Kincect Success = The End of Harcore Gaming??

[quote name='dmaul1114']No, it's going to tank hard if it really costs $150.

"Hardcore" gamers mostly aren't going to be interest in the Wii ports anyway, much less at that price. And at $150 for the gadget and $200+ for a 360 and $50-60 a game they're not going to get casuals/non-gamers to buy one instead of picking up a Wii (or sticking with their Wii if they already have one).[/QUOTE]

First off, I don't call Halo, Madden, and Call of Duty players "hardcore" gamers. That makes up at least 70-80% of Xbox users. Those users don't care about anything except for the next sports title or Call of Duty title coming out, which they will always come out with.

As for your second comment, you really don't know. I know someone who bought a PS3 for Rock Band 2 bundle. I know another who bought a Wii to play Rock Band Beatles Bundle. How many countless people bought a Wii to just play WiiFit. All these case are around the asking price. As for Wii, they have no comparison to a title like Dance Central, which personally I think is going to be the game that sells the Kinect.

My guess is it will sell well; in fact I predict a sell out.

[quote name='kingkiller33']Lol, I could have said the same thing 15 years ago when FPS started becoming more popular. Who cares, they won't cancel my next TBS game or RTS.

Now I have seen my favorite genre reduced to a trickle of titles and watered down for the console world. TBS games practically don't exist anymore except for Civ series. Game developers are going to make games in the genre that is the MOST profitable. And if kiddie games brings in the most cash, kiddie games are what we will get from now on.

15 years ago, strategy games were tremendous popular. The same thing can happen to hardcore games.[/QUOTE]

The death of your favorite genre is due to a couple things. 1) blame pirating. PC "non-flash" gaming has been dying. Most stores don't even sell most titles anymore. 2) RTS and TBS are hard as hell to play on console. 3) the rise of FPS didn't do them under... you can attribute it to the rise of the one that conquered all on the PC, World of Warcraft and its clones.

Lastly, the one thing everyone forgets is that most of the people creating these games are true gamers. They not only play their games, they play other companies games. They will continue to make games that they will enjoy. Just as Nintendo still continues creating Metroid, Zelda, etc on Wii. I see Xbox and Sony still doing.

I personally don't understand all the hate. It is great technology and has huge upside. Even if just on the main pages on your xbox, watching ESPN, etc. In addition, none of us know what developers are developing for it or even what their time tables are; all we know is the launch titles. My assumption is like all of you that all the franchises you love will always still have a "controller" option and develop the game with that in mind. There is no reason to bitch and complain. Lastly, we also don't know if a game comes with it or not. Microsoft has not officially released any news on pricing or packaging.
 
Wow.

I guess I'm not really surprised to see a thread along this vein, but I feel like I just got a rewind to back when everyone was complaining about the Wii forgetting hardcore gamers.

I just see the gaming field as a big buffet. All the game companies are just trying to create a buffet where there's something for everyone. You wanna bowl with Grandma then shoot zombies later after she goes home? You'll soon be able to do that on all consoles.
 
[quote name='lordopus99'] My assumption is like all of you that all the franchises you love will always still have a "controller" option and develop the game with that in mind. [/QUOTE]

If you're right, I'd have no complaints. But the Wii example suggests otherwise. How many Wii games have 100% traditionally control options? There are few, but not many. Even Mario Galaxy required pointing to collect starts and shoot stars and waggle to do the spin move etc.

[quote name='utopianmachine']Wow.

I guess I'm not really surprised to see a thread along this vein, but I feel like I just got a rewind to back when everyone was complaining about the Wii forgetting hardcore gamers.
[/QUOTE]

You say that like it was wrong. I bought a Wii at launch and gave it to a friend in Spring 2008 as there hadn't been anything I wanted to play released since Metroid Prime 3 and Mario Galaxy, and even with those my enjoyment was lessened a bit by the lame (imo) motion and pointer controls.

So I just hope next gen sees traditional games left with traditional games, and the motion stuff left for casual games etc. I don't want to be doing any motion, pointer, waggle stuff in Gears of War 4 or Mass Effect 4 etc. etc.
 
[quote name='Malik112099']Im not an MS fanboy. I do use my Xbox for gaming more than my PS3 but all in all my PS3 gets used more. It is my media center. Pointing out fanboyism for one system does not automatically make me a fanboy for the other. You saying it does just further proves that you are one.[/QUOTE]

If you don't want to be labeled a fanboy, quit acting like one.
 
The complaints in this thread seem like they can be distilled into "Gaming is going mainstream and is going to sell out to the masses for greater profit." Motion Controls themselves not being the issue, but rather what Motion Controls seem to be a sign of - the desire to attract a far larger audience using more approachable (and typically less complicated) "casual" games.

Is it a valid concern? Quite possibly. However Gaming is just a hobby...if it stops being enjoyable, do something else.
 
A lot of you people need to to use waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more Astroglide next time.

Hopefully cheapy will make his next website cooking themed. Cheap Onion Kitchen, or COK. And then we can have this exact same argument where we suggest that Racheal Ray is going to ruin her industry.
 
[quote name='Salamando3000']The complaints in this thread seem like they can be distilled into "Gaming is going mainstream and is going to sell out to the masses for greater profit." Motion Controls themselves not being the issue, but rather what Motion Controls seem to be a sign of - the desire to attract a far larger audience using more approachable (and typically less complicated) "casual" games.

Is it a valid concern? Quite possibly. However Gaming is just a hobby...if it stops being enjoyable, do something else.[/QUOTE]

For me, I just don't like motion controls. They ruin what I use games for--to veg out and relax--as the require to much physical involvement. And I already prefer tv, movies, sports etc. to gaming much of the time due to the higher attention span/effort required for gaming. Having to move around is just another strike against gaming when exhausted after a long day etc.

