I keep hearing "The Wii U has an amazing game library" or something along those lines. I keep hearing all these words of praise for the system's library. But I can't help but think that that praise only comes relative to the PS4 and XB1 having arguably the some of the worst first year game libraries [both platform (e.g. just PS4) and generation exclusives (e.g. PS4, XB1, PC, NO PS360)] in video game history.
It's no secret that I'm not a fan of Hyrule Warriors or Mario 3D World, but even putting my distaste for those games aside, relative to older Nintendo systems, the Wii U is still behind the curve.
So is the Wii U really like the Dreamcast? Low selling but beloved due to great games? Or is it simply the least worst option in terms of game selection among the 8th gen home consoles.
It is nothing like the Dreamcast. (Main problem was Sega running out of money it had a very strong start).
It is more like the TG16. (Some people knew they were good but not many and they sold very badly even when there is no reason it shouldn't be better it is either not or not on the system (Not sure the influence is as direct as Nintendo saying NES or TG16 you choose)).
“30fps Is Not a Good Artistic Decision, It's a Failure”
Freedom of the press is for those who happen to own one.
I think one of the problems with cut-scenes and cinematic sequences in games is that the writing just isn't good, and the formats don't actually work together.
A video game is supposed to be an open-ended interactive experience, and a cut-scene is a scripted event, often pre-rendered...so in order to reach the scripted and pre-rendered visual sequence, you are "locked" to a very specific path, thus removing a good deal of the feeling that you're playing a "game" and that your choices matter.
Get this, sometimes choices shouldn't matter, or even exist at all. Games are software, nothing more, nothing less. They should not be limited by any preconceptions of what that software is. I love great linear, cutscene-heavy narrative games. They're great when they're great. Choice is overrated, because ultimately choice is a lie, like all video games are.
There is no 'world,' only the illusion of such. Every choice you think you're making a designer made for you many years ago. That's why I appreciate linear games, it shows the developers highlighting the best of what they've made and presenting that honestly.
... which is why I prefer reading a book when I want to follow a plot.
Books can't have cinematography, aesthetic design, etc, etc, etc. It's too vague of a medium for many things.
This is why my children won't be playing video games until they can appreciate a good piece of literature.
And I'll be loathe to teach the younglings condescension until they learn about the ad-hominem fallacy.
I like books just fine, but words on a page can only convey so much. Models animated in a 3D space with voice acting and sound paint a much more exact picture. Just think about acting. GRRM can write however much he cares to on Ned Stark's demeanor, but there is a huge amount of nuance in human expression that can't be conveyed reasonably concisely in words. Games allow a lot of resources to be concentrated into one collaboration.
I love writing, I've written for school papers for years, but I recognize the medium's limits. I wouldn't want to write a huge, sprawling story because that medium is just very limiting in many ways. Not to mention I'm a visual person and seeing is a better method of exploring a world for me.
Anyway if the book club's over could we go back to talking about the topic? First Bolt Strike tells me to go talk to people instead of games and now you guys are telling me to go read Dostoevsky! I thought we were supposed to like video games?
... which is why I prefer reading a book when I want to follow a plot.
Books can't have cinematography, aesthetic design, etc, etc, etc. It's too vague of a medium for many things.
This is why my children won't be playing video games until they can appreciate a good piece of literature.
And I'll be loathe to teach the younglings condescension until they learn about the ad-hominem fallacy.
I like books just fine, but words on a page can only convey so much. Models animated in a 3D space with voice acting and sound paint a much more exact picture. Just think about acting. GRRM can write however much he cares to on Ned Stark's demeanor, but there is a huge amount of nuance in human expression that can't be conveyed reasonably concisely in words. Games allow a lot of resources to be concentrated into one collaboration.
I love writing, I've written for school papers for years, but I recognize the medium's limits. I wouldn't want to write a huge, sprawling story because that medium is just very limiting in many ways. Not to mention I'm a visual person and seeing is a better method of exploring a world for me.
Anyway if the book club's over could we go back to talking about the topic? First Bolt Strike tells me to go talk to people instead of games and now you guys are telling me to go read Dostoevsky! I thought we were supposed to like video games?
Pffft! Everyone knows that video games are just a gateway to real life activities. That's why people who play Rock Band and Guitar Hero learn to play real guitars, people who play Grand Theft Auto grow up to kill real hookers, and people who play Call of Duty wind up in the military... ok, so one of those might have some merit, but please recognize the sarcasm in there.
