Topic: Wiiware is lowering our expectations

I was under the assumption everyone knew that, but now that you point it out, maybe he didn't. Just in case you didn't know that, GameBoy, I wasn't inventing that image. 2D Boy is well known for not having an office. They are just two guys who bring their laptops wherever they find wi-fi. Maybe they've since turned an apartment into a makeshift "office," but World of Goo has proven this unnecessary.

@Adam

O indie games are so trendy and cool!!! I wet my panties. Maybe you are conservative and don't want games to be as good as possible, and live by the slogan: it's so arty and creative and I find it so impressive 2 guys made this with a laptop. I will compare Cave Story to the next Zelda on Wii, they are both the endresult of a process and I don't care about the process, I care about the endresult. Indie games are irrelevant when taken out of their poor context full of low expectations and sympathy for little development teams.

Uh, no. You are the one who brought up effort as a measure of quality, not me.
Edit: My bad, this was someone else, but it still does not change the fact that I brought up team size in response to another claim, not to make a claim myself. The rest of the post is still relevant though.

I brought up team size to put your claim into perspective: that independent games don't have as much effort put into them. I never once indicated that I thought they were better because they were made by smaller teams, just that these small teams deserve credit: some of them obviously are putting a lot of effort into these games. And obviously I am not the only one to notice. World of Goo, as I've already mentioned, raked in the Game of the Year awards when it came out -- and not all of these awards were for WiiWare only, some were for best game, period.

But Cave Story versus Zelda? Heck yes, Cave Story is better than Twilight Princess. Few would argue that who've played both, I think: Cave Story has seen nothing but praise while Twilight Princess has had mixed reactions with long-time fans of the series. I'm not going to compare it to the next Zelda on Wii since it's not out yet, but I'm not holding my breath. The series has been going steadily downhill for years, at least as far as gamers who seek a challenge are concerned.

I don't think it's conservative either. There has been a lot of new ground broken in the independent scene. The Bit Trip games are quite innovative, if not immediately evident on the surface. My favorite independent developer (PC, not WiiWare), Cactus, is a one-man "team" who has made games that are unlike anything I've ever played. I just have a preference different than yours. Not sure why it's so hard for you to accept as equally valid.

And again, I ask politely that you stop with the condescending talk. It's uncalled for.

I second that request. Only, it's not a request.

MOVING ON.

I really can't see how Wiiware would lower anyone's expectations as a whole, but I do honestly approach Wiiware and other such services with lower expectations, since they have smaller developers and lower budgets to work with, not to mention the stupid download size limit. I can't say I've played any Wiiware games that hold a candle to any disc game from this generation, or even the last, but they are a lot of fun, and totally worth their lowered price point. PSN and XBLA/XNA are completely different matters entirely, though.

This topic has gotten a little messy, hasn't it? Anyway, I like 3D and 2D, but I tend to find a lot more variety of awesome 2D platformers than 3D ones. Of course, I love the 3D platformers out there [Super Mario 64 and Banjo-Kazooie, for example] that are good. But some 3D platformers [like *cough*Sonic 06] are turds to put it nicely. But, most 2D platformers are decent or good. It easier to screw up developing a 3D platformer than a 2D platformer.

@Hyper Luigi

First off, this thread has been a mess since the beginning, as far I can tell. The fact that it got as far as it did is a miracle.
Secondly, while I agree that it is easier to mess up 3D games compare to 2D games, when you say most 2D platformers are good or at least decent, I can't help but assume that you've experienced the genre through some really strong filters. Honestly, as much as I love 2D platformers, I've played more bad ones in that category than I have 3D Platformers. Really, you need to turn those filter towards 3D platformers some time. There are some really good ones out there, particularly on non-Nintendo Consoles, and pretty much the entirety of the last generation, though those ones have a tendancy to sacrifice challenge for playablility(personally, I prefer to have a good platformer over a hard one).

@MickeyMac
You mean like Spyro, Crash, and others? I have played plenty of those 3D platformers [which I enjoyed, especially Spyro], unless I'm missing some. I just mean I played more good 2D platformers than 3D for some reason, maybe I'm not looking hard enough. But yeah, I see what you mean. I also do like 3D Mario more than 2D Mario [except Sunshine, and SM64 was a masterpiece]. Of course, Yoshi's Island was one of the best platformers besides Super Mario 64 I ever played. Also, yeah this thread was a mess for the beginning, and the subject has strayed from WiiWare to 2D VS 3D, which is way off topic.

Adam, you could have just finished the argument by pointing out that people that can't even use basic English probably can't offer a valid opinion in the first place.

That post I quoted is physically painful to read.

@Hyper Luigi

To be fair there are a lot more 2D platformers than 3D platformers. But yeah, if you look hard, and broaden your definition a little, since a lot of people like to mix genres these days, you'll find a lot of really good 3D platformers. I'll admit, I have played more good 2D platformers, but then again, 2D platformers are easier to come across in general.

@WaltzElf

...amen.

Sign me up for uncomfortable with the personal spats and side taking lets get this on topic.

I think expectations are lowered for a lot of reasons already discussed here 'lower' price, 'smaller' teams, 'independent' studios.

I have the biggest problem with the price argument.

If you buy a retail game like Mario you own it $50 new you can trade it, or sell it, or give it away.

You buy wiiware its tied to your console, you can back it up, but it is not your property. Read nintendo's License agreement for confirmation of that. You have a user right, not ownership of a physiclal thing. If you sell you wii - you are bound by the agreement to delete all your files. If you buy a used wii and it is not formatted nintendo says you must if you agree to the User thing.