I don't worry that much about games going "mainstream.' The gigantic sales of games like CoD, Halo, Gears of War etc. show that casual games won't kill off traditional games.

I just worry that we'll end up with motion controls in traditional games next generation.

But I agree 100% with your second statement. It's just a hobby, and I'd have no problem just dropping it and spending more time on my other hobbies if we do go to 100T motion control.

I like playing games and discussing them, and will continue to do so as long as there are no games with traditional controls coming out. If anything, it's kind of exciting to watch and see where the industry goes with all this motion control stuff coming out. But I won't be one of those guys like Dr. Mario Kart who continues posting and bitching about games online once the industry has left me behind and I no longer enjoy current gaming. It's just a hobby, and there's not point wasting time bitching about a hobby you no longer enjoy vs. moving on to other things you do enjoy. The older you get, the more precious you realize time to be--especially free time.

So no sense in getting angry over this stuff. I just like discussing and still like playing games and I'll be here until that changes. When it does, I'll bid the hobby adieu and spend more time discussing movies, sports and other hobbies than I do currently.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Motion Controls will not become the standard in Gaming. I'd stake my reputation as "Random Internet Guy" on it. They're new. Game developers want to use them to use them. There's also a bit of "making a game with motion controls makes it stand out" going on. In many ways, they're similar to the influx of 3D movies in theatres. Some movies benefit a good deal from it...others it's just tacked on so they can call it a 3D movie to make some extra dough off of it.

Normal controllers still have strengths over Motion Controls...actions are far more likely to be properly registered....control layouts can usually be customized, if not the controller themselves (they make one-handed controllers for people missing an arm...imagine playing Kinect without an arm)...two analog sticks allows for greater precision when moving a cursor...among other things.

We've just entered a period where motion controls are new and big. They'll hit a point of overuse, where eventually they'll fall into their proper place...as something that can be used in a game, but only if it actually enhances the game, and isn't tacked on or used as a replacement for too few buttons.
 
I hope you're right.

My worry is that the "point of overuse" won't happen until all three consoles launch with motion controls next gen, and we have a "wasted" generation of gaming for those of us who hate motion controls.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The only person I know that has a legit complaint about motion controls is the dude that HAS to sit 2 inches from the tv to see what's going on. Motion controls don't work well that close.

Everyone else is a lazy bitch

Anyone who's "hardcore" is a baby. I have played games since Atari, I enjoy Zelda, and Halo, and Starcraft, etc. But I can also man up and play some Hello Kitty Roller Rescue.

Anyone who doesn't like KB is just trying to hide that they are gay for him, but what they don't understand is that it's OK because everyone is gay for KB.
 
I doubt it will be a success, it's too expensive and motion controls never work as well as the companies responsible would have you believe. Does anyone really believe you'll be able to play Forza 3 properly with Kinnect ?

The Wii was a success because it was cheap, captured the imagination of the general public and made games simpler.

My parents have a Wii, and I can guarantee you they're not at home thinking "Wow I wish there was a Hi-Def Wii that was twice as expensive"

I could be wrong, but I suspect Kinnect will die on it's arse. People will quickly realise it's a $150 Eyetoy with $60 games.
 
[quote name='benjamouth']I doubt it will be a success, it's too expensive and motion controls never work as well as the companies responsible would have you believe. Does anyone really believe you'll be able to play Forza 3 properly with Kinnect ?

The Wii was a success because it was cheap, captured the imagination of the general public and made games simpler.

My parents have a Wii, and I can guarantee you they're not at home thinking "Wow I wish there was a Hi-Def Wii that was twice as expensive"

I could be wrong, but I suspect Kinnect will die on it's arse. People will quickly realise it's a $150 Eyetoy with $60 games.[/QUOTE]

Thats what they said about Guitar Hero, Rock Band, WiiFit, etc. The fact that people are preordering should hint it will sell whether they are selling them after market or for themselves. It easily sells out. Guaranteed.

Again, no one knows if it will come with a game or not. And it is more than an eyetoy... have you not watch the demos. Stop being ignorant.
 
[quote name='Strell']A lot of you people need to to use waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more Astroglide next time.

Hopefully cheapy will make his next website cooking themed. Cheap Onion Kitchen, or COK. And then we can have this exact same argument where we suggest that Racheal Ray is going to ruin her industry.[/QUOTE]
Well she could always change industries.....:drool:
 
[quote name='lordopus99']First off, I don't call Halo, Madden, and Call of Duty players "hardcore" gamers. That makes up at least 70-80% of Xbox users. Those users don't care about anything except for the next sports title or Call of Duty title coming out, which they will always come out with.

As for your second comment, you really don't know. I know someone who bought a PS3 for Rock Band 2 bundle. I know another who bought a Wii to play Rock Band Beatles Bundle. How many countless people bought a Wii to just play WiiFit. All these case are around the asking price. As for Wii, they have no comparison to a title like Dance Central, which personally I think is going to be the game that sells the Kinect.

My guess is it will sell well; in fact I predict a sell out.



The death of your favorite genre is due to a couple things. 1) blame pirating. PC "non-flash" gaming has been dying. Most stores don't even sell most titles anymore. 2) RTS and TBS are hard as hell to play on console. 3) the rise of FPS didn't do them under... you can attribute it to the rise of the one that conquered all on the PC, World of Warcraft and its clones.

