Network now...NEWS
Take-Two: We "Just Can't Ignore" the Wii
Take-Two's biggest blockbusters such as Grand Theft Auto IV and BioShock skipped the Nintendo Wii, but with the console's installed base growing by leaps and bounds, the publisher may need to more seriously consider more Wii opportunities, execs said Wednesday.
"Even though we think M-rated content is much more appropriate for the PS3 or 360, we have to look at the Wii as a viable platform across all our labels," said CEO Ben Feder during an earnings call. "We have to, because we can't ignore the installed base. You just can't."
Take-Two previously released the M-rated Manhunt 2 on the Wii in 2007, which stirred up controversy as the game's violence was put into motion with the console's interface. The violence earned it an Adults-Only rating initially, and was only released once Take-Two downplayed certain scenes. It failed to attract a wide audience within the Wii's then-smaller userbase.
But Take-Two has seen success on the Wii with the family-friendly Carnival Games franchise."The success of the Carnival Games franchise gives us a great foundation upon which to build" on the Wii, Feder said.
"Some of our best content really isn't appropriate for the Wii. That said, Carnival Games has been a massive success for the company, and we're looking at ... extending that brand to other areas."
The exec also said sports franchises will address the Wii market in the coming year.
The DS title GTA: Chinatown Wars, an M-rated game, may also serve as a barometer as to how a typical Nintendo audience would react to future adult-themed games on Wii.
Feder said Take-Two's partnership with Nintendo is "the strongest it's ever been" and the company has been working closely with Nintendo on GTA: Chinatown Wars.
"They provide great feedback for us," he stated.
Contact Us / About Us / Advertise With Us / BeltwayBlips / TechBlips / MassiveBlips / GamerBlips / FAQ
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Imagine how many more Wii's will sell if they do bring out more hardcore content?
They already have gained alot of ground with the current players, and continue to do so, and if a game like Gears, Killzone, CoD etc make their next move onto the Wii exclusievely, then many will buy a Wii and then continue to other genres that the Wii covers better then the genres of the 360, Ps3.
But there will always be a wall to hit of how many consoles you can sell... there is only so many people in this world!
Gears wouldn't happen because Epic hates the Wii.
Killzone wouldn't happen because it's a Sony IP and Guerilla Games is owned by Sony.
CoD3 and World at War are on Wii, but I doubt the series would ever be exclusive to the Wii. Also, Treyarch likes the Wii, but I don't think Infinity Ward does.
Games like Gears, KZ or COd will never make it to the Wii, simply because part of this games success is directly related to graphics.
The Wii should focus on gameplay, not graphics.
The PS3 and XBox should focus on gameplay AND graphics.
You know, I really hate using the word graphics. Graphics tends to have a sever fanboy connotation that makes it difficult to use. I like to consider using the phrase 'art direction'
All systems should focus on gameplay AND art direction. All systems are capable of supporting both. and neither are dependent on top of the line hardware.
"Art direction" isn't a good replacement in the same context "graphics" are being used in this discussion. Since there's art direction/visual aesthetics that require a machine with serious horse power to make the require graphical fidelity a reality.
A more correct way of using the term "art direction" in the context of this conversation, is that art direction choices that work well, are limited when creating a game for the Wii. I mean Galaxies looks great and MadWorld looks even better, but I know I wouldn't want to be in a world where all the games I played had a cartoonish/comic book aesthetic to them, in the same way I couldn't play just shooters that are dominated by a grey/brown colour palette.
It may be surprising to you, but the Wii's original Xbox-esque specs not only limit the graphical capabilities of the Wii, but it also limits other elements that are connected directly to game play. Off the top of my head, the Wii limits level design (how big areas are/sense of scale/number of NPCs on screen) and AI (which currently is in its infancy even on the PS3/360, but the Wii hardware leaves zero room/potential for innovation in that area).
So as soon as the 360 and PS3 came out all of the games we had been playing for years on the PS2, XBox and GC and glorified their graphics and art direction, are now dog ugly? Gotcha.
A good art director knows his limitations when developing on a platform and will be able to design the art to best fit the over all game design and the limits of the platform. The same goes for the game designer and AI engineer.
It doesn't take a lot of horse power to make a trully fun and compelling game. You seriously come accross as a saying that if it is not on the 360 or PS3 it cannot possibly be fun or good looking.
The Wii doesn't have to have only cartoon or comic book look. The PS2, Xbox and GC didn't and they aren't as powerful as the Wii.
