Wii developer: publishers wary of creating for Nintendo

"In essence, publishers are wary of competing against Nintendo games and often perceive first-party titles to be much more successful than any of their offerings."

God damnit, I am SO F'ing sick of this excuse.
Developers should be STRIVING to match Nintendo's quality. Nintendo SHOULD be the console gamers go to for a truly quality, premium gaming experience (christ, that sounds marketingy). Unfortunately, most devs like to release rehashes, ports of mediocre-to-sub par games and absolute crap

Instead, they say, "Well, Nintendo lays golden eggs while we lay globs of shit. Here ya go, PS3!"

That's not to say it isn't a valid concern to a degree. You DO buy a Nintendo console to play Nintendo games...obviously.

Over the last 10 years, developers have managed to galvanize the market into segments. You've got your "hardcore" segment, your...generic and/or RPG playing segment and your old-school/quirky/creative segment.
As such, it's a problem of their own making. When you divy up the market (HOW they did that is another story), you have to expect a shooter not to sell as well on Nintendo or Sony's console as it would on Microsoft's
Similarly, a game like Okami was, for example, a STUPID choice for the PS2. It would have sold better on the GAMECUBE, furthermore the Wii.

#95.

Kind of a self fulfilling prophecy. The only evidence of it being more fun would be the people that tell you that it is, but if they do, they are dismissed as fanboys. Makes your argument quite bulletproof.

#97.

I didn't really explain myself great. I mean that there wont be stunning HD graphics on the wii. There still is plenty of opportunity for the wii to have a good FPS. But knowing that it is a fundamentally different system, they may want to buy a 360 if they are looking for 360 games. Also, buying a system based strictly on hopes is a bad idea.

This article has no credibility. First off your title is misleading, because you base your whole article around Brian Dryer and publisher "frontline studio". I think they should be wary of making games for "Nintendo" when their studio puts out crap like "Chicken Shoot" on the market. Gimme a break! Have they made any good games?

Ludwig what makes you think we should buy into what "Frontline" says? Now if this were kojima speaking I'd give it some serious thought.

/Nice try.

I admire Nintendo for trying something new, i'm 35 yrs old and i can honestly say Nintendo has given me much more in gaming terms than the other two (Microsoft & Sony) over the years so i fail to understand why Nintendo isn't for 'hardcore gamers'.

Good points, Alfarif

Ponder this

2 of the only 3 games worth buying (IMO) on the Wii in Q1 2007 are 3rd party

Wario Ware Smooth Moves (Nintendo/Intelligent Systems)
SSX Blur (EA/EA Sports Big)
Sonic and the Secret Rings (Sega/Sonic Team)

" 'With the Wii, we're back to the fundamentals, the nuts and bolts of any videogames experience, which simply means it has to be fun.'

Right, because having HD graphics completely obviates the need to be"

Wow, way to twist his words, Kietzman. That is not what he is saying at all and you know it, but I guess straw man arguments are what you try to pass of as journalism. If you are going to state your opinion, at least do it without sounding like a brat.

Anyways, He is saying that the primary focus of Wii games should be fun, and he has a point. Wii is not in the graphical power arms race to be sure, so there is naturally a higher focus on compelling gameplay. There must be if Wii wants to keep people interested. Developers necessarily budget their time and resources on different aspects of the game and less time making the graphics "pretty" in HD means more time spent on other aspects of the game.

Does that mean that games for 360 and PS3 have shitty gameplay - no. It just means that developers are simply likely to have different priorities when making games for different platforms and those of us who do not put HD visuals at the top our lists appreciate those differing priorities.

seriously, who wants the same f'n games on all three systems? besides the people trying to make money from selling them? the gaming industry is sooo boring. it's not about fun anymore, it's about making another buck.

Well, Nintendo has a deep hole to climb out of since the n64 debacle. But I will say that it's not so unusual for third party games to go unloved on unpopular consoles. It's been happening since the beginning of the game industry.

How many great titles were releaseed for the TurboGraphix 16 that people slept on because it wasn't the flavor of the month. Look at the amiga for that matter. that computer was totally ahead of its time and featured tech that totally destroyed any Mac or PC on the market for years before the competition finally caught up. But people are ignorant and will believe what they want to believe even when the true stares them in the face.

The reality is Gamecube DID have great third party games....The burnouts, the RE remake, RE 4, Metal Gear, Killer 7, Viewtiful Joe, NBA 2k1, Timesplitters, Timesplitters 2, Soul Caliber 2...but the problem was they usually lacked features of the other consoles. No online play, no progressive scan etc....makes it really easy to buy a PS2 or Xbox version of the same game instead of the cube.