Seriously, though, I appreciate a linear game just fine, but I play games to do just that: PLAY GAMES. Not watch a one-hour-long cutscene every time the final boss kills me or rewatch the last ten minutes of cutscenes when I miss the ONE QTE in the entire chapter. See, if I wanted to watch a movie, I'd go watch a movie. I don't. I want to play games, which is why I tend to choose games that are heavy in gameplay.
And as a side-note, the word "shallow" is a bit touchy. Gameplay on its own can have depth. You don't need a story for depth. Shallow is something that's very simple and easy to understand. Rhythm games are often very shallow, because they can't really get away with being less so. Seriously, do you know anyone that plays BeatMania? Or DJ Hero? They made those way too complex, so while it's recognized and generally well-received, most Rhythm Gamers don't play it because the setup is too complex to be precise with. Platformers tend to be the same way. I can't think of many platformers (not action platforms, that's a little different) that require more than three or four different commands. That's because generally the more complex you make a platformer, the less anyone cares about it. On the flip-side, a lot of strategy games need to be complex. Or rather, they need a lot of depth. These are slow games that require a lot of thought and careful planning. Making a complex set up is one way of slowing down the player to suit the game being played, but you'll generally find that depth attracts the niche crowds while complexity drives away the masses... Wow, how did I get from QTE: The Game to Depth vs. Complexity? I seriously don't remember changing the subject.
... which is why I prefer reading a book when I want to follow a plot.
Books can't have cinematography, aesthetic design, etc, etc, etc. It's too vague of a medium for many things.
More so just different.
You see book fans expressing disappointment in casting decisions or set designs for the TV/movie adaptations all the time, because the author was very vivid and explicit in their descriptions of characters and places. Game of Thrones, for example, has had a lot of book fans complain that Arya "Horseface" Stark and Tyrion aren't ugly enough, especially after Tyrion's face was supposed to be horribly disfigured in the Battle of the Blackwater. Or something simple like Daenerys not having violet eyes.
Books and games/other visual mediums aren't really any better or worse than the other when it comes to aesthetic. Just different strokes for different folks.
I think with Game of Thrones they have missed out too many of what would be the hard bits to get right. (At least to be fair to HBO if they start something they finish it). Even the ambiguity which is a main feature is not there. (Everything is what a certain characters thinks has happened which may or not be what actually did).
I don't think starting at Book 2 is going to be a good idea for the Shannara thing either. (Even starting with the Word and Void would be better).
... which is why I prefer reading a book when I want to follow a plot.
Books can't have cinematography, aesthetic design, etc, etc, etc. It's too vague of a medium for many things.
I gotta go with Haru17 on this. As history has shown, the written word in book form has not been a useful tool for facilitating the telling of stories. That's why books didn't last very long. They were just too vague and were useful only when the reader had an imagination.
... which is why I prefer reading a book when I want to follow a plot.
Books can't have cinematography, aesthetic design, etc, etc, etc. It's too vague of a medium for many things.
I gotta go with Haru17 on this. As history has shown, the written word in book form has not been a useful tool for facilitating the telling of stories. That's why books didn't last very long. They were just too vague and were useful only when the reader had an imagination.
What do you mean by books haven't lasted long? As a medium?
So now I think I know why I don't like RPG's any more they are designed for people who hate reading and want everything spelt out to them.
I think I might retry the Master System : Ultima IV (Playing that and not even really getting it put me from group 3 out of 4 to group 1 in Primary school in English). It is possible I had more perseverance then than I do now though.
I am not sure I have a great appreciation for literature but I read books and enjoy it. (Probably Catch 22 and Ulysses are the only ones I have read that are considered to be that).
... which is why I prefer reading a book when I want to follow a plot.
Books can't have cinematography, aesthetic design, etc, etc, etc. It's too vague of a medium for many things.
I gotta go with Haru17 on this. As history has shown, the written word in book form has not been a useful tool for facilitating the telling of stories. That's why books didn't last very long. They were just too vague and were useful only when the reader had an imagination.
That wasn't my point you insufferable parody-of-no-one, ad-hominem-always troll! I never asserted that books were worthless, only limited. Books are not a visual medium, they just aren't. You read the words and they register concepts in your mind. You can form a mental image of things, but that's the thing about mental images; they are not concrete. There is a lot of nuance of movement that is much easier to get across in a video-based medium.