Lastly, the one thing everyone forgets is that most of the people creating these games are true gamers. They not only play their games, they play other companies games. They will continue to make games that they will enjoy. Just as Nintendo still continues creating Metroid, Zelda, etc on Wii. I see Xbox and Sony still doing.

I personally don't understand all the hate. It is great technology and has huge upside. Even if just on the main pages on your xbox, watching ESPN, etc. In addition, none of us know what developers are developing for it or even what their time tables are; all we know is the launch titles. My assumption is like all of you that all the franchises you love will always still have a "controller" option and develop the game with that in mind. There is no reason to bitch and complain. Lastly, we also don't know if a game comes with it or not. Microsoft has not officially released any news on pricing or packaging.[/QUOTE]


Sorry dude, but your argument is weak. My point that the gaming industry is profit motivated is a valid one, and no one has refuted it. You really think game developers are going to make the games they love? No, they are going to make the games that their bosses tell them to make and that will be the games that bring in the most $$$.

For example, do you think game developers love making crap like Iron Man 2? Probably not, but it is quick easy money for the gaming companies so they are forced on these projects.

How do you explain the lack of JRPGS? Last gen, my gosh, dozens of these type games, but the industry starting seeing how popular FPS is, and again, due to profit, JRPGS are now few and far between.
 
[quote name='basilofbkrst']
Everyone else is a lazy bitch
[/QUOTE]

It's not being lazy, I just don't dig motion controls. I'm far from a lazy person, working a lot of hours and still hitting the gym, going for runs etc.

When I sit down at night to unwind, I want to do something relaxing. Be it through on a mindless movie or TV show, watch some sports, curl up with a good book, or sit down and play a great video game.

If I have to be moving around to play the game, it just kills my relaxation. I also find it less immersion as I quickly forget I'm holding a controller and pressing buttons when playing a great game. I can't forget that I'm flailing around with motion controls.

Just different strokes for different folks. I have no problem with motion controls existing and succeeding.

I just hope that they exist along side traditional games with traditional controls, and don't end up like the Wii where most traditional games have at least some level of motion control tacked on.
 
[quote name='kingkiller33']Sorry dude, but your argument is weak. My point that the gaming industry is profit motivated is a valid one, and no one has refuted it. [/QUOTE]

Actually, plenty have and your argument is weak.

What evidence have your provided? The Wii doesn't have as many "core" games?

Kinect is an add on, not packed in with every system. So your comparison is invalid. You can argue Wii has some core games too, but that's besides the point.

The industry is profit motivated? What industry isn't? Here, lets play a fun game.

Kinect is ruining the game industry! There will be no more games for the hardcore!

High School Musical is ruining the movie industry! There will be no more movies for the hardcore!

Pop music is ruining the music industry! There will be no more music for the hardcore!

Does your head hurt from the sky smashing into it?
 
Yeah, I don't see "core", "traditional", "hardcore" (or whatever you want to call them) going anywhere. The sales of CoD, Gears, Halo, GTA etc. etc. show there's a HUGE market for such games. And they will continue to exist along side the Wii Sports, Wii Fit and DDR rip offs etc.

My only concern, as I've said several times, is that if all 3 next gen consoles launch with motion controls included, that we'll see the core games have motion controls tacked on like we have on the majority of "core" games on the Wii.

Beyond that, I see no reason for anyone who enjoys "hardcore" games to be concerned at all.
 
If anyone thinks that the Wii's waggle controls killed core gaming, how did Nintendo show off more core titles than Microsoft at their E3 conference?
 
[quote name='ssjmichael']If anyone thinks that the Wii's waggle controls killed core gaming, how did Nintendo show off more core titles than Microsoft at their E3 conference?[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Core gaming is alive and well even on the Wii--though there was a dark period from late 2007 to fairly recently IMO.

The problem is that the core games mostly had waggle which killed them for some of us, and we hope the same doesn't happen on future Sony and MS consoles.

Have the motion controls there for games/genres built around them like Wii Sports etc., but leave them out of FPS games and other traditional genres that have been built around traditional controls. That's the ideal scenario IMO.

It doesn't have to be an either/or situation where a console is either all motion control to some degree in every game or none. Have motion control games and have totally traditionally controlled games and everyone is happy. I hope Sony or MS is smart enough to do that and not go the Nintendo route of tacking on some motion control into pretty much ever game.
 
Not to say I agree with "waggle killed core gaming", but Nintendo showed off a lot of stuff that won't necessarily depend on Waggle, whereas 90% of Microsoft's presentation was, in fact, waggle. You kind of provided your own counter argument there.
 
[quote name='Salamando3000']Not to say I agree with "waggle killed core gaming", but Nintendo showed off a lot of stuff that won't necessarily depend on Waggle, whereas 90% of Microsoft's presentation was, in fact, waggle. You kind of provided your own counter argument there.[/QUOTE]

Oh the MS conference blew for sure. The ESPN3 app announcement was the only thing new that excited me.

I didn't pay a lot of attention to Nintendo's conference, but the little I saw on the Wii (i.e. not 3DS) was still Waggle heavy--i.e. the new Zelda etc. But again, I didn't look closely as I doubt I'll ever buy another Nintendo console, so I freely admit that I probably missed some game announcements. I didn't pay much attention to Sony's stuff either.

But yeah, MS put so much emphasis on Kinnect, which is why I worry that their next gen console will be motion control centered from the start and we'll see even core games like Gears of War 4 or whatever having some level of motion control like we've seen with Zelda, Mario, Metroid etc. on the Wii.

