Topic: Wiiware is lowering our expectations

The gaming industry as a whole.

They made rubbish games in the 80's too kids.
Hell, Jet Set Willy, an otherwise very good game was SOLD with a bug that meant you couldn't complete the damn thing without entering in a POKE.

Did you just say Jet Set Willy was rubbish? Wow. Are you going to call Super Mario Bros the worst game of all time next?

@Hyper Luigi: Every successful console has a bunch of trashy games on it

MegaMan 9 doesn't count as its mutiplatform.

Who or what are you directing that at? The only mention of the game that I've noticed was on the first page.

But the idea that it "doesn't count" is silly. Count for what? It's a Wiiware game. I downloaded it on Wiiware, on my Wii, using Wii Points on the Wii Shop Channel. Not only that, but it was announced first for WiiWare and released first for WiiWare. That's a lot of Wii. This thread has nothing to do with exclusivity that I noticed.

My expectations of the fun I'll have from a game do not change based on whether it's download or not, or which system it's on. Therefore, I find WiiWare to be significantly lacking in overall quality and believe that the majority of reviews are overly generous. I do recognize that what I count important in a game is somewhat unusual, as I care about the intangible "fun" FAR more than individual aspects like overall production quality (graphics, sound) or how much it costs (crap at $10 is still crap, just like the crap at $50).

I don't think it's right that so many of you poked fun at Sean Aaron for being bad at SMB3. Who cares if he can't get past World 2? I respect his opinion on that matter and think he would be doing a great disservice to give the game a review and score that didn't reflect his difficulties. Of course, I'm the guy who wrote a 6.5 user review for FFVII on GameSpot, so I think my point of view on these matters is pretty clear.

High fives.
I approve this message.

I suppose when you get right down to it, it's impossible to write a review that takes EVERYTHING into account. Sean Aaron could point out in his theoretical SMB3 review that he's not so great at/fond of platformers in general and say that your milage may vary; that would be very helpful. I could say that although I dislike the Materia system, others might think it's great. Whenever I think of reviewers doing this sort of thing, it's always Corbie that comes to mind. He's just awesome like that.

I'd usually recommend reading multiple reviews for games you're just not sure about, but that tends to be hard to do for WiiWare because most sites/magazines don't review most/any of them. As a result (and because demos aren't standard on Wii; still hoping they fix that soon), I usually just ignore WiiWare. Have I missed some games I'd enjoy? Probably. But I've wasted too much money being disappointed with games that the reviews made sound better than they were already and just can't risk it.

No one's poking fun. Just countering the claim that an obviously subjective minority opinion is somehow "objective." There's nothing objective about a video game review, even less a game you haven't finished. Would you consider a movie review "objective" if the reviewer walked out ten minutes into it? Granted, there it's entirely by choice, but it's still equally uninformed. I also don't see how what was for a long time the best selling game ever "appeals to a limited audience." There's no arguing with the facts there. The audience is one of the biggest there is.

But more importantly, it's all subjective. Your 6.5 score of a game that is constantly praised is just more evidence of this. I personally think you're being generous there. Some more subjectivity for you. I certainly don't fault anyone for not being good at Mario 3, though I am surprised. If I wanted to poke fun at him for being bad at video games, I wouldn't be so openly in awe of the guy for saying Radiant Dawn is easy. That game destroys me.

EDIT: Also, I wouldn't assume the discussion is even about him either. Nintendork has taken up the same message, and it seems to me just a discussion of subjectivity versus objectivity in game reviews with Mario 3 as an example. How this came up in the first place, I'm not sure. I only happened to notice the thing about Mario 3 while skimming over this.

I think it's fair to at least be given the opportunity to voice your complaint that a game is too hard. After all, if you're assigned to review a game and you CAN'T finished it because it's too hard for you, you don't really have a choice but to post a "game uncompleted" review.

Funny thing about FFVII is...I kinda WAS being generous with that 6.5. My review (unprofessional though it was) complained of not only the Materia system, but also the confusing storyline and the hard-to-navigate landscapes. I like the way GameSpot has a space to say how much time you spent on the game; I freely admit that I've never FINISHED FFVII. But I think getting through the first disc (20+ hours) was enough to give me an overall impression of the game.

I can see lowering a platform game score for 'being hard' if the control is bad or has not aged well like Super Mario 1 or like Ghost and Goblins. However Mario 3 - 6.5? Man, my sister could get deep into that game - when we were kids!

But I am biased one of my favorite games of all time, like 10 million other people!!!

As war as wiiware lowering expectations, I think it does. What do you think New Super Mario Wii would have looked like had it been 'just' a wiiware game?

