom for Nintendo. Until they figure out how to put light on silicon, they're not going to revolutionize processing power in terms of raw potential for gaming... and the prohibitive costs involved with increasingly powerful high-end gaming rigs will effectively keep what increased potential there is out of the reach of console makers (build me a high-end gaming PC for $400 or less, and show me what you are able to come up with) - which, in turn, means that game developers are not going to be making games with a revolutionary increase in visuals (because the consoles can't handle it).

Now, this might mean that console gaming is on its way out (and I've heard such fears expressed)... but that's the topic of another thread.

Man these threads are really starting to chafe me.... Alex and Aaron (above) know what they're talking about, so people need to read their posts and be DONE with the nonsense talk about non-facts and pseudo-figures like the "10% of its potential" and the "50% more powerful" statisto-babble.  People are really running with those figures in completely nonsensical directions and it is not contributing to REAL conversation about the system's ability!

Ok... So I know there have been many threads focusing on different aspects of this topic.  Still, I want to know what you guys actually want most from the online service.  Does it matter if the Miis get customizable clothes?  Do you care about DLC, or even about digital distribution of any kind?  Do you like the idea of achievments/trophies adding up to a "gamerscore", or is it ruining gaming?  Are you a hardcore competitive multiplayer junkie - one who wants to be notified mid-game if friends of yours start playing another game so you can jump in - or do you mostly game solo anyway?

I think the pulse of the average Nintendo gamer might be significantly different from that of the average PS/360 gamer in regard to online functionality... but I don't know for sure... so let me know what you think!!!

Personally, I am dying for a strong friend/profile system.  The first thing I check when I turn on my 360 is what my friends are playing, and I almost always jump in to their game (whether cooperative or competitive).  I didn't include a "multiplayer gaming" option, because it seems like the variables of what people might mean by this are too complex.  I would assume, for instance, that the system would allow players to play games online (duh)... but as for the options regarding connectivity, dedicated servers, centralized billing, etc.... well, I'll leave that up to your comments.

Like the others, I want all the features. But the feature i want most, is download full retail games. If a game cost $40 in the United States, in my country the cost is like $75 - $80 US dollars. So in the eshop the prices will be the same that the prices in the United States. 3DS too Nintendo.

wow, i never really thought about that problem... or realized that that was the case, I guess. I know that I've heard a few gamers on these forums complain about the move to digital distribution, because they don't have reliable high-speed internet in their country. is this largely the case outside of the US, or only in a few specific countries?

I think he was trying to be as diplomatic as he could with that statement, and you're taking it too hard.
He said wait for e3, which is where he will, along with the rest of us get some actual news about third party support.

agreed... i like to bash on the guy as much as anyone, but they were some of his more moderate statements. 3rd party support really is a key issue with this console's success (as well as a key determiner of how 3rd parties will develop games for the 'next gen'), and i am waiting for e3 with a fair bit of earnestness because of this very issue.