If they'd been more low key in that announcement and focused on Halo, Gears, and announced some new games in traditional genres etc., I wouldn't be so concerned about them shifting focus to motion games going into next generation.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I didn't pay a lot of attention to Nintendo's conference, but the little I saw on the Wii (i.e. not 3DS) was still Waggle heavy--i.e. the new Zelda etc. But again, I didn't look closely as I doubt I'll ever buy another Nintendo console, so I freely admit that I probably missed some game announcements. I didn't pay much attention to Sony's stuff either.[/QUOTE]

Well, you're right on Zelda. The entire game looks to be waggle. Coincidentally, this is the least hyped I've been for a new Zelda game.

Aside from Zelda, there was remarkably little waggle involved. Metroid and Epic Mickey use the pointer, sure, but I don't hate the pointer. I think the pointer has genuine uses that enhance the gameplay. New Kirby looked to be completely void of it, and new Donkey Kong uses waggle sparringly (though any waggle is too much waggle).

Overall, I felt the average amount of movement required per game in MS's showing was far greater than the avg. amount of movement required per game in Nintendo's showing.
 
[quote name='Salamando3000']
Overall, I felt the average amount of movement required per game in MS's showing was far greater than the avg. amount of movement required per game in Nintendo's showing.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. Both (and Sony from the little I've seen) just had too much movement for me as anything beyond dual analog and buttons is too much for me!

I don't like the pointer either, I find dual analog much more precise and comfortable to use for aiming.
 
[quote name='seanr1221']Actually, plenty have and your argument is weak.

What evidence have your provided? The Wii doesn't have as many "core" games?

Kinect is an add on, not packed in with every system. So your comparison is invalid. You can argue Wii has some core games too, but that's besides the point.

The industry is profit motivated? What industry isn't? Here, lets play a fun game.

Kinect is ruining the game industry! There will be no more games for the hardcore!

High School Musical is ruining the movie industry! There will be no more movies for the hardcore!

Pop music is ruining the music industry! There will be no more music for the hardcore!

Does your head hurt from the sky smashing into it?[/QUOTE]


Wow, guess I missed it. Please explain in DETAIL how the industry is not motivated by profit. The rest of your comments make no sense.

Either way, win win situation for me. If my prediction comes true, I can at least come back here and gloat.


BTW, the MS E3 2010 is a good indicator of things to come. How much time did they spend on Kinect vs showing hardcore games? At the very least, we see Microsoft investing a lot of money and time into a product that is not geared towards hardcore gaming. MS is relentless and won't let Kinect go away quietly.
 
[quote name='kingkiller33']Wow, guess I missed it. Please explain in DETAIL how the industry is not motivated by profit. The rest of your comments make no sense.

Either way, win win situation for me. If my prediction comes true, I can at least come back here and gloat.


BTW, the MS E3 2010 is a good indicator of things to come. How much time did they spend on Kinect vs showing hardcore games? At the very least, we see Microsoft investing a lot of money and time into a product that is not geared towards hardcore gaming. MS is relentless and won't let Kinect go away quietly.[/QUOTE]

I never said the industry isn't motivated by profit, I said the exact opposite. No wonder my comments make no sense, you can barely comprehend a simple sentence.

And it's a win to come back and gloat?

I'll humor you though. MS E3 2010 is not a good indicator. At all. If all they presented was Kinect then MAYBE I could give you some credit, but they didn't. Guess what, you'll get tons of Halo, CoD, Gears, MGS: Rising, etc news from now until they come out! If you wanted an extra hour of people playing those games, I'm sorry you didn't get it.

Your argument is terrible with no evidence to support it. If motion controls make you so angry and nervous, quit gaming and take up a new hobby.
 
Yeah, I don't think anyone should be angry or defensive over this stuff.

It's just a hobby. Have fun playing games and discussing them and seeing where the industry goes. If you don't like the turn it takes, don't get angry and waste time bitching about it online.

I don't dig motion controls at all, but they don't make me angry. I just ignore them and focus on enjoying all the traditionally controlled games on the 360, and I've had a ton of fun gaming this generation (at least since getting at 360 in late 2007 anyway).

If motion controls become the norm next gen, I won't buy a console and will put the time into other hobbies. It's not the end of the world, and life's far to short to waste time getting upset over hobbies and arguing over hobbies that you no longer enjoy.

Over the years I've enjoyed discussing the game industry nearly as much as playing the games! So I like discussion these kind of shifts, and speculating about what will happen. But no one should be getting upset, and it's pretty silly to get into personal attacks and heated arguments over such silly things!
 
I don't see the big deal about Kinect. Sure it's for casuals and some of the games look interesting but only time will tell if it succeeds.

As long as it's not "forced" like many games are on the Wii, I have no problem with it. The only game I've played where I thought motion controls made sense and not forced was Wario Ware.
Having said that I don't see my self picking up a Kinect.

I do think some genres could benefit from motion controls. Driving games come to mind. But as long as you're enjoying yourself, what does it matter? Isn't that the point of gaming? Or has it turned into an "I need to have every single achievement point" obsession?

I don't think traditional games are going anywhere either, but the reality is that the casual/mainstream audience is MUCH larger compared to the size of the hardcore.

But what is "hardcore"? People who play Madden/COD/Halo/FF/GTA? People who prefer traditional controller games? If not getting super excited about the next GTA/Gears/Madden game then count me out as a "hardcore". I find them all boring.

IMO, if the "death" of traditional games means something different than yet another WW2 shooter, so be it. Seems to me the industry is getting lazy and suffering from sequelitis.
But if you're not happy, vote with your wallet.
 