You are right that the Wii is not capable of having massive 20 square mile levels displayed or show 10,000 NPCs at once, but a good level designer will know the limitations and design levels that fit the specs and are fun to play. You must have forgotten about all the good times you had playing games on the PS2, Xbox and GC.
That is the problem with most "hardcore" gamers, they have goldfish like memory. As soon as the new shiny comes out, they forget everything they ever thought was fun.
No that's actually not what I'm saying. My response was a reaction to your post which seemed like one large deflection of one of the Wii's weak points.
A truly timeless game will be just that, for example Chrono Cross or Rez. But some amazing and even revolutionary games do lose their luster after so many years, because for the most part games improve and progress. For example, without wearing dark tinted nostalgia glasses, Goldeneye (Rare one, not the EA remake) is clunky and limiting if you've played any console FPS from the last 5 years.
Actually the Wii does have to rely on a more cell shady style, so the game won't inevitably be compared visually to other contemporary games, which have more polygons, higher res textures, more complex lighting effects, etc.
The game industry is very much technology driven, and the best and most creative game designers more often then not embrace the best technology so that their vision can have the fewest possible limitations imposed on bringing it to life.
It's great when a designer has an idea that fits well with what the Wii has going for it, No More Heroes and Boom Blox are great examples, and I think MadWorld will be another when it's released. But there really have been so few of those, and that's why there are so many PS2 ports, having constraining development conditions isn't going to bring out the best out of a development team.
If the games on the 360 and PS3 aren't the most interesting to non-casual game players, then why on the major of game sites, in their respective year end awards, are Wii games pretty much absent from the overall categories? It's not just me that believes the most interesting stuff in gaming is not happening on the Wii, for the most part.
I can agree with most of what you're saying except for one thing. The Wii is similar in hardware specs as the Xbox 1 (although I've yet to see Wii games on par with Chronicles of Riddick, Doom 3, Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow). The GameCube was able to render a game as beautiful as Resident Evil 4 (I know there was a Wii port, but it was essentially the GCN version and I think the Wii can do better) so I see no reason why the Wii can't produce games of equal quality (as the aforementioned Xbox 1 games). I think the Wii is more than capable of rendering artistic games. Of course there's limitations, but there were games on the SNES that had artistic flare to it. I don't think art is necessarily limited to graphically capable consoles.
Wii Main CPU- 729 MHz
Xbox 1 Main CPU- 733 MHz
Wii graphics card- 243 MHz
Xbox 1 graphics card- 233 MHz
Wii RAM- 88mb split (24/64)
Xbox 1 RAM- 64mb
There's other differences like lack of HDD in the Wii, no Ethernet input, no 720p/1080i/p support, no digital audio support.
So, really, a Wii is on Par with the Xbox 1 and as you put it, the last generation's systems did put out some good looking games (specifically the ones I mentioned for the Xbox 1 IMHO). If the Wii can put out graphics like Riddick on Xbox 1, I'd be more than happy with those visuals (if I didn't already have better with my 360 ^^).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_wii
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox
True. It had been a while since I looked at the specs of the Wii compared to older consoles. So I amend my above statement.
With all this non, Anti-Wii posting recently, I'm starting to wonder who hijacked your login?
@Ozzman,
I'm sorry Ozzy, were you referring to me or Zach?
I think you as I am pretty sure I have been Pro Wii from the start.
@Ozzy and Zach,
Yeah, I think he did mean me.
Um...I'm pretty new to this forum thing and I think I came in here way too aggressive expressing my opinions of the 360 and the othe systems. I've learned that people love their system of choice just as much as I do and it doesn't always have to do with which system has the best this or that, but which system has the best this or that for that particular individual's tastes.
I'm trying to be more receptive to people's opinions instead of just trying to shoot them down. Plus, I've spent way too much energy always trying to argue every claim anyone makes on here and its not worth it whether I truly am right or not, you're not going to change someone's opinion and you end up turning out looking like a fanboy or a MS employee apparently.
I guess I'm trying to say is I'd rather talk with people instead of against. If someone says something ridiculous I'm sure I'll still speak up, but for the most part I'll speak as if it's just my opinion instead of constantly trying to prove people wrong. Trying to always be "right" even if I am right can get on people's nerves.
But I really do think if someone puts the time into a Wii game, has high production values, targets the "hardcore/traditional" gamer, with some slick visuals and audio, and tight controls to go along with it that it will sell and be well regarded even amongst us elitist 360/PS3 owners. The Wii deserves it.
