The wii is fun for families, or when you have a few friends round, but I wish they'd move away from that with a new console. They have so many classic titles that could be remade/extended series etc.
Edit* A vast open world Zelda game would be amazing, especially with online capability Everyone would buy it!
That is actually why the Wii was such a big seller, it is easily accessible for gamers and non-gamers alike. As for remakes, it is akin to when Hollywood does the same thing with movies, its retreading old ground, and is glaring evidence of an overall lack of creativity. Though Nintendo is going to be launching a new online network, to be comparable with Live and PSN, which will help Nintendo win core gamers, the primary issue with Nintendo is the fact that, as far as developers are concerned, the consoles they release do not have enough power for their liking and as a result are not worthwhile to develop for(and some titles the motion controls do not work out so well). Look at the negative commentary from developers at the time the Wii was released.
Personally I think the complaint that gamers and, as a result developers, have regarding graphical quality is going to be the eventual death of gaming in general, if trends keep up. Too much focus is being placed on sheer appearance of a game, and not so much of the length, or quality of the story. Too few games are being released these days where you could literally spend 70, 80, 90 hours playing, and still have plenty left to do(Case in point comparison, Final Fantasy VII vs Final Fantasy XIII, regardless of how you feel about the games, this is strictly a comparison of overall length of game play value). Then, as a result of pushing a low content, but "purdy lookin" title out to market, these developers will then can opt to milk a further $20-$40 through DLC updates. Sometimes this can be a good thing, but then you have a game Street Fighter x Tekken, where the content is available on disc, but you have to pay an additional amount to unlock it. Fortunately this does not seem to the be case with Minecraft as 4J has said that if any skins and texture packs are released, they will be free, along with the regular version updates.
This lack of content factor is probably part of the reason behind the complaints of the map size in Minecraft 360, over what is in PC. It is an overall reduction in total game play value, in regards to how long one would be able to play and explore the created world. Now I do not disagree with the dissatisfaction these individuals have, though I have never played the PC version, however the frustration against it is not something that should be directed to either 4J or Mojang, since the limiting factor is not within their control(and yes that is directed to any number of the myriad of posts regarding map size, spread out across the multitude of threads regarding this subject, and the subsequent attempt at comparison between Minecraft and the XBLA indie clones. This is a false equivalency due to the overt lack of features in the indie titles, when compared to Minecraft on XBLA).
Although I myself would not mind a much larger world, personally, I think an infinite world size on the console would be a bit excessive at this time, especially given the relatively small number of individuals that are able to play on a map at any given time. However, I do think that the current map size is also too small for that same number of individuals, as, and this has been stated on another thread, coordinating tasks between those individuals can very rapidly demolish a map that small, in terms of mining, and result in a very well developed map, in terms of construction. Of course this is all just a diatribe and opinion of one long time gamer. Damn you, ADD.
"Hurr durr we are throwing away huge worlds and making the 1.8 update impossible FOR 60FPS!!!"
And what, praytell, would be the basis for that assumption. There are plenty of posts detailing why you may be incorrect in that belief, what evidence can you bring to support you statement?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Personally I think the complaint that gamers and, as a result developers, have regarding graphical quality is going to be the eventual death of gaming in general, if trends keep up. Too much focus is being placed on sheer appearance of a game, and not so much of the length, or quality of the story. Too few games are being released these days where you could literally spend 70, 80, 90 hours playing, and still have plenty left to do(Case in point comparison, Final Fantasy VII vs Final Fantasy XIII, regardless of how you feel about the games, this is strictly a comparison of overall length of game play value). Then, as a result of pushing a low content, but "purdy lookin" title out to market, these developers will then can opt to milk a further $20-$40 through DLC updates. Sometimes this can be a good thing, but then you have a game Street Fighter x Tekken, where the content is available on disc, but you have to pay an additional amount to unlock it. Fortunately this does not seem to the be case with Minecraft as 4J has said that if any skins and texture packs are released, they will be free, along with the regular version updates.
This lack of content factor is probably part of the reason behind the complaints of the map size in Minecraft 360, over what is in PC. It is an overall reduction in total game play value, in regards to how long one would be able to play and explore the created world. Now I do not disagree with the dissatisfaction these individuals have, though I have never played the PC version, however the frustration against it is not something that should be directed to either 4J or Mojang, since the limiting factor is not within their control(and yes that is directed to any number of the myriad of posts regarding map size, spread out across the multitude of threads regarding this subject, and the subsequent attempt at comparison between Minecraft and the XBLA indie clones. This is a false equivalency due to the overt lack of features in the indie titles, when compared to Minecraft on XBLA).
Although I myself would not mind a much larger world, personally, I think an infinite world size on the console would be a bit excessive at this time, especially given the relatively small number of individuals that are able to play on a map at any given time. However, I do think that the current map size is also too small for that same number of individuals, as, and this has been stated on another thread, coordinating tasks between those individuals can very rapidly demolish a map that small, in terms of mining, and result in a very well developed map, in terms of construction. Of course this is all just a diatribe and opinion of one long time gamer. Damn you, ADD.
And what, praytell, would be the basis for that assumption. There are plenty of posts detailing why you may be incorrect in that belief, what evidence can you bring to support you statement?