Topic: Next Castlevania title to be 360 exclusive?

[Steve]

But he only referred to the Wii and DS, not Nintendo's products in general.

[crisis]

In Reply To #76
Either way, it's still a silly comment!

[DoctaMario]

In Reply To #77

But there's a bit of truth to it. Seems like the best games on either system that make good use of the systems' features are 1st party ones.

[Aridale]

In Reply To #77

No whats silly is that Nintendo is the only company that sees that graphics and more power dont make a better console or gaming experience. And thats exactly why I say the game industry as a whole isnt advanced enough to make serious use of the Wii.

How many truly innovative games have you seen in the last 5 years? And I mean TRULY innovative that invent new genres or completely change the way we play games as a whole?

All the major developers have focused on are bigger better graphics all the while never ever even considering the way we interact with the games their striving to make photorealistic and as lifelike as possible are still interacted with via a method established like 30 years ago when video games as a whole were new.

Before Nintendo started thinking of ways to change how we PLAY and INTERACT with games the only change in the way we interacted with games from the time they were invented til now was just more buttons on the same controller that each company tried to shape differently to appear to be better than the competitions.

Then Nintendo makes not one but TWO systems that allow anyone smart enough to appreciate it for that a 'stupid gimmick' to play and interact with ideas and worlds on an entirely different level. Not just games but applications and even self improvement tools which became a huge new genre basically overnight all because of the DS.

So whats silly is that while everyone else strives to get to the 'end point' of games visually Nintendo and the few 3rd party developers that realize Nintendos approach is the right approach for a real 'next gen' experience bring new ground breaking ideas and experiments to the 2 Nintendo systems.

And if you dont know what I mean by end point that means once gaming tech reaches the point that our games are fully photorealistic and a screenshot from a game cant be told from a pic of real life what happens then? When we have games like that and thats the norm for graphics but we still interact with the worlds with a controller with a number of analog sticks and a plethora of buttons what then? What are the companies that focus solely on graphics and processing power gonna do when they cant advance those any further cause they cant look better than real?

Then do those companies see that Nintendo was right umpteen years ago and that new ways to play and interact with the games really was the future of the industry? Is it too late by then to save the giants if they make it that long?

I just wonder what ppl would say about the Wii if it had the power of the 360 and still had its own new things at the level they are now.

[AlexCalvo]

I agree that the Wii is a totally different kind of system then the Ps3 and 360.  And yes it may change the way we play games... but anyone can change how we play games.  But nintendo did what it always does... It made a console to play games they already thought up.  It's the same reason Super Mario 64 was the only game on N64 that played perfectly with the system.  It was virtually made specifically to play it.  And I'm sorry, but what games have really changed the way we play that much?  Zelda?  No, you just swipe instead of pushing a button... that is NOT revolutionary.  Metroid?  No, it's basically super advanced duck hunt... been there done that.

Games like Wii sports, or Warioware change to an extent.  But not enough to call it revolutionary.  We've had plug in and play games like Wii sports for over a decade.

Oh, and saying more power does not make for better games?  HAHAHA.  Why do people assume that more power only means better graphics?  I guess the only difference between Castlevania 64 and God Of War was the graphics huh?

[gamegrinder]

In Reply To #77

No whats silly is that Nintendo is the only company that sees that graphics and more power dont make a better console or gaming experience. And thats exactly why I say the game industry as a whole isnt advanced enough to make serious use of the Wii.

How many truly innovative games have you seen in the last 5 years? And I mean TRULY innovative that invent new genres or completely change the way we play games as a whole?

All the major developers have focused on are bigger better graphics all the while never ever even considering the way we interact with the games their striving to make photorealistic and as lifelike as possible are still interacted with via a method established like 30 years ago when video games as a whole were new.

Before Nintendo started thinking of ways to change how we PLAY and INTERACT with games the only change in the way we interacted with games from the time they were invented til now was just more buttons on the same controller that each company tried to shape differently to appear to be better than the competitions.

