I think this image sums it up well:
The State of the Video Game Industry.
Really, Cracked.com got it dead-on; people here are ranting about Nintendo sequels, but really, the big problem is those targetting the supposedly more "mature" and "more tasteful" FPS-playing crowd on the Xbox 360 and PS3. We just have constant re-hashes of
Tom Clancy/
Modern Warfare games. We kinda had this problem a few years back, only then, it was all World War II games, rather than modern-era shooters. And we have the perrenial "grizzled space marine vs. aliens/zombies" shooters. (bonus points if the marine's last name is "Shepard")
Iwata has a lot of truth to his words... Most developers miss the point in their games; they focus on specifics, insisting on making sure they have X bloom and Y gun done in Z manner. As a result, they miss the big picture on having a game that's fun to play and lasts. Bungie recognized this: this is why
Halo games sit at the top of the console FPS pile. Everyone seeking to emulate them has failed pretty hard. In reality, making a good game can be broken down to following through with a simple plan:
1-Put in a good atmospheric or gimmick hook to draw people in.
2-Base the gameplay around well-polished, addictive mechanics.
3-Give the game enough content/replay value to capitalize on the above addictiveness.
4-Lay out content in a manner that players can select how much time they want to commit per session.
It's surprising how often developers fail on the above. They somehow think that lots of bloom will make do for #1, when in reality, even low-end graphics can do this. I'm not talking just Nintendo that makes it work; I immediately think of the 2005 game
Indigo Prophecy, which in spite of the Xbox 360 being the new kid on the block, made do with PS2 graphics (and didn't give any upgrades for the Xbox or PC versions) yet still was easily one of the most alluring games ever made.
Similarly, #2 often goes way out the window; mechanics are usually done through naive idealism, yielding contrived systems that make many players ask if the developers bothered to even test the game.
#3 is a major failing of most top-shelf titles; they spend all their development budget on flashy effects, and leave too little substance to merit buying instead of renting over the weekend. (or even overnight!) Multiplayer can be a quick fix, but only if #2 is done well.
#4 is a tricky one as well... Though often enough, usually done pretty decently; frequent checkpoints, and the short duration of multiplayer matches allow for players to easily select how long they play at a time. The main issue is making the transition from one "chunk" of play to the next smooth.
[citation][nom]Zingam[/nom]Also Nintendo should realize that they have crappy hardware that is out-of-date and only boring games can be made for it.[/citation]
This sort of graphics argument never ceases to amaze me. I mean, seriously... If the Wii's "not powerful enough for an interesting game," then what about the Playstation 2? I suppose all of its ~2,000 games are "boring," because it just plain isn't powerful enough?
No, the answer is that some people are a strange form of graphics whore, and whatever console they're told is "latest and greatest" is all that's enough... Even though it lags badly behind PC capabilities, and it'll be completely obsoleted by the next console soon enough anyway.
Facebook
Twitter