[quote name='kingkiller33']Sorry dude, but your argument is weak. My point that the gaming industry is profit motivated is a valid one, and no one has refuted it. You really think game developers are going to make the games they love? No, they are going to make the games that their bosses tell them to make and that will be the games that bring in the most $$$.

For example, do you think game developers love making crap like Iron Man 2? Probably not, but it is quick easy money for the gaming companies so they are forced on these projects.

How do you explain the lack of JRPGS? Last gen, my gosh, dozens of these type games, but the industry starting seeing how popular FPS is, and again, due to profit, JRPGS are now few and far between.[/QUOTE]

I never said that money isn't a portion of the gaming industry'; money is the reason EVERYTHING is in business. I just said that developer creates games that they enjoy. For example, Cliffy B and the Gears of War franchise. Cliffy B has been on many shows as well as XB Live explaining other non-epic games that he loves to play. In addition, he claims how much he loves his own game franchise; you can even hear in his voice. Hence, why if you notice Bulletstorm looks like a Gears of War clone. If it was all about profit, why would the Unreal engine be given to multiple companies and corporations to build on? If it was all about profit, they would have held the market on best FPS engine.

Iron Man 2 is a terrible example since it is a movie franchise. Yes, they want the movie tie-in money so they will just shove something out due to quick timeline. But would you discredit Sega... they continue to create the game they love no matter how much it has been bashed over the years (yes I am talking about Sonic). The recent ones haven't sold well at all. But again, it is all about the profit so why would they continue to throw stuff out :roll:

Lack of JRPGs... there are still a bunch. FF13, Record of Agarest War, Magna Carta 2, Trinity Universe, White Night Chronicles, Star Ocean, just to name a recent few. You can add in all the earilier titles too if you want Disgaea 3 for example. Remember all the ones from last gen covered a 10 year span. Give it some time now that the PS3 is selling and I guarantee you will see a similiar amount. Most JRPG companies never supported the Xbox previous gen so expect similiar results. So to answer your question, no i don't think JRPGs or RPGs for that matter are hurting.
 
[quote name='seanr1221']Besides, the WRPG has taken over in America. Mass Effect 1 and 2, Fallout 3, Oblivion...[/QUOTE]
I'd hardly consider 4 titles a "take over"...

You also have to take into account that the majority of JRPG's are NOT released in North America and Europe.
Localization/marketing is not exactly cheap...
 
There's Fable II and Dragon Age.

Plus Fable III and New Vegas soon.

I'd rather play most of those games than any JRPG released this gen.

And by taken over I meant being better games than JRPGs.
 
[quote name='IceBlueShoes']I'd hardly consider 4 titles a "take over"...

You also have to take into account that the majority of JRPG's are NOT released in North America and Europe.
Localization/marketing is not exactly cheap...[/QUOTE]

Yeah, and what's hurt that is those companies have never ported to MS's systems much and been focused on the Japanese systems.

But this gen on the Japanese system front you have the Wii were hardly anything sells besides Nintendo's games and some random casual games--so they're not going to take the risk on localizing JRPGs for the Wii.

And the PS3 sales have lagged way behind the PS2, so they don't have the market base they had on the PS1 and PS2. Less attractive to take the risk on localizing for the third place console, vs. the first place consoles (PS1 and 2) that were dominating the market.

Seems like there's been a decent amount of JRPGs for the DS and PSP though--but I don't follow the handheld market all that closely.
 
[quote name='seanr1221']There's Fable II and Dragon Age.

Plus Fable III and New Vegas soon.

I'd rather play most of those games than any JRPG released this gen.[/QUOTE]

Same for me. I used to be semi into JRPGs, but was always a bit put off by the stories, characters and turn based combat. And now I just can't stand that stuff.

I much prefer the WRPGs--those and FPS games are about all I play these days, along with the odd action/adventure game like Prince of Persia or Assassin's Creed 2.

Having a blast this gen playing them, and to get back on topic I hope I can continue playing those genres waggle free in the next generation as well! :D
 
[quote name='seanr1221']There's Fable II and Dragon Age.

Plus Fable III and New Vegas soon.

I'd rather play most of those games than any JRPG released this gen.

And by taken over I meant being better games than JRPGs.[/QUOTE]
Sales wise, yes.

I'm not saying western RPG's suck, I prefer them as well, just saying the "death of the JRPG" is being exaggerated.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, and what's hurt that is those companies have never ported to MS's systems much and been focused on the Japanese systems.

But this gen on the Japanese system front you have the Wii were hardly anything sells besides Nintendo's games and some random casual games--so they're not going to take the risk on localizing JRPGs for the Wii.

And the PS3 sales have lagged way behind the PS2, so they don't have the market base they had on the PS1 and PS2. Less attractive to take the risk on localizing for the third place console, vs. the first place consoles (PS1 and 2) that were dominating the market.

Seems like there's been a decent amount of JRPGs for the DS and PSP though--but I don't follow the handheld market all that closely.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you.
The JRPG's haven't been translated. Most people aren't going to learn a new language just to play a game.
Only the "hardcore" are going to do so.

But RPG's are alive and well on the portable systems.

But look at it on the flipside, how well would Fallout or Dragon Age do in Asia?
I could see either doing alright in Latin America/Europe, but Asia, probably not too well...

Anyways, if any "waggle" would be used in those games, outside of a few puzzles, it'd likely feel forced.
 
All true, but I do think JRPGs are on the wane on consoles in the US. The market here is becoming very western devleoper focused, so we'll see fewer and fewer JRPGs localized.

Just the way things go--genres rise, and others fall. I hated seeing the end of 2D games as some genres like Platformers I just felt never made the transition well. Another example is the decline of RTS games as PC gaming fell off (aside from MMORPGs) and consoles came to dominate gaming.