Then Nintendo makes not one but TWO systems that allow anyone smart enough to appreciate it for that a 'stupid gimmick' to play and interact with ideas and worlds on an entirely different level. Not just games but applications and even self improvement tools which became a huge new genre basically overnight all because of the DS.

So whats silly is that while everyone else strives to get to the 'end point' of games visually Nintendo and the few 3rd party developers that realize Nintendos approach is the right approach for a real 'next gen' experience bring new ground breaking ideas and experiments to the 2 Nintendo systems.

And if you dont know what I mean by end point that means once gaming tech reaches the point that our games are fully photorealistic and a screenshot from a game cant be told from a pic of real life what happens then? When we have games like that and thats the norm for graphics but we still interact with the worlds with a controller with a number of analog sticks and a plethora of buttons what then? What are the companies that focus solely on graphics and processing power gonna do when they cant advance those any further cause they cant look better than real?

Then do those companies see that Nintendo was right umpteen years ago and that new ways to play and interact with the games really was the future of the industry? Is it too late by then to save the giants if they make it that long?

I just wonder what ppl would say about the Wii if it had the power of the 360 and still had its own new things at the level they are now.

Well, where do I start here?  First and foremost, you should be typing your stuff into MS Word before posting because your stuff is full of grammatical errors and run-on sentences.  It makes it hard to read.

I think the best way to address all your concerns is in a bullet point format since that's how you formatted yours.

-The Wii is still new technology and like any new technology it takes awhile for 3rd parties to figure out what to do with it.  NINTENDO IS NOT GOD! They are not the only company that can do things well, they are just more consistent.

-Truly innovative games in the last 5 years?  I can name a few off the top of my head: Guitar Hero, Okami, World of Warcraft, Bioshock, Shadow of the Colossus, God of War, Resident Evil 4, Lumines, Burnout: Revenge, Final Fantasy XIII, GTA Vice City.  FYI, Innovate means to take something that already exists and improve upon it, not invent something new.

-Many gamers miss the point of putting so much emphasis on graphics.  The point of putting so much time into shiny and polished looking games is to attract new people that may not have been interested in video games before.  Same goes for the movies and why they spend so much money on the CG, to get people outside their key demographic into the seats.

-About the Photorealism issue you mention, look at TV.  We have the ability to show real people doing real things on TV  yet there are still a great number of animated shows.  The same thing will still apply once we have video game consoles capable of producing graphics that will have us guessing if it's real or animated.

Getting back to the OP topic...

[SymboliC]

IMO Castlevania should just stick with Nintendo or Sony.

[outofthegamer]

IMO Castlevania should just stick with Nintendo or Sony.

I used to think that too, but it just doesn't make sense to put a CV game on the Wii or PS3--there's probably 2 people who own Xbox360s for every 1 that owns a Wii or PS3.

[crisis]

In Reply To #83
CV will have to move onto those consoles eventually. The 360 won't be around forever.

[The Clark]

I used to think that too, but it just doesn't make sense to put a CV game on the Wii or PS3--there's probably 2 people who own Xbox360s for every 1 that owns a Wii or PS3.

Ummmmm, the Wii is now the market leader.

[Kale]

In Reply To #82

Wii, I can understand but why Playstation?? I don't see why they wouldn't go to 360 since alot of console players have a 360, or rather, alot of USA, in which is where Castlevania is popular, own a 360.

[Clara E. Leet]

In Reply To #83

Yyyeeeeah, Wii sold more consoles than the 360. Hit that mark just little under a month ago.

[gamegrinder]

Ummmmm, the Wii is now the market leader.

Only by about 500,000 consoles worldwide.  X360 still has the the lead over Wii in America by 2.4 million.  I won't even mention how far behind the PS3 is.

[crisis]

Dude the 360 was released way before ps3 and wii, of course it's gonna have more units sold. If wii or ps3 was released a year before 360 then everyone would be singing a different tune I'm sure.

[AlexCalvo]

In Reply To #89
But isn't the point he was making just that the 360 currently has a wider range of players?  :