Bankai

Uh, yes entirely different from those table top board games. I would know - I still play them.

I love how people continue to insist that iOS is not a 'real' game platform despite daily evidence to suggest otherwise.

Not to worry. There's plenty more sand to bury heads in.

"In response to the comments from readers who seem to think that we've twisted Capcom's words here, riddle me this: if it was the next Xbox or PlayStation that was launching first instead of the Wii U, do you honestly think Capcom would have issued the same statement?"

Yes, Damo, I do. "Next gen" means "selling opportunity" to third party publishers. It has nothing to do with power.

When there's only one "next gen" console on the market (regardless of which publisher did it), the numbers are not there - there's not enough "next gen" consoles out there for the next generation to have begun in "earnest."

This is a business document. Not marketing and not a fanboy's forum post.

I don't really have any opinion either way about the Wii U or whether it is 'next gen' or not.

As a business opportunity it is new hardware and therefore 'next gen' by that standard, and my point here is that, if anything, Capcom's statement recognises that the Wii U IS next gen, by highlighting it as a forerunner that Microsoft and Sony will follow on with.

Sorry, Damien, this is a beat-up of a story, and quite a bad one.

Capcom's precise wording is 'the next gen begins in earnest' - obviously the next gen can't begin properly ('in earnest') until all the majors have released their next gen hardware.

Nowhere did Capcom say it doesn't believe the Wii U is the equivalent of 'next gen.'

Ok, kudos for turning a rumour story into Zeldagate. You made my day, Thomas. Thanks

@XCWarrior - uh, no, only the Wii has been lacking with RPGs. Every other console has a tonne of them.

Oh awesome. Someone fell for my fake job listing :3

Sorry Slappy, but any hobby that involves killing, for any reason, is not going to go down well with me.

Obviously it's not going to taint my opinion about otherwise good people, such as yourself, but you're just going to have to accept that this is something I am passionately, actively against.

It's not personal, it's just reality. There is no way anyone is ever going to convince me that killing something as part of a hobby, sport or game, is a moral activity.

I am also passionately anti-war, but that is not to say that I can't get along with a soldier.

@armoredghor I'm more than happy to try to get to know hunters. Right up to the bit where they kill something.

Since hunting kinda requires the killing bit, and since I find recreational killing to be despicable, I rather think that the hunting "culture" and I would be happiest if we never encountered one another.

Should I ever give a political career a go, though, hunters are going to hate my policies.

That's my last work on the subject.

Hm...

You know what a sniper sim game is exactly the kind of game I think could use the Wii U tablet for enhancing the game play.

I would get the Wii U version of this if they realise the potential there. Given the dubious quality of the first game though, I doubt it.

Very good. Tell the guy that has a pet duck to go visit a hunting site with the name ducks.org.

Hunters can go take their 'culture' and shove it. Their hobby involves killing things and ergo I have no respect for it.

"Second, there's a whole other debate about how humane farms actually are."

And I argue against unethical farming as I argue against hunting - to me it is just as bad. I go out of my way (and pay more to do it) to ensure I'm getting meat from ethical farms.

What's more, most farmed animals haven't lived much of a life when they're killed. Many stay penned up most of their life. In some ways hunting is more humane, and its certainly more natural.

Not on ethical farms, they don't.

"You can get a lot of fresh, delicious, all natural meat for a low price. One deer's more than anyone could finish, so people often freeze the meat or share it with friends. Deer meat is also much healthier to eat than beef, being naturally leaner. That's not really gluttonous."

Read up on the definition of gluttony again, then. Gluttony is over-indulgence. When there's a year's worth of dead meat already sitting in a supermarket, for a human being to then go and kill something else is gluttonous on a social (if not individual) level.

"I agree, but in order to use that against hunting you'd have to be vegan. Farms also break up families and cause animals plenty of stress."

Considering meat is processed herds at a time, and considering that abattoirs are actually designed so that the animal isn't aware of what is happening, and therefore does not feel fear, anxiety or stress, your comment is not actually true at all.

Again, ethical farming. Anything else is unacceptable in my opinion.