All you can do is adapt and find new things you enjoy to play or move on. I used to mainly play platformers, sports games (back when they were simple!) etc. But those games didn't make the 3D transition well (IMO), so my interest in gaming lagged a lot for a good while as I struggled to get into 3D games, but I eventually got into FPS games, WRPGs etc. and rekindled my interest in gaming.

Others didn't--some of them quit gaming. Others play old games, handhelds and bitch about HD/3D gaming incessantly like Dr. Mario Kart.

For me, motion control is something I don't think I can adapt to if it becomes something that gets forced into all games next gen like what has mostly happened on the Wii. But I won't be a DMK bitching incessantly about it. If it happens, I'll shrug, vote with my wallet by not buying, and hope the next generation after that sees a move back to more traditional controls. If not, I have plenty of other hobbies to invest my time and money on.

Hopefully it won't come to that and MS and Sony will push motion controlled games for the family etc. without forcing waggle and pointer controls in nearly every traditional game like Nintendo has. No reason motion controls and traditional controls can't exists side-by-side. Nintendo convinced themselves that motion controls were the future of all gaming--I think they're wrong there and that the two control schemes should exist side-by-side. And hopefully that's how it plays out.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']All true, but I do think JRPGs are on the wane on consoles in the US. The market here is becoming very western devleoper focused, so we'll see fewer and fewer JRPGs localized.

Just the way things go--genres rise, and others fall. I hated seeing the end of 2D games as some genres like Platformers I just felt never made the transition well. Another example is the decline of RTS games as PC gaming fell off (aside from MMORPGs) and consoles came to dominate gaming.

All you can do is adapt and find new things you enjoy to play or move on. I used to mainly play platformers, sports games (back when they were simple!) etc. But those games didn't make the 3D transition well (IMO), so my interest in gaming lagged a lot for a good while as I struggled to get into 3D games, but I eventually got into FPS games, WRPGs etc. and rekindled my interest in gaming.

Others didn't--some of them quit gaming. Others play old games, handhelds and bitch about HD/3D gaming incessantly like Dr. Mario Kart.

For me, motion control is something I don't think I can adapt to if it becomes something that gets forced into all games next gen like what has mostly happened on the Wii. But I won't be a DMK bitching incessantly about it. If it happens, I'll shrug, vote with my wallet by not buying, and hope the next generation after that sees a move back to more traditional controls. If not, I have plenty of other hobbies to invest my time and money on.

Hopefully it won't come to that and MS and Sony will push motion controlled games for the family etc. without forcing waggle and pointer controls in nearly every traditional game like Nintendo has. No reason motion controls and traditional controls can't exists side-by-side. Nintendo convinced themselves that motion controls were the future of all gaming--I think they're wrong there and that the two control schemes should exist side-by-side. And hopefully that's how it plays out.[/QUOTE]
While I see what you're getting at, you have to also realize, that video game industry does NOT revolve around the US market.

I think this is why Nintendo has had so much success. They're going for "everyone" vs. a niche group that like FPS as an example. When was the last time you heard of a major FPS having people wait in line to get it at midnight outside of North America? The exception might be the UK...

I'm not saying that a developer shouldn't take into consideration the largest market, but if it doesn't adapt to local markets their is the danger of smaller developers starting up and taking the market from under them.
Look at Japanese developers and how they treated foreign markets up until the PS2 era. They had a largely "you'll play this and like it" approach and then developers such as Biosoft have taken a large chunk of that market.

But like the "waggle" vs. controller debate, I don't see why both can't succeed side by side.
When the xbox launched most people thought 3 consoles couldn't survive and they have.
 
Just saying that JRPGs in the US have become a very small niche, so we're going to see less and less localized into english and ported over here as time goes on.

There will be plenty in Japan for sure--as you're right the game market isn't just the US. But very few are willing to learn a super difficult language like Japanese just to play games. So for English speaking JRPG fans, they are going to continue to have less and less AAA JRPGs to play as time goes on and have to adapt or move on. So again, not saying JRPGs will wane/decline--just that we'll continue to see less and less translated to English, localized for the US and ported over here.

I only speak English, at 31 I'll never learn a 2nd language, and I'm pretty unlikely to ever live in another country, so all I care about is what I have available to buy in stores in the US and play in English. So while the video game industry doesn't revolve around the US, my gaming experience is 100% limited to what's available in the US/in English. And that's the case for most of the gamers on this site.
 
[quote name='IceBlueShoes']
When the xbox launched most people thought 3 consoles couldn't survive and they have.[/QUOTE]
I've never been convinced that there is room for 3 hardware makers. When all 3 can pull a profit at the end of the cycle, you can say this. But 1 of 3 lost a few billion last cycle, and 2 of 3 are going to lose billions this cycle, even if the cycle lasts another 5 years. So far, 3 can survive as long as one or two of them are fine with throwing billions of dollars away. Long term, the math doesnt add up. Something is going to change.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
For me, motion control is something I don't think I can adapt to if it becomes something that gets forced into all games next gen like what has mostly happened on the Wii. But I won't be a DMK bitching incessantly about it. If it happens, I'll shrug, vote with my wallet by not buying, and hope the next generation after that sees a move back to more traditional controls. If not, I have plenty of other hobbies to invest my time and money on.
[/QUOTE]

Then I think you can prepare to move on to something else right now. There is no way that the companies are going to abandon motion controls in the next gen. All of the consoles will be equipped with some form of motion control right out of the box. They have made inroads with former non-gamers that many didnt think possible.