So that is bad. Digital is worse in that regard, all disadvantages lower expectations for ownership right off the bat.

Another thing is game size. I agree the Bit Trip series is high quality - but also very short. Consumer reaction to NSMBW being parceled out 3 levels or a world at a time would be harsh because the already established expectation for both retail and the reputation of Mario is higher. We cannot have a double standard and say Mario will sell no matter what not if it does not maintain its quality and meet customer expectation which is very high for nInendo and Mario. Making Mario great is not easy or a given it just maybe feels that way cause you are used to it?

$6 for Bit Trip Runner is over 10% of the cost of purchasing Mario, and you do not even own it. I highly doubt it will have over 10% of the content of Mario, or have near the variety, depth and polish. I also highly doubt reviewers of Bit Trip Runner will have as high as expectations for that game as they do for a $50 retail Mario.

These double standards are not limited to digital and retail but there they are and I agree that Wiiware is lowering expectations.

How are expectations being LOWERED?

They're not. A bad game (Gameloft) is a bad game, regardless if it's bought in shops or online.

What expectations are lowered is we expect smaller packages. We still expect them to be good, but for $10 we expect less content than $50.

$6 for Bit Trip Runner is over 10% of the cost of purchasing Mario, and you do not even own it.

That's outright false. Not owning a physical copy does not mean you don't own it. A physical copy of a game is just an extended license to use the software. A digital copy is a less-open license, yes, but you nonetheless own the license.

You do not own it. You are paying a fee not purchasing a product. Expecting less content is also a lowered expectation.

http://www.nintendo.com/consumer/systems/wii/en_na/privacyEUL...
Nintendo grants you a personal, limited, non-exclusive, revocable (in whole or in part) license to use the Wii Network Service, pursuant to this agreement. (Can they come and take your game away in the Walmart parking lot? NO)

The Wii Shop allows you to use Points to download a license to use Content or purchase Products (and may also allow you to do such things as download licenses to use certain Content for free, or use your Points to send Content to a friend). Points are primarily intended for the purchase of downloadable video game content, and are taxed accordingly. Points are not your personal property. Points have no cash or monetary value and are non-refundable. (Points are not money NOR are they YOUR property - they are Nintendos Nintendo ALLOWS you to USE them, not OWN them - you are paying for a service - not GAMES)

Article 10: Change, Suspension or Discontinuance of Wii Network Service

We may change, suspend, or discontinue the Wii Network Service, or any feature or aspect of the Wii Network Service, at any time, with or without notice to you, and without liability to us. This includes, but is not limited to, the availability of all or any portion of the Wii Network Service, Content, Products, Points, and the number of Points required to redeem particular Content or Products.(You have no right to expect service - you could but $10,000 worth of points <not your property> and Nintendo could legally never allow you to redeem them on the service)

You have no rights of ownership in this ridiculously one sided contract that you sign when you access the Wii Shop Channel.

You are putting additional content on your console, thereby improving the console's value, a physical product that you own. It's no different to buying music on iTunes.

Lowering expectations has negative connotations that "expecting less content" does not. It's a subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless.

Even if there is truth in this "paying a fee" business, it's a technicality, no more. Who cares what happens if I sell it? If I sell it, I obviously don't want to own it. And as long as I don't sell it, Nintendo can't and won't touch it, so by any definition you use, I own the game, be it in digital or physical format.

Just because you can't touch it with your own two hands doesn't mean you don't own it. You own the license to play it, which technically is the same as owning a product. When purchasing a product, you now have the right to take it home and use it.

As for lowering your expectations, I think it's reasonable to lower your expectations of the the service itself because it is not capable of meeting the capabilities of a retail game, what with the download limit, the smaller dev teams, and the smaller budgets.

It doesn't matter if it's retail or digital. If you payed for the game, you own it.

Meeting the capabilities of a retail game is irrelevant though. It isn't a retail game. A downloadable game is a downloadable game is a downloadable game, is it not? Sure, there may be some games that try too hard to be a retail game and fail, but that's what one gets for trying to be something it isn't.

I think games like Bit Trip, Art Style, Mega Man 9, etc. do it best. They recognize the medium's strengths and play on them. Other games feel more like a fragment of an imagined retail product and because of this can be disappointing. All the Lost Wind complaints about game length come to mind. I hear the sequel improves there, but I have my doubts.

It's more a matter of having different expectations than lower expectations, I think.

That puts it nicely. I would be terribly upset if I bought an Art Style game at retail. It's way too limited to justify a price inflated by the kind of marketing and production costs involved with retail production.

However, I spend more time on Art Style games than I do with 99% of retail games. As downloads, they're incredibly good value, and can be priced, at $5, perfectly for the amount of content you got. If there was a WiiWare or DSiWare game for download for $30 (hypothetically assuming $20 of the RRP of a $50 retail game is production costs, so the raw software is $30), I'd expect it to have the same content as a Chocobo's Mystery Dungeon, yes.

I think I'm reading this differently. In this portion, Nintendo is saying they can restrict your access to the Wii Online Services (Wii Shop, etc), and it does not mean they'll reach into your system and snag your games. This is, IMO, so that they have legal footing to ban hackers if they want.

The agreement also specifically talks about the purchase of products from the Wii shop, which clearly is more than simply licensing (though they mention that as well) and clearly implies IMO, ownership. Of course, similar situations have arisen with Amazon and the Kindle ... where Amazon deleted books right out of people's Kindle's and said people do not technically own the book that was deleted. IIRC however, that book was free and was not purchased off the Amazon site ... it's definitely food for thought.