""People who derive pleasure from killing - of any kind, offend me."
I have to agree with that. It's pretty disturbing to see a hunter thoroughly enjoying the kill. It's one thing to be happy you just landed a lot of meat. It's another thing entirely to be overjoyed that you killed something."

While I don't think that killing animals is equatable to killing human beings as a moral crime, I do think that taking pleasure in killing them for any reason is comparable. Humans need to eat meat, and therefore animals need to be killed. Therein I can accept the need for (ethical) farms.

However, hunting for the "thrill of the hunt" or to be "happy to land a lot of meat," is no different to me to torturing a human to death or being happy that the man you just shot had a wallet with $1000 in it. The joy of killing, regardless of where that joy comes from, is something that no enlightened human being would conceive of doing.

"Is that how it is in Australia? I thought they were strict about hunting over there... Over here you're required to get a license, which are limited in number, and then you're only allowed to hunt certain animals, depending on the time of year, and only allowed to kill a set number of that specific animal. You're also restricted to certain areas (at least where I live anyway). It's not just picking up your gun and shooting something."

You need a license to have a gun (well, most guns) here. Get that though? It's easy to get away with hunting - whether it's legal or not is completely irrelevant, the resources are not there to police it.

I highly doubt obtaining a license for hunting in the US requires people complete a conservation course. And until it does I remain very skeptical that we can trust hunters to actually know what they're doing. Other than, you know, killing stuff.

"I'll say right now, I'm not a hunter, but I respect hunting. Why is it that you think hunting is moronic and/or offensive? Are you vegetarian/vegan?"

Nope, I eat meat. I recognise the need for humans to eat meat - we're a predatory species.

Hunting is completely unnecessary, however. We have farms to provide us meat, and there is plenty of meat for everyone. What does that make hunting? Gluttony, is what. Excessive killing, and killing without the same regulations for humane treatment that are placed on farmers, to boot.

Animals feel fear, pain, and familial bonds - this is scientifically proven. That someone would cause animals fear, pain, and emotional distress because it <i>amuses</i> them, when they could drive to the local supermarket and buy more meat than they could eat in a year is not something I will ever respect. People who derive pleasure from killing - of any kind, offend me.

"I don't really see the connection between this game and the whole "violence in video games" debate."

Not often I agree with you, but here's one occasion.

The problem with hunting games is not the violence of the game - even the realistic ones that feature blood. The problem with hunting games is the real-world activity that those games act to reinforce is offensive.

Unlike running through an airport shooting civilian, hunting is an activity that for some moronic reason we actually allow anyone with a gun to do.

"Too much violence will be very harmful while sex really isn't going to hurt anybody. Not saying we should encourage sex instead but people don't get hurt with sex."

I've got a couple of psychology textbooks that would disagree there.

Physical damage isn't the only kind.

I like how people here are telling other people what they should and shouldn't be offended by. Nice.

Censorship in general is bad, but I find that taking pleasure from killing to be deeply offensive behaviour and games that encourage that behaviour even worse.

@Chris720 You might think that people whose primary way of playing games is through Apple products are "idiots." I have even less respect for people who allow their opinion of people be determined based on their own entertainment preferences. No one made you the supreme arbiter of what is and isn't fun, so can it.

For the record (why the hell I need to make a disclaimer to you I have no idea), Apple products are no more my primary source of games than Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft. I seem to be the only person on the planet sane enough to care more about the games I play than the platform I play them so, so I go wherever the good games are.

@ThomasBW84 Well yeah, naturally at a game industry conference they'll be defining it in the way that it applies to them.

Nothing wrong with that - sorry if it sounded like I was criticising, that wasn't the intention - I just thought I'd clarify what the broad definition of the term is.

"“Gamification”. In basic terms, this means applying video games to activities and mediums outside of gaming, therefore expanding the audience further."

Actually, technically, Gamification simply means to take the idea of a "game" and apply it to mundane activities.