But I believe that the reason you dont like motion controls in so-called 'traditional' games (aside from general fear of change) is just that in most cases it feels tacked on. There need to be more intuitive and free flowing ways to integrate the motion controls into the games. That is a challenge that developers will face and I'm sure they'll find a way to do so in meaningful ways.

Motion controls is just a further evolution of gaming control. I know many didnt think that full analog stick controls were going to be better than face buttons, but I wouldnt want to play a game like Fight Night with buttons since I've learned the stick controls. That particular game, I feel, controls better with the sticks. Similarly, in MLB2K10, the analog pitching just feels so much better than the 'three-click' pitching that most games had before. If developers can make those kinds of strides with motion controls, It will be good for everyone.

But of course, to address the OP's concern, Madden, Halo, Gears, Mario, etc. make *way* too much money for them to ever go away. They may be modified a bit in the future, but we'll adapt. We wont be playing Madden 11 the same way we played Madden 98. Hell, Madden 11 wont even have a sprint button for Pete's sake. Back in the day *nobody* would have seen that coming!
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']I've never been convinced that there is room for 3 hardware makers. When all 3 can pull a profit at the end of the cycle, you can say this. But 1 of 3 lost a few billion last cycle, and 2 of 3 are going to lose billions this cycle, even if the cycle lasts another 5 years. So far, 3 can survive as long as one or two of them are fine with throwing billions of dollars away. Long term, the math doesnt add up. Something is going to change.[/QUOTE]


I do agree with that. I think Sony and MS would be wise to partner up on a console. Sony can take the lead on hardware and marketing of the machine in Japan and MS can do that in the US.

Before the industry was very Japan dominated, with Japanese games and hardware being the norm both there and in the US, Europe etc. Now we have western games like FPS and WRPG that sell huge in the US and Europe etc., but not in Japan, and lots of Japanese games that don't sell well when ported to the west.

MS is wasting time trying to sell their wares in Japan, and to a lesser extent (as they have western development houses etc.) Sony is wasting time in the US.

Combine on one machine--have Sony sell it in Japan, MS sell it in the US. And just port over the Japanese games that will sell here and the western games that will sell in Japan.

That makes a lot more sense than both having consoles and trying to sell the same things in both the East and West to me.
 
I would say the situation for RPG is much better than before. You got Xseed, Natsume, Atlus, Ignition, NISA America all bring RPGs over. Xseed was in trouble but the got Falcom deal so they seems to be okay. Aside from the way Namco is handling Tales series we got just about every AAA JRPG, which you cant say about the PS2 era
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Just saying that JRPGs in the US have become a very small niche, so we're going to see less and less localized into english and ported over here as time goes on.

There will be plenty in Japan for sure--as you're right the game market isn't just the US. But very few are willing to learn a super difficult language like Japanese just to play games. So for English speaking JRPG fans, they are going to continue to have less and less AAA JRPGs to play as time goes on and have to adapt or move on. So again, not saying JRPGs will wane/decline--just that we'll continue to see less and less translated to English, localized for the US and ported over here.

I only speak English, at 31 I'll never learn a 2nd language, and I'm pretty unlikely to ever live in another country, so all I care about is what I have available to buy in stores in the US and play in English. So while the video game industry doesn't revolve around the US, my gaming experience is 100% limited to what's available in the US/in English. And that's the case for most of the gamers on this site.[/QUOTE]
Not saying you're wrong and I see what you mean.
I'm not going to learn Japanese to simply play a game. I'm not THAT hardcore. lol
Having said that I'm trying to learn a 3rd language, but anyhoo...

This might be 1 area the film industry got things "right" when they realized their was plenty of world beyond the US border and no longer rely on sales from 1 market.
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']I've never been convinced that there is room for 3 hardware makers. When all 3 can pull a profit at the end of the cycle, you can say this. But 1 of 3 lost a few billion last cycle, and 2 of 3 are going to lose billions this cycle, even if the cycle lasts another 5 years. So far, 3 can survive as long as one or two of them are fine with throwing billions of dollars away. Long term, the math doesnt add up. Something is going to change.[/QUOTE]
Agree completely, but right now their are 3 home consoles (4 if you count the PC) and 2 portable consoles (3 if you count the iPod/iPhone).
Who is going to call it quits 1st though?
MS and Sony both have deeep pockets so it could be a while...

Anyways, Kinect games will likely require little localization compared to an RPG, so that alone is a huge bonus to the casual game developers.

But as long as I don't have to wave my arms around like an idiot in Halo, I'm happy.
 
[quote name='hostyl1']Then I think you can prepare to move on to something else right now. There is no way that the companies are going to abandon motion controls in the next gen. All of the consoles will be equipped with some form of motion control right out of the box. They have made inroads with former non-gamers that many didnt think possible. [/quote]

But again that doesn't mean that they need to use the motion controls for FPS games, WRPGs etc.

They can bundle in the motion controls for family games etc., and a normal controller for those kind of games.

Hopefully it won't be like the Wii with motion controls forced into everything. But if it is, then I'm prepared to move on like I said. Not worth getting angry or upset over. I like gaming a lot, but it's already not my favorite hobby so I wouldn't lose sleep over moving on from it if I have to.

But I believe that the reason you dont like motion controls in so-called 'traditional' games (aside from general fear of change) is just that in most cases it feels tacked on. There need to be more intuitive and free flowing ways to integrate the motion controls into the games. That is a challenge that developers will face and I'm sure they'll find a way to do so in meaningful ways.
Click to expand...