Just think about the video game medium; you can literally just make books in it, as you see with ibooks. You can do just anything in software, the creative freedom is incredible at a base level.
Seriously, though, I appreciate a linear game just fine, but I play games to do just that: PLAY GAMES. Not watch a one-hour-long cutscene every time the final boss kills me or rewatch the last ten minutes of cutscenes when I miss the ONE QTE in the entire chapter. See, if I wanted to watch a movie, I'd go watch a movie. I don't. I want to play games, which is why I tend to choose games that are heavy in gameplay.
I'm not as exclusionary as many people seem to be about watching some games. I mean, we all like TV and movies, right? What's wrong with interacting with them sometimes? I would love a story like the Order, if the story was very good.
And as a side-note, the word "shallow" is a bit touchy. Gameplay on its own can have depth. You don't need a story for depth.
That's just the thing though, very few games have depth as far as I'm concerned. Shadow of Mordor had depth (and some story to boot), most RPGs have depth, Zelda games have depth, but Far Cry? Mario Kart? The vast majority of 2D games? I don't find depth in those games. For me a game has to be so mechanically involved, but not too obscure to stand on gameplay alone. I've played too many boring point-and-shoot or light-attack, heavy-attack games to care anymore.
The only game that I would consider 'great' without any real story is Monster Hunter and the vast majority of games aren't Monster Hunter, not anything even close to it. The way I see it, if you're going to offer a (not local coop-focused) game without a story you had better be damn sure that gameplay holds up because if it gets even a little bit stale you're done. It's just so easy for gameplay to become a chore.
It is not too vague if you have an imagination and real people's points of view are not concrete either. (Other than in limited contexts like mine when it comes to 60fps).
I agree with the OP that it's more to do with how bad the other systems' libraries are/were but the Wii U only has them to beat. I think Nintendo's first wave of HD games pretty much destroys what Sony and MS made in the first two years of PS360 (but probably not their 3rd parties). I reckon there are a few games that will go down as classics on Wii U but I can't see it reaching Gamecube/Dreamcast status yet. It's more like the Saturn at the moment.
It's still my favourite console ever.
I only posted this to get my avatar as the forum's thumbnail.
Good evidence for this is watching the first Hobbit film at 48fps. Looks more like watching a play (Which by definition has to be more realistic given that it is real people in the same room).
So for realism people should choose 60fps.
“30fps Is Not a Good Artistic Decision, It's a Failure”
Freedom of the press is for those who happen to own one.
A) The Wii U has good games on it. People really like Pikmin 3, Wind Waker HD, Smash, Mario Kart, Bayonetta, and the list goes on. Then again, if I go up to someone who has a PS4 or One, they'll tell me about the list of games they enjoy as well including Halo, Infamous Second Son, Forza, and GTA V. So, in that regard, it's a matter of who you're talking to. On this site in particular, of course you'll hear a lot about the Wii U's batch...
and b) Last year was full of "disappointments" on the PS4 and One. Games that were hyped to the moon and offered...well, a good experience, but not one that was as great as the hype made it out to be. On top of that, there were a fair amount of bugged games and the whole AC Unity is only 24 fps debacle...and the Wii U didn't have any of that. Mario Kart 8, Hyrule Warriors, Bayonetta 2, and Smash Bros. were all heavy hitters that brought what they said they'd bring with minimal issues.
At the end of the generation, I think the Wii U's library will be considered a good one, but one not many people played... A lot like the Dreamcast and GameCube before it.
I own a PS1, GBA, GBA SP, Wii (GCN), 360, 3DS, PC (Laptop), Wii U, and PS4.
I used to own a GBC, PS2, and DS Lite
Comic books look pretty visual to me. Second, I've also seen poetry laid out so that the words create shapes - while keeping the font the same. I don't remember (or care) which style of poetry that was, probably something from the 20th century.
Graphic novels / manga / comic books are essentially a different medium. Yes, they are also printed, but the vast majority of books are solely text with maybe one image for the cover. The thing about books is, the experience of reading them is practically identical whether you're looking at them or blind, reading brail. Hence they're not a visual medium. Anyway, you get my point.
Forums
Topic: Why is the Wii U's library so lauded?
Posts 261 to 280 of 308
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.