@Chris720 You misunderstand me. Apple is competition to the gaming industry. That has nothing whatsoever to do with my, yours, or anyone else's opinion of Apple devices. It is simple fact: Apple has platforms that play games that are in the hands of hundreds of millions of people and every single third party developer - big and small - is diverting resources to mobile game development.

ergo, competition.

I like how people deny Apple is a gaming competitor and the reason? They personally don't like apple products.

Apparently some Nintendo fans are more important than a hundred million or so Apple owners. Good form.

@Smexi - I never knew that any game that was played on one screen is 'Watered Down' and 'sucks.' Boy does that change my opinion of like 99.9% of games ever made

Weakened battle system?

I guess my brain has just been fooling myself into thinking I was enjoying this game for the past four hours then. Oh dear.

Loving the iPad version. Big screen for the win with this game.

"@OlympicCho - Gee, what a surprise, the iZombie once again spreads his vitriol...
Look, buddy - even if the iPhone/iPad was somehow a videogame heaven, there would still be some people in the world (like myself) who would still refuse to bow down to Apple, due to their horrible business practices and dodgy products. Hell, when I bought my phone, I was advised by the store AGAINST buying an Apple product becuase of their shady tactics."

Oh the irony. I'm a "zombie" but the 80 per cent of people in every comments section on this website who worship everything Nintendo does are completely free-minded people. Yep.

At least I own a 3DS before judging it. Your snide insult is especially amusing since I don't even have a special loyalty to Apple. I've got all the consoles and devices, buddy. I am one of the tiny fraction of people out there that actually realise that it's the games that count, not the hardware, and good games exist everywhere. I get called "fanboy" for just about every console at some stage or other. I've been called a Nintendo fanboy quite often. The reason is, of course, nothing to do with me - fanboys can't stand any perceived criticism of their precious toys and so they justify their knee-jerk denials by pretending that the person "criticising" their toy doesn't have a legitimate opinion.

But to move past the your childish insults for a minute - I really don't care what you think about Apple or Nintendo. It's completely irrelevant to this discussion. My point from the start has been that there are what Iwata refers to as "deep" games on the iDevices.

This isn't opinion. This is fact. It's fact because I can list at least 100 games that are deep experiences and are available on the iDevices. Not necessarily games I like, but games that are objectively deep, "full" games. And no, Angry Birds is not one of those.

You might not like those games either, but I really couldn't care less about your taste in games. The definition of a "deep game" is not dependant on whether a random Nintendo fanboy likes the game or not.

I'm 100% certain the definition of "deep, rich experience" is not "what LordOtakWiiU is interested in."

Also the are some exclusive Square Enix games on iOS you can't play on your DS, or anywhere else. just sayin'

Time killing... Have you people not seen Civilization Revolution, Spiderweb Software RPGs, Square Enix's iOS games, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Horn, Galaxy on Fire 2, Real Racing 2, or any other number of 'real' games on the App Store?

Here's the reality: the App Store has just as much 'real' gaming as either the 3DS or Vita. People who say otherwise have simply not looked hard enough, or even bothered to visit a website that takes iOS gaming seriously.

That's your problem, not the platform's.

@wheels while I do actually agree with you, and I do believe there is a place for the 3DS in the market, I really, really wouldn't recommend using sales figures as a defence when you're talking about a rivalry with Apple.

My point of contention is really simple: Denying that the iOS doesn't have rich game experiences is like claiming the earth is flat. It's factually incorrect. Nintendo enjoys advantages in the handheld environment over Apple - namely Nintendo software, but Nintendo does not have an advantage in terms of the quality of games on offer.

It's a different range of quality games. That's it.

Lol. I don't own these devices, but I'm an expert in the games that are available on them, and so when I say there's only Angry Birds, that's all there is.

Go play Horn or Infinity Blade 2 or a Spiderweb RPG or Chaos Rings or or or... Nah, I was right the first time. It is easier for them Nintendo fans to bury their heads in the sand and pretend it's just Angry Birds that millions of us are playing rather than those oh so deep 3DS experiences like Dual Pen Sports.

Whatever helps you kids sleep at night.

That's funny, Iwata, because I'm playing plenty of rich, deep games on my iDevices at the moment.