Yes i think it lowers our expectations... there are plenty of wiiware games with a GOOD concept but bad execution...
Games that will be great in multiplayer but devs didn't implemented (bittos+, tumblebugs), games that could have a little more levels, or length or a better control layout, simple things that are left out because "it is a downloadable cheap game, lets doesn't think too much about it"

Well for one thing I'm pretty sure it wouldn't fit the size limit. In this hypothetical scenario, are you suggesting that it would be broken down to WiiWare size? If so, that would be pretty disappointing, but I imagine it still would have been worth a WW price point, providing they took levels from the latter half of the game.

@Adam

I just do not think one digital game on wiiware or iphone or wherever had as much work effort and dollars pumped into it as NSMBW. Maybe I am wrong, but I am not talking about file limit or graphics I am talking dedication to excellence and game length.

NSMBW the whole game is awesome all the way through, if it sold on 360 and EA made it probably the bonus world would be pay DLC or something

Not being a fandork, I just have a BAD feeling about digital in general. I wish the great games on wiiware were at retail or even on compilation discs! I am old fashioned!

Of course WiiWare games don't have as much money pumped into them. They are low-budget titles and aren't expected to sell as much. Pumping dollars into a game doesn't mean anything though. Cave Story was made entirely by one person, entirely: music, graphics, design, programming, etc. It's bigger than many NES games in scope, and those games may look dated today but at the time had relatively a lot of money pumped into them.

As for effort, I'd sort of agree. For most WiiWare games anyway. But if you take into account team size, the amount of effort per team member on the better WiiWare games, some easily had more effort put into them than NSMBW had, World of Goo and Bit Trip being the shining examples, made by 2- and 3-man teams respectively, if I recall correctly. Just watch the credits for the game, and imagine these tiny indie games working on games at coffee houses on laptops with little to no budget. That's devotion.

There is nothing wrong with finding a game difficult. But you can't just simply give a game a low score because you lack the skill to play it or because you don't like the genre. A review should not be scored based on your gaming skills or based on which genres you preffer. It should be based on the game, what it is trying to achieve and how well it does that. You should always remember that a game you don't like or find difficult can still be a very good game, and a game you enjoy very mutch isn't necessarily a good game. The enjoyment you get out of a game isn't only determined by the quality of the game, but by how your psyche interacts with different parts of a game like gameplay, visuals and audio.

EDIT: This is in response to the post below, which was for some reason deleted and reposted.

If you take into account the team size, I would say that those in the underdog position are by nature going to put forth more effort because they have more riding on the game. Nintendo not only knows that NSMBW is a guaranteed sell with Mario's face and their marketing power, but they could take the loss even if it did somehow fail. Some of the independent teams working on WiiWare are depending on these games to eat. If that's not motivation to work hard, I don't know what is.

Having to do everything yourself is going to result in more effort than having ten people assigned to one task. The division of labor is not even in the same league. Maybe that guy in charge of drawing Goombas really puts his heart and soul into drawing Goombas. But I think if you take into account a team like 2D Boy, where one man would be responsible for 50% of a sizeable game, a game whose quality is spoken for by many Game of the Year awards, it's hard for me to imagine him putting in less effort than a random person from the NSMBW staff.

Of course, I don't even like World of Goo myself, not being a fan of puzzle games, and I love NSMBW, so these are weird examples for me to work with, but I still have the utmost respect for what 2D Boy has done. Definitely a quality game with a lot of effort put into it.

@Adam

You are sketching a very romantic view of that process, which probably doesn't have mutch to do with reality. These developers are sort of in an underdog position, and that gives them the sympathy votes, well that's very nice but doesn't change the quality of the games. Compare the production values of Cave Story to those of Mass Effect (light-years of difference) and it's not so hard to understand how one talented guy can make a relatively simple game like Cave Story. I do find it impressive that loswinds winter of the melodias has some of the best production values on the system while being a wiiware game. But for the most part I don't care for your romantic crap, I find the power of big teams working on big games that will make a lasting impression and be a serious part of gaming history way more interesting than the huge sea of sometimes quite creative but almost always mediocre,unfinished or simply broken indiegames.

Edit: I have yet to see an indie game that comes close to The Legend of Zelda: A link to the past, which is (2010 - 1991 =) 19 years old.

Well, I don't care for your tone, young man. To call someone else's opinions crap is pushing it a bit.

I respect that some people care about fancy 3D graphics, but the production values of Mass Effect don't make a lick of a difference if the game isn't fun, which to me it isn't. Games like Cave Story and Bit Trip are definitely on par with A Link to the Past by my standards. In fact, I think nostalgia tends to inflate opinions on that game. I still like it, but having four bottles of fairies makes the game absurdly easy. Fun factor is top priority in games, and it only takes one person to make a fun game, and the indie scene has proven this possible time and again. Clearly we have different tastes in games, but I wouldn't say this is at all a reflection on the game's quality. Even if you don't like the retro style of Cave Story, World of Goo and Bit Trip ooze quality -- Goo quite literally.

You do realize that's EXACTLY how World of Goo was made, right?