I completely agree. There is no reason to try and trash systems that you don't own or want to own. Each systems has its own strengths and weaknesses. I don't mind when people talk about the weaknesses of the Wii, but when they completely disregard the strengths, that really bugs me. I feel the same for the PS3 and 360. They have strengths and they have weaknesses.
I really would hate to see another Atari or Sega come out of this generation. It only hurts gamers when a company drives themselves out of the market.
By attacking any console we will only cause a fall to happen.
I very much doubt games "like Gears, Killzone, CoD " would ever make their way to the WIi, based on it's lack of graphical power. Top notch graphics are one of the selling points of those games.
There's some Wii haters, probably from the Xbox360/PS3 lines that are extreme angry. Becose the Wii's sucess!!
The Wii owners are the mayority, the Wii RULES even the suck HD consoles, the true is the true!!
There's a huge hardcore fan base on Wii, waiting so much for the AAA third-parties mature games!! ..The Wii is for everyone, casual, hardcore, mature, teen, adult, kids..etc.
there's not a barrier why third-parties can't deliver the content that they want and take advantage of some Wii market segments. We want the best AAA titles for Wii, we want GTA, NBA 2K09, Bioshock 2...etc.
I'm sure they finnaly release an exclusive GTA for Wii, but make sure the graphics are close to the Xbox360/PS3 (photoealistic), taking the absolute advantange over the Wiimote and include all the features of the HD counterparts. This is the only way that you gain sucess on Wii with better games than the HD versions (great graphics and amazing gameplay).
Becose there's some Wii360/WiiPs3 owners when a mutiplatform game launches they preffer buy for Xbox360 or Ps3 then the Wii, BUT IF THIS GAME IS BETTER ON Wii of course THEY WILL BUY THE Wii version.
Can’t ignore the market leader… especially when you launch the “Game of the Generation” and still lose money in the quarter and only post $97 million in profit so far in the current fiscal year.
Mature content has sold very well on the Wii. Resident Evil 4 and Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles are million sellers. No More Heroes is Suda 51’s best selling game ever (and is getting a sequel!). The House of the Dead 1 & 2 sold very well. No doubt MadWorld, The House of the Dead: Overkill, and The Conduit will find their audience. The market is there on Wii. 3rd parties just need to release quality content. And the gimped Manhunt 2 was not it.
I just don't see how mature rated games will ever be successful on wii. Sure there are come core gamers who own wiis but the majority probably can't see past casual games. And what's the point of buying a game like Bioshock (if they made it for wii) rather than the much better looking (read: immersive) versions on 360/PS3. A bit of waggle wouldn't really make it a must own version.
Resident Evil 4 on Wii Climbs Capcom's Million Seller list: http://www.cubed3.com/news/9509
RE: Umbrella Chronicles sells a million copies: http://games.kikizo.com/news/200803/006.asp
3
Go on and move the goalposts! That's what you guys do whenever you're proven wrong!
Can I move them further away AND more narrow?
Its good to see those numbers, it shows that if you have the right kind of content at high quality on the Wii, it'll sell. Some games as some people have pointed out were great games (that Zack and Wiki game, and someone else mentioned Bloom Blox) but sold poorly. So, it seems like a bit of a mystery when it comes to the Wii audience. You would think quality software automatically equals sales but that's not always the case. But that doesn't happen with only the Wii, that happens with the PS3 and 360 as well.
First off, Nick. Boom Blox didn't sell poorly. It *started out* slow, but had typical Wii-game legs and eventually saw good sales. It sold 450k as of the end of July: http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3169056
Zack and Wiki didn't sell millions of copies but Capcom was happy with its sales. It was an awesome game that was cheap as hell to make, so it's not suprising that Capcom turned a profit on it: http://www.edge-online.com/news/capcom-ups-full-year-forecast-game-sales
Couple things I want to mention:
1). You point out a PUZZLE game and a niche, POINT-AND-CLICK adventure game for "selling poorly". The links I provided prove that they didn't sell poorly at all. Both games more than covered development costs - which makes them successes. Both EA and Capcom were pleased with sales - which makes them successes. Using games in niche genres to "prove" your point was kinda lame - not to mention they backfired. Remember, Wii games don't have to sell millions to turn a profit. HD games, on the other hand...
2). I never said that quality would *automatically* equate to high sales. I know of too many examples to the contrary (Valkyria Chronicles, Dead Space, Psychonuats, Beyond Good & Evil, etc). I'm just saying... many of the mature rated games on Wii are crap, but when people don't buy them, Wii-bashers are the first to whine saying "mature games don't sell on Wii". But is it really so hard to believe, in this situation, that the mature games that did sell on Wii did so because they were actually... GOOD!?