I guess it's easier to just stick the head in the sand and hope the problem goes away.

I liked the original, very misunderstood game. I actually think the extra difficulty will hurt what the director was going for with this game.

Oh well, another Wii U game I don't need to waste my time on.

I'm going to wait for the Vita version.

Like I said in the other news story on the same Gamasutra report (why two stories?):

"

Developers were enthusiastic about the eShop too.

It's still inferior to the competition. Being better than something even worse than that (WiiWare, DSiWare) is damning with faint praise."

Developers were enthusiastic about the eShop too.

It's still inferior to the competition. Being better than something even worse than that (WiiWare, DSiWare) is damning with faint praise.

Yeah but no. None of you run major game publishers, clearly. (note: this is not to insult you. It's just a cold fact).

And my sources? Go to that Amazon website and order a couple of textbooks on economic and marketing theory. That's my sources (in other words, I've done degrees - yes, multiple - on this stuff). Oh, and I've interviewed the heads of hundreds of technology companies and attended their "behind doors" internal conferences. I guess that counts for something.

@RupeeClock "In the absence of actual data that NOBODY has, all that matters is the PERCEPTION."

Actually, Nintendo's accountants care about more than perception.

And perception is precisely why Nintendo is maintaining RRP here. Nintendo doesn't want to be perceived by the retailers as undercutting them.

@19Robb92 - That's simple. This is a Mario game. Not a spinoff, not a side-story. This is a 2D Mario Platformer.

Mario is the most valuable brand Nintendo has, and one of the most valuable brands in gaming history. By default Nintendo can't be seen to be devaluing that brand.

Source: any "Branding for beginners" book, really.

@Geonjaha No, my "assumptions" are backed by marketing and economic theory.

@Linkstrikesback "No, $60 isn't reasonable for an "AAA" handheld game. Also, this isn't an AAA handheld game."

Ok, great. You've made a statement. Now I want economic proof (with data, statistics and supporting thesis) that it's good for Nintendo to undercut the retailers.

Ready, set, go.

Oh. Got nothing? Yep, didn't think so. Armchair expert is armchair expert.

@RupeeClock - I'm sure you don't have a breakdown on how much it cost to develop the game.

I'm also sure that you've got no data or research to say just how much damage Nintendo would do to the Mario brand if it an official "core" Mario game to be perceived as "budget" priced.

So in the absence of real data then really you're just guessing what the price should be, right?

@Geonjaha Nintendo priced it at the RRP. That's what Nintendo had to price it at or it would have been literally undercutting the retailers. You don't (yet) want to piss the retailers off.

If retailers want to slash their own margins, that's their business, it's got nothing to do with Nintendo.

@Crouteru And just how many Android games cost as much to make as a Mario Brothers game?

Or do you not realise that the price of a game is directly proportional to what it needs to be for a game publisher to turn a reasonable profit?

I love that people complain that a game will cost a $40 or $50 or whatever and conveniently forget that it costs millions to make.

They're usually the first people to get all sadface when Nintendo or whoever else posts bad financial results. But of course that's because of a mythical "bad management," and has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact most gamers throw a tantrum unless a game is priced to compete with Angry Birds, naturally.

$60 for an AAA-game is reasonable.

Oh wow. I think that Gamelion fellow signed up on my website to call me a "hater" too over my review.

Not the most intelligent response there from the developer.

Haha, I don't think I've disagreed with a review more.

There's a little bit of latency when using AirPlay too.

Honestly though, it's not a big deal.

@frod lolno

And Siliconera uses a very fast connection speed. Every professional tech website does.

This number makes sense - the eShop was already painfully slow to download stuff. Anyone remember downloading Let's Golf?

@XCWarrior Do I need to explain to you the difference between an AAA-game for a major console and a release for a niche console with a small install base?

Square Enix didn't exactly release a numbered Final Fantasy or Tomb Raider game last quarter.

It was a slow release quarter for Square Enix.

Nothing to see, moving on here.

Congrats to Damien!

Big shoes to fill. I'm sure you'll do it