This on-rail shooter games need to come to a damn stop!

On-rails on Wii need to come to a stop! It's getting out of hand!:evil: Who wants to play Dead Space Extraction and RE: Dark Side Chronicles being moved automaticly!? Not me! These games that are on-rails could be so much more without rails! WHY CANT WE MOVE ON ARE OWN?!?!?!?!?!?

insect13

How about no more freaking PARTY GAMES. Nintendo should enforce their Seal of Quality more than ever. But then maybe no games will come to the system.

[QUOTE="umcommon"]I think I just threw up a bit. Devs are making rail shooters for Wii because they are too cheap and too stubborn to give Wii owners the real thing, not because they see some incredible opportunity.JordanElek

Tell that to the people making the games. Listen to their interviews, watch them talk about their projects. Accusing them of cheapness and stubbornness makes NO sense.

YEH i hate On rail shooters.

especially in horror games.

its more fun if you can just move around and walk, let them scare you from new places everytime you play cuz u wont be going through the SAME PATH. there is no replay value for any on rail shooters.

[QUOTE="insect13"]

On-rails on Wii need to come to a stop! It's getting out of hand!:evil: Who wants to play Dead Space Extraction and RE: Dark Side Chronicles being moved automaticly!? Not me! These games that are on-rails could be so much more without rails! WHY CANT WE MOVE ON ARE OWN?!?!?!?!?!?

Stucazzo

How about no more freaking PARTY GAMES. Nintendo should enforce their Seal of Quality more than ever. But then maybe no games will come to the system.

There is no seal of quality, it is more like a seal of nothing. You could just not buy the party games.

[QUOTE="JordanElek"]

[QUOTE="umcommon"]I think I just threw up a bit. Devs are making rail shooters for Wii because they are too cheap and too stubborn to give Wii owners the real thing, not because they see some incredible opportunity.umcommon

Tell that to the people making the games. Listen to their interviews, watch them talk about their projects. Accusing them of cheapness and stubbornness makes NO sense.

When did you beceome a game sales expert. If you are such a knowlegable expert why don't you know that Wii games sell slower and longer than PS360 games. You should also know that games that aren't advertied as much sell less.

[QUOTE="umcommon"]

[QUOTE="JordanElek"]

Tell that to the people making the games. Listen to their interviews, watch them talk about their projects. Accusing them of cheapness and stubbornness makes NO sense.Burning-Sludge

When did you beceome a game sales expert. If you are such a knowlegable expert why don't you know that Wii games sell slower and longer than PS360 games. You should also know that games that aren't advertied as much sell less.

I have no idea why every mod on this site seems to be a gigantic shill towards rail shooters...... just be be clear NOT an insult but rather an observation I've noticed.umcommon

I really could care less how much these devs hype their games, if the game is lame and cheap an interview from them wont make me sympathetic towards them, in fact hearing them talk about how well they think rail shooters would work on Wii would probably make me sick to my stomachumcommon

I'm not talking about their hype.... I'm talking about what they've said about the benefits of the rail shooter genre and how they're trying to use it to its fullest potential, not necessarily because it's on the Wii, but because the genre has benefits that haven't really been tapped into by anyone ever. These guys KNOW what they're doing.... They're not just sitting around being lazy... I told you to listen to interviews because you can hear how much EFFORT and WORK they put into Extraction and Chronicles.

And the end result of that effort has been high quality, whether they sell well or not, whether YOU like it or not, the games end up being high quality and great for what they're trying to be. That's my point. It's not laziness when the end result is awesome. Yes, they COULD put that effort and work into making a great TPS or FPS, but they didn't. They put it towards a different genre. They had reasons for doing that, but those reasons WEREN'T laziness or cheapness or stubbornness. I'm not defending their decision to make a rail shooter. I'm defending their integrity from the accusation of laziness.

They are low budget compared to their REAL counterparts on PS360, and they sell poorly.... 9,000 units opening week is PATHETIC for any game, even a niche game which Dead Space is not. And yes rail shooters are low budget cop-outs, if EA really believed in Dead Space Extraction they would of payed for some decent advertising for it. I really could care less how much these devs hype their games, if the game is lame and cheap an interview from them wont make me sympathetic towards them, in fact hearing them talk about how well they think rail shooters would work on Wii would probably make me sick to my stomach, since a TPS game like RE:4 is superior in near every way, except graphics.... but hey it's a GC port.

umcommon

The only argument you have is DS: E which sold poorly. You are not looking at all the other examples

Umbrella chronicles compared to RE:4

UC did amazing considering that RE:4 has been out longer and was at budget price (29.99)

also

House of the dead overkill and house of the dead 2&3

both games sold EXTRMELY well considering they are "rail shooters"

Now compare the 3 rail shooters to three of the so called "best" FPS' on the wii.

Call of duty: world at war

Medal of Honor: Heroes 2

The conduit

Only Call of duty out sold the rail shooters, and that is because of the huge success that the CoD franchise is.

When a developer looks at these sales, it clearly shows that the wii audience would rather have on rail shooters than FPS.

Don't blame the developers for making on rails, blame the owners for not buying FPS'.