With the Wii, Nintendo still finds themselves behind the 8 ball so to speak because now we have the lack of HD and no online play at launch as well as the VC that is a big rip off with over priced games. I would suggest developers take a wait and see attitude...even though many of the developers that would run their mouths about development on the wii are the same developers that produce trash year in and year out. Nintendo has to prove that they're serious this time.

Right now, i can only say...it only kinda sorta looks that way.

Ok, im a nintendo/wii fanboy, but some of the comments here are plain false.

Look at a title like Eternal Darkness. Great game, great graphics, innovative, mature, fun. Ticks all the right boxes. Was it a commercial success? Hell no. So this phenomenom cant be soley attributed to third parties lack of invention.

However, it CAN be put down to the GC's tiny tiny fanbase. You couple THAT with the fact that nintendo makes the most magnificent exclusive games, and thats why last gen third parties and the GC just did not gel.

THIS gen, however, nintendo seem set to get a much firmer foothold in the marketplace. Wii demand is astronimical. Hopefully, the same third parties that either tried and faild or simply didnt bother with the GC will see the fact that Wii is not gonna have as limited install an install base as the GC, and jump on the oppertunity to make a shitload of cash.

Heres Hopin!

Pince,

Considering that you interpret the developer's words in exactly same way I do, I find your claims that I'm "twisting" his words (which are included in full) rather dubious.

"He is saying that the primary focus of Wii games should be fun, and he has a point." Yeah, and I'm saying that the focus of *all* games, HD graphics or not, should be fun. It's a logical and fair statement to make.

It's the prior implication that gamers are "yawning" at "supposedly great-looking" games that highlights the quote as pure fanboy bait. It's the assumption that all Xbox 360 and PS3 games put graphics above gameplay rearing its ugly head again, not to mention the antiquated idea that great graphics have absolutely nothing to do with fun.

There's no straw argument or misinterpretation here. Kudos for ignoring your own advice and stating your opinion like a brat.

I've always stuck to the opinion that paying $600 dollars just so my games LOOK good is total CRAP. I mean, damn, I still love playing Mario Kart 64 because that's a FUN game, and the graphics are good enough so that I can understand what's going on.

I really don't need a dvd player, toaster, and light show inside of my game system. I need a game system. Sure, nintendo's "innovative" controls kinda screwed it over for now, but once people get used to the idea of playing it, I betcha anything that people will enjoy playing on it better then on that behemoth PS3.

Also, who gives a rats ass about multiplatform games. I mean, yeah, I totally bought Happy Feet and Madagascar- The Video Game. Those were like the BEST GAMES EVAR.

The problem I see here is the line "3rd parties are looking at ways to work the wiimote into their games."

NO. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD NO.

3rd parties need to look at ways to make a game around the wiimote, rather than a game where the wiimote is used. There is a MASSIVE difference. Sadly, Ubisoft doesn't seem to realize this very much.

More original attempts. Of course, these original attempts take time and that's probably why we're not really seeing too much now. But look at SSX Blur and Sonic. Both games were created around the wiimote. They took an idea and said, "How can we make the control scheme central with this idea?" and look at the previews for both games. Totally positive.

"It's the prior implication that gamers are 'yawning' at 'supposedly great-looking' games that highlights the quote as pure fanboy bait. It's the assumption that all Xbox 360 and PS3 games put graphics above gameplay rearing its ugly head again, not to mention the antiquated idea that great graphics have absolutely nothing to do with fun."

Ludwig, I understand where you're coming from, but I think you're wrong on this one. Graphics are nice and everything, but they do not stand up to time. Gameplay does, however. A game build solely on the basis of graphics tends to lose its appeal as it gets older. This is why we keep buying many incarnations of the original Super Mario Bros. I've always believe that good gameplay is timeless.

We all enjoy games on different levels, but I don't think a pretty game really adds much to gameplay in the long run.

Well, we have to remember that EVERYTHING revolves around the dollars. Nintendo is a business, they want to make money. Developers work for a business, which wants to make money.

Why would a developer put monetary resources and human resources into a project that will make less money than if they put the same resources into producing a game for another console?

You have to realize that every company has market research analysts that study numbers and trends. They see the sales of 3rd party software on Nintendo consoles and most likely inform their bosses that there may be a risk in putting a lot of money into the production costs.

Do you think Nintendo is paying developers a shit load of money to make exclusive content for the Wii? The PS3 and 360 have exclusive, huge, 3rd party games coming out soon. Mass Effect, FF, Metal Gear. What huge, big budget games, does Nintendo have in their pipeline?

It has nothing to do with "Developers not trying hard enough." That's absurd. You get what you pay for. You want the best developers, it will cost you. You want exclusive content, it will cost you. C'mon, do you think Kojima, or the cats from Mistwalker make the same amount of money than the guys that made Big Mutha Truckers?

You can witness Nintendo being cheap. No online..yet, no hd, vc titles with no improvements. Hell, look at the production values of everyones favorite game Zela TP. No voice acting, synthesized music. Why do you think Nintendo went this route? A fanboy will tell you, "To keep the system inexpensive and for Zelda, to keep it in line with the tradition." Bullshit, they do it to keep the costs down to increase THEIR profit.

Well, the gameplay is ultimately what determines whether you like the game or not (and going back to the original point, that's true for all consoles) but I don't believe that gameplay can be so easily divided from graphics. I find they both influence each other, with gameplay as a whole including several things, including graphics, atmosphere and sound.

I honestly don't think Gears of War would have been as much fun if it wasn't as intensely cinematic. You need great technology to accomplish that, and if it was made for an older system, it really would have been "just another shooter."

Another example that comes to mind is Silent Hill. Gameplay is absolutely influenced by what you see and hear there.

I wish I could make my own Wii games :(

Uglyteeth, your arguments are specious at best.

Huge, big budget games? The budget of the game has nothing to do with how good or how much fun it is. Games on PS3 and 360 cost much more to develop.

So nintendo foots the bill for exclusive third party titles? What are you talking about? Using that logic, tons of companies would be jumping on board, because there is no risk.

VC titles with no improvements? Im not interested in remixes of old games, Im interested in the games, warts and all.

The voice acting and real music probably wouldn't fit on a GC disc. Remember, it is a gamecube game. I for one wouldn't want voice acting anyway. Id have to listen to way to much shit. I can read it much quicker.

You are right that a few games are built from the graphics or the experience. Like Silent Hill, but how well do those games hold up today? I think of the original Bio Hazard (Resident Evil) and having played it again I don't think it holds up that well. However, I can go back to the original Doom and still have fun with it.

I do think a game like Gears of War could be done on say an Xbox or PS2 and get the same effect. The game's draw (at least for me) wasn't the graphics, it was the presentation and how I interacted with the game. The difficulty curve was good and the co-op was nice. With the high production values of the game, I really think they could have done it just as well on lower end systems. Anyway, my point is really how games stand up over time. What we say is awesome now, may not be the case in a couple of years. When the graphics get outdated and we're comparing them to what we have currently, how well does the game hold up?

I think that games built solely on the graphical aspect of gaming, don't hold up as well over time. Where as games built only for gameplay do...i.e. Tetris. :)

Frankly, I doubt it's a simple as Nintendo being so good that other developers don't stand a chance or that people who buy Nintendo systems only buy them solely for Nintendo made games. That my be true somewhat but I highly doubt it's to the extent most people who point this out to be.

How many times do you read people's comments on some games where they wish so and so game would come to the Cube or the Wii? And how many times have you seen a multiplatform game on the Cube get a much later release? For that matter, how many of these releases tend to be a sloppy port, on top of being a late port, and in some cases, actually have missing features to boot versus the other versions? Sure the lack of online is a fair reason but what's compensating for it?

I'll be it would be far easier if developers for the Wii (or then, the Cube) simply offered a list of their titles and have Wii (or the, Cube) gamers simply order for the titles they want, be it games they find they like on other systems or find promising and are enthusiastic for. And seriously, have you seen the kind of games N-fans get vs. what Sony fans get? Konami support on the Cube was lackluster (personally, only Twin Snakes mattered to me) while the PS2 got Silent Hill and MGS, just to name a few. And now, let's see, Elebits vs. MGS4. Anybody else find that stark contrast jarring? Those are the first games they made for the respective systems and the Wii gets some simple "kiddy" looking game while the PS3 gets a highly acclaimed franchise. And please, don't tell me N-fans don't want it (Twin Snakes did well enough and it was MGS1 with prettier graphics - no additions, no expansions, and frankly, I'm surprised they even bothered to retake the dialogue). Capcom right now can barely even give us any info on this RE Wii game but already has RE5 (definitely the next installment of the RE series vs. a possible recap of the earlier titles for the Wii) and DMC4. And please, don't tell me N-fans wouldn't appreciate those games. Sure RE on the Cube was only moderately successful, but half of them were PS1/DC ports, and one remake. Even then the series was getting stale and frankly, one big name series isn't enough. RE to me was to lead the charge for every other big name but no one else followed. We got piecemeal efforts. One MGS game, one FF spin-off, one Tales game, no Silent Hill game, one big fighting game (Soul Calibur II), etc. How is any system suppose to survive when those who'd want to buy it can't have some guarantee as to the titles and franchises they want.