That's only a small part of it for me. As I said a few times early, I play games solely to slouch on the couch, veg out and relax. I can't do that if I have to stand up, or even have to move my arms around etc. And it takes me out of the game, the controller is invisible in my hand after a bit of getting sucked into a game--but every time I had to waggle my arm in Zelda or Mario Galaxy I lost my immersion.

Just not my cup of tea, and again I hope they manage to exist side by side and include traditional controls/controllers for FPS and other genres better suited to control pads than motion control.
 
[quote name='IceBlueShoes']
This might be 1 area the film industry got things "right" when they realized their was plenty of world beyond the US border and no longer rely on sales from 1 market.[/QUOTE]

Yep, but to be fair, all they have to do with film is slap on subtitles for multiple languages.

But honestly, I don't see why that can't happen with games. The only localization that's absolutely needed is putting the menus in multiple language and having subtitles for dialogue and in game text (signs etc) into multiple languages.

They could do that a lot cheaper and quicker than finding new voice actors, localizing plots in some games etc.
 
[quote name='kingkiller33']How do you explain the lack of JRPGS? Last gen, my gosh, dozens of these type games, but the industry starting seeing how popular FPS is, and again, due to profit, JRPGS are now few and far between.[/QUOTE]

Yeah Square started making FPS games oh wait.... JRPGs don't get made as much anymore because people realized how shitty they were. Instead of playing a JRPG you're better off watching anime. You can still get your fill of a shitty soap opera minus the hours of grinding and random battles.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But again that doesn't mean that they need to use the motion controls for FPS games, WRPGs etc.

They can bundle in the motion controls for family games etc., and a normal controller for those kind of games.

Hopefully it won't be like the Wii with motion controls forced into everything. But if it is, then I'm prepared to move on like I said. Not worth getting angry or upset over. I like gaming a lot, but it's already not my favorite hobby so I wouldn't lose sleep over moving on from it if I have to.[/quote]

Maybe there is a way to enhance gameplay even in FPSes and WRPGs with motion controls, maybe not. But even in the case of the Wii, Nintendo themselves have recognized that motion and traditional controls can coexist. Both Mario Kart Wii and Super Smash Bros. Brawl can be played completely devoid of motion controls (with a Wavebird even). But perhaps by 'shaking' to reload instead of pressing a button can make you feel more in the game. It depends on implementation.


That's only a small part of it for me. As I said a few times early, I play games solely to slouch on the couch, veg out and relax. I can't do that if I have to stand up, or even have to move my arms around etc. And it takes me out of the game, the controller is invisible in my hand after a bit of getting sucked into a game--but every time I had to waggle my arm in Zelda or Mario Galaxy I lost my immersion.
Click to expand...

I think that more 'learning curve' than anything. You're not used to waggle currently, so it might break immersion. But I cant see, for example, shaking the Wiimote to get zombies off you in RE4 as significantly different from clicking the thumbsticks back-n-forth to similarly shake them off. Hell, I bet if you watched gamers, they'd be instinctively (and unconsciously) shaking the controller even in the non motion controlled version.

Just not my cup of tea, and again I hope they manage to exist side by side and include traditional controls/controllers for FPS and other genres better suited to control pads than motion control.
Click to expand...

I get that you dont like it. I remember, and since your 31 you might remember, the big transitions that have happened with controls. Atari made it fashionable to control games with your right hand as opposed to the left hand layout most often seen in arcades. Nintendo made us do away with the Atari joystick with the introduction of the. I always used my right hand on the joystick for movement, but now I had to use my left thumb? It took awhile to wrap my head around it, but we all adapted. I think there can be a similar place for motion controls even in "hardcore" games. Developers just need to find it.
 
[quote name='hostyl1']I think that more 'learning curve' than anything. You're not used to waggle currently, so it might break immersion. But I cant see, for example, shaking the Wiimote to get zombies off you in RE4 as significantly different from clicking the thumbsticks back-n-forth to similarly shake them off. Hell, I bet if you watched gamers, they'd be instinctively (and unconsciously) shaking the controller even in the non motion controlled version.[/quote]

That could be true for my immersion gripe. But doesn't help with my laziness with gaming and just wanting to slouch on the couch, pound some beers and chill out. :D Much easier to do that with pushing buttons than having to flail/waggle.

I get that you dont like it. I remember, and since your 31 you might remember, the big transitions that have happened with controls. Atari made it fashionable to control games with your right hand as opposed to the left hand layout most often seen in arcades. Nintendo made us do away with the Atari joystick with the introduction of the. I always used my right hand on the joystick for movement, but now I had to use my left thumb? It took awhile to wrap my head around it, but we all adapted. I think there can be a similar place for motion controls even in "hardcore" games. Developers just need to find it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but all the control schemes from Atari through today (sans Wii and PC) where sticks (or d-pads) and buttons. So control really didn't undergo any major transformation.

Going from Gamepads to no controller with kinnect is a MUCH more dramatic change than going from the Atari sticks to the NES gamepad, or from the dpads of the 16 bit era to the analog sticks of the 3D era etc.

Also, the move to analog sticks was necessitated by the move to 3D gaming. 3D gaming wouldn't work well with d-pads.

There's no need for motion controls in traditional 3D games IMO. They're just a gimmick--just like the current 3D fad in movies. Just a novelty that make things feel fresh for some, but don't improve the quality of the game/movie IMO.

Now games like Wii Sports, Wii Fit etc. require motion controls--and that's where they should be used--new genres based around the idea.

But I don't think they need forced on to FPS, WRPGs etc. If they have to be there, make them like Mario Kart and Smash Brothers were there is a traditional control option--just like I can go see Toy Story 3 in 2D. No need to make it an either or thing IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top