[QUOTE="umcommon"]I have no idea why every mod on this site seems to be a gigantic shill towards rail shooters...... just be be clear NOT an insult but rather an observation I've noticed.JordanElek

I really could care less how much these devs hype their games, if the game is lame and cheap an interview from them wont make me sympathetic towards them, in fact hearing them talk about how well they think rail shooters would work on Wii would probably make me sick to my stomachumcommon

I'm not talking about their hype.... I'm talking about what they've said about the benefits of the rail shooter genre and how they're trying to use it to its fullest potential, not necessarily because it's on the Wii, but because the genre has benefits that haven't really been tapped into by anyone ever. These guys KNOW what they're doing.... They're not just sitting around being lazy... I told you to listen to interviews because you can hear how much EFFORT and WORK they put into Extraction and Chronicles.

And the end result of that effort has been high quality, whether they sell well or not, whether YOU like it or not, the games end up being high quality and great for what they're trying to be. That's my point. It's not laziness when the end result is awesome. Yes, they COULD put that effort and work into making a great TPS or FPS, but they didn't. They put it towards a different genre. They had reasons for doing that, but those reasons WEREN'T laziness or cheapness or stubbornness. I'm not defending their decision to make a rail shooter. I'm defending their integrity from the accusation of laziness.

After being blown away with how great RE:4 was on Wii I would have thought that at least one dev or person would have the brains to make something similar for Wii.... but I guess not. umcommon

For example, I look at a game like the original Dead Space, and it's OBVIOUS to me why they chose the HD consoles over the Wii. We've even heard some developers say they never want to work on the Wii because of its hardware limitations.... and they have a point. On the Wii, they just can't do what they really want to do in many cases.

I think this is also why we're seeing so many "experimental" games on the Wii. It's simply cheaper to develop for because of the more dated hardware, so if the experiment fails, there isn't as much cost to eat. And thanks to that, we've seen some great games like Zack and Wiki, Little King's Story, and Madworld (even though I personally don't like it, it's still a decent experimental-type game). None of them sold particularly well, but imagine if those games had been created with the high costs of high definition and mandatory online functionality.... the financial loss would've been much greater.

[QUOTE="umcommon"]After being blown away with how great RE:4 was on Wii I would have thought that at least one dev or person would have the brains to make something similar for Wii.... but I guess not. JordanElek

For example, I look at a game like the original Dead Space, and it's OBVIOUS to me why they chose the HD consoles over the Wii. We've even heard some developers say they never want to work on the Wii because of its hardware limitations.... and they have a point. On the Wii, they just can't do what they really want to do in many cases.

I think this is also why we're seeing so many "experimental" games on the Wii. It's simply cheaper to develop for because of the more dated hardware, so if the experiment fails, there isn't as much cost to eat. And thanks to that, we've seen some great games like Zack and Wiki, Little King's Story, and Madworld (even though I personally don't like it, it's still a decent experimental-type game). None of them sold particularly well, but imagine if those games had been created with the high costs of high definition and mandatory online functionality.... the financial loss would've been much greater.

[QUOTE="umcommon"]After being blown away with how great RE:4 was on Wii I would have thought that at least one dev or person would have the brains to make something similar for Wii.... but I guess not. JordanElek

For example, I look at a game like the original Dead Space, and it's OBVIOUS to me why they chose the HD consoles over the Wii. We've even heard some developers say they never want to work on the Wii because of its hardware limitations.... and they have a point. On the Wii, they just can't do what they really want to do in many cases.

I think this is also why we're seeing so many "experimental" games on the Wii. It's simply cheaper to develop for because of the more dated hardware, so if the experiment fails, there isn't as much cost to eat. And thanks to that, we've seen some great games like Zack and Wiki, Little King's Story, and Madworld (even though I personally don't like it, it's still a decent experimental-type game). None of them sold particularly well, but imagine if those games had been created with the high costs of high definition and mandatory online functionality.... the financial loss would've been much greater.

Perhaps, but developers apparently see enough in the Wii to keep developing games in a way many can argue is half-heartedly. If you're a major publisher/developer and have a sincere desire of making games for the system, why not go all of the way and try to convince Wii owners that without a shadow of a doubt that you're indeed trying to make high-quality games on the system without compromise? I can understand small and relatively unknown developers releasing games for the sake of making a quick buck, but here we have a system that's almost three years old where most non-Nintendo game makers still don't have a clue what its owners want or desire, despite so many of these 'experimental' games. It's unheard of for a market-leading console (or system of ANY kind) to be displayed as something that no one outside of the first party publisher to have much of a face or brand established on the system, and while part of that may be because of the Wii userbase and the diversity of those who own the system, that can't be all to blame here.

I respect developers who truly don't want to develop games on the Wii and don't because they have the choice not to. However, it's much more difficult to have the same admiration for developers who claim they want to make top-notch games on the system but not pay any attention to what is actually being asked for or try to get away with products that don't fully justify the investment. A less expensive cost in game development doesn't excuse the number of games that have disappointed in one way or another, and we've seen a lot of "love it or hate it" games lately that may have had a chance to be truly among the system's elite but didn't. A system less powerful than the HD systems didn't stop Retro Studios from making an amazing experience, and it shouldn't stop other developers from shying away from the challenge of pushing the Wii just because it isn't as powerful as the HD counterparts. I don't think that is the mentality with developers at the moment, and until that changes, they may