Ok, fair enough. I guess my post came off as more of an attack when it was meant as more of an aggreement.
My point which obviously was misleading was more to piggy-back off what you said that games if done well will sell on the Wii. And that sometimes games (I used those games only as examples of games I THOUGHT sold poorly, I read previously that they sold poorly but didn't research them recently to make sure) which are good games sometimes don't sell well and that that isn't a Wii problem, that is a problem amongst all the systems. Games you pointed out "(Valkyria Chronicles, Dead Space, Psychonuats, Beyond Good & Evil, etc)" are perfect examples of games that were rated high but sold below expections (I won't use the word poor anymore) that were on other systems (which was my point).
My post was in no way meant as an attack, and honestly more of an aggreement that good games will sell on the Wii, and if some of them don't, its not necessarily a Wii problem as other consoles experience the same thing from time to time. I do think that the Wii audience is a bit more...complicated to figure out due to the sheer number of consumers new to gaming and I think developers/publishers are trying to come to grips with how to best market to those particular Wii owners, and what games will sell the best.
I do think for the most part though, games that aren't shovel ware junk and are marketed well and are of high quality should sell well enough to turn a profit. Somtimes that doesn't happen (examples you noted) and it is unfortunate, but it happens to all the consoles, not just the Wii. My apologies if I came off as attacking the Wii as that was not my intention.
The thing is, you don't need an M rating to appeal to adults. All you need is an immersive experience. To say that you can only get that with the latest HD capable machine is to ignore 30 years of game design.
Not all adults enjoy blood soaked and curse laden games. Most adults probably find that disturbing or juvenile. I know I find most M rated games juvenile, with the exception of a few.
It still boggles my mind that video games are judge more greatly by the gaming community on a graphical basis rather than the actual gameplay. Graphics are meant to accent the gameplay not define it.
It is the gameplay that immerses the player in the game. The Wii offers new opportunities to redefine what it means to play a really fun game.
It's not to say there have not been immersive games in the past that couldn't hold a candle to the current generation games graphically. But what happens, when the bar/standards are raised by game, it poses a difficult challenge for a developer to equal those set standards when they're in the hole when it comes to visuals.
As far as immersion goes, the players sense play a big role in really sucking them into a game, that's visuals, sounds, and to a lesser extent touch (controller rumble/vibration). It's all about selling the world as being a real place, and it's far easier to get immersed in a world which has a level of familiarity with the real world.
That being said, a great game doesn't require crazy immersive qualities, I've played plenty of games since BioShock, and only Fallout 3 has come close to the same feeling of immersion I got from that game.
As far as the topic of the article goes, I think it would be a mistake (from a business perspective of course) for them to invest significant amounts of capital into making great Wii games. Boom Blox is an awesome game, but it's sold pitiful. I believe that Mad World could be a great game as well, but I don't expect it to sell as well as it probably would have if it was a 360/PS3 game.
What Take Two should do to test the waters, is re-do the previous gen GTAs for the Wii. I would imagine the remote control plane mission and flight school in GTA: SA would be much better with solid motion control. GTA is a name non-hardcore game players recognize, and it'd probably be T2's safest bet to really break the ice on the Wii.
You don't need realistic graphics to be emmersive. You just need a consistent art direction that is also impressive to look at. It doesn't have to be pleasant, but it does need to be impressive. But they don't have to be realistic.
Great things have been done in the past with unrealistic graphics. Okami and Viewtiful Joe both come to mind. Great graphics and very emmersive.
That is what these people need to be thinking about more than trying to look as much like real life as possible.
Exactly, if they're going to be successful on wii they're going to need to focus on gameplay, there's no point releasing a game that is available in a better looking form on other consoles unless you can really add something to the gameplay a la Resi.
I would like to see them take their considerable developments skills and work within a T or even E rating. The money is there to be made, and I would consider it more impressive for them to do that than to create another M-title. You can still be creative and poignant without blood, intense violence, partial nudity, strong language, strong sexual content and use of drugs and alcohol (as read off of my GTAIV box), right?
Like LBP maybe?
No, I'm afraid blood, intense violence, partial nudity, strong language, strong sexual content and use of drugs and alcohol (as read off of my GTAIV box) are absolute necessities for a good game. Only children own a Wii (I myself have just turned six), and making a good game for the Wii is therefore impossible.