Right now, the Wii is riding a wave of positive public perception, selling out everything else and introducing a vast new audience into games. One that could potentially grow to match or dwarf the current group. The conventional wisdom in some circles is that this success will be short lived. That in a couple of years when the 360 and PS3 are cheaper, these new players will start to look at those systems, which will win out in the long run as this new audience matures into "true" gamers. I don't really see that happening.
Someone introduced to games on the Wii will have a very different perception of "traditional" controls than today's gamer. Nintendo has its own "twin analog+face and shoulder buttons" controller. However, they call it the "Classic" controller, meant for older games from bygone systems. Those raised on Wii are going to see the pointing function, motion detection, and fewer buttons as the norm. When they decide to upgrade, they're going to want a system that includes those basic functions and improves on them. Perhaps true 3D position detection, or a built-in camera, or a wireless nunchuk, or a touchscreen for your coffee table.
To them, the PS3 and 360 controllers are going to be as intimidating and unintuitive as they have been since the PS2 and xbox, or PS1 and N64, or possibly even as far back as the SNES. So they'll simply wait for the Wii's successor.
>>Perhaps true 3D position detection, or a built-in camera, or a wireless nunchuk, or a touchscreen for your coffee table.
They all remind me of everyone's dreams from when the Wii was still called the Revolution.
Either way, I sort-of agree, but you can't really tell due to the fact that this has never happened before. Maybe instead of being a prime method, people will just still view it as an alternate method of controlling. I don't think Nintendo is using the classic controller to make kids think that old games are controlled like so just to propagandize the idea-- SSB:Brawl and the new Fire Emblem use them.
Interesting article, though.
I think it depends on the game.
Wiimotes are great at games like Fighters or Sports games, where you play in short bursts and moving one's hands in immitation of what you want the game to do makes sense. For other stuff, it just doesn't work.
Tell me -- What's the intuitive way to move the nunchuck/wiimote in a strategy game (Warcraft)? It's not nearly so easy as thinking swing the wiimote = swing the bat in MLB2008. Or using the nunchuck/wiimote as the player's hands in a boxing game. It doesn't make as much sense for sims, and somewhat less for RPGs.
Second thing, what about games that you play for hours at once. How long can you play a FF game using a Wiimote without a cramp? Sure you can swing the bat for an hour or so before getting tired, but imagine a 5-hour gaming session of an MMO or a 3-hour session of a RPG. Your wrists will get sore.
I don't think Wii is a gimick, but the remote isn't going to replace other controllers.
Not really an article, just something that's been brewing in me as I read console flamewars. :3
>I don't think Nintendo is using the classic controller to make kids think that old games are controlled like so just to propagandize the idea
I didn't mean that Nintendo is necessarily trying to "imprint" new gamers with this view. More that it's a natural by-product of the Wiimote being the pack-in controller and the Classic being an extra sold separately. Although some Wii games are compatible with the classic, the controls also have to be made with the Wiimote in mind because it's the default.
>What's the intuitive way to move the nunchuck/wiimote in a strategy game (Warcraft)?
Moving it like a laser pointer. The Wiimote's pointing function is an ideal analog to a mouse for movng units or navigating menus in RTS and RPG games. I'll give you that there have been cases of people straining themselves from long bouts of Wii Sports. You also have to agree that this isn't anything new. Back in the NES days, I remember stories of "Nintendo thumb" from the NES controller and "Nintendo neck" from the Game Boy. People kept playing NES and Game Boy games and seemed to learn to deal with it. I don't see why that kind of adaptation can't happen here.
Of course the remote isn't going to replace everything else. Digital joysticks as on the Atari 2600 were not replaced completely when Nintendo introduced the D-pad. It did, however, become the primary form of control while the previous form became a secondary add-on for enthusiasts. You still had the NES Advantage if so inclined, and today fighting game arcade stick peripherals are still being made.
That change in perception is what I'm talking about. For someone, young or old, who is introduced to gaming by the Wiimote, moving to a console without that tactile experience is going to feel like a step back or they're going to feel the same intimidation by complexity that kept them out of previous console generations. Therefore this Blue Ocean that Nintendo is opening isn't all that likely to move to the Xbox or PS3 once their prices drop to a comparable level.