Developers must give some strong guarantee. Even now, you can't tell me, just at the top of your head, that there are franchises that you'd just expect to be on the PS3. You think "it's no brainer, it's going to be there." You don't think for one second, even before the PS3's existence, that Final Fantasy won't be on the PS3. That's guarantee, that's security. That's the feeling they should give those interested in N-systems. Of course people would buy Nintendo systems for Nintendo games, what other guarantee can the people buying them have? Is there going to be a Virtua Fighter, or a Dragon Quest X, or a MGS, or whatever? If you can say "hey, DQX will be on the Wii and nowhere else" that would at least make us think "maybe XI will follow that on the Wii" (though with the whole RE4 fiasco, who can say anything for sure). And unlike the RE series, we're going to need more than just one high profile third-party series, at least give us three. Give us the Tales series (or at least most of it which the PS2 seemed to get), give us Kingdom Hearts, or even a Metal Gear game series even if it's a totally different story arc (only as long as the quality and depth lives up to the MGS series).

IF someone would still be reading, I'd just like to make one LITTLE comment, which, to me, makes sense.

To me, history is just repeating itself. And not the 'recent history' (being 80's and up), I do mean HISTORY.

I'll make a little connection to 'REAL' art, being paintings.

Around the 15th century, the 'photorealistic painting' was at his top; it couldn't have been done better, Raphael, Da Vindi, Michelangelo, Bruegel, Van Dyk, etc etc: They were the top of their time.
Due to technical leaps of that time, (oil-based paint, better techniques, better and more money involved, ...)

From there, it *couldn't* get any better.
Still, many people (especially older people) think that art was the best AND greatest art ever.
Hence, why, when the impressionists started showing their work, didn't get their place in the Institute des Beaux Arts?

Simply because it wasn't considered ART.
Real-life, that was art in the time.

Where are we now? Art has seen a lot of refining, renewing. Not on GRAPHICAL progress, but on 'how it keeps people busy/entertained. Art nowadays INVOLVES people, whereas in the 15th century it was just made to tell a certain story...


THAT is quite similar to the gaming area now. It's not far untill 'photorealistic' games are able to be made.
But does THAT particular fact make games better? More beautiful, enhanced?

I say no, it does not.
The only thing that matters if YOU get involved somehow. It COULD be the photorealistic-ness of a game that gets YOU involved, but what gets MORE people involved isn't the perfectness of the detail, but, much as 'Samfish' stated before me, the ARTSTYLE a game has. That'll make a game more beautiful then just other photorealistic games.

That's what developers need to search for, once they achieve that, it doesn't matter how strong a certain console is, all that matters is doing the right thing to draw gamers in; the artstyle and how it's handled in game...

That's ALSO why I think Okami would've done MUCH better on the 'cube.

Maybe nintendo needs to designate certain periods of the year as "third party periods". Let THEM have the big sales periods, and then use the first party games to fill the quiet spots.

I'm still desperate for a Wii (which i can't get yet cos of region coding and living abroad).. but the sudden drop in titles is worryinlg reminiscent of the gamecube. (which I loved btw.. but early software droughts killed it stillborn).

The two big publishers seem to be choking on the Wii. Ubisoft is dead ken on it.. but can't make it work for their games. EA has figured it out.. but only ports old games that most of us have played before.

Having the best game on the system be a pack-in game might not have been the smartest move on Nintendo's part.. but Ubisoft and EA aren't really helpingtheir own cause much with their lackluster efforts.

(The first 3rd party to release a DECENT role playing game will certainly see some pretty swift sales imho..)

well actually... it's kinda interesting, because nintendo relies on its first party titles and are thus able to keep afloat if 3rd parties fail. sony and microsoft don't have that kind of luxury, they rely of 3rd party titles (mostly), and if those drop, then they die. But since all the software is basically of the same quality, consumers have more incentive to buy a little lower quality game maybe... while for nintendo, a lot of the user based wants nintendo-quality games, and wont buy the lower-quality... it could just be a demographic difference too, though.

Actually, given the long periods of time between Nintendo's titles, one would think that third parties could just time their releases to fill in the void.

I mean, one would think that Capcom would be smart enough to release Resident Evil in between Metroid and Mario, no? When Wii owners have a few months of less-than-stellar titles to play through, a good third-party game should sell like mad.

Of course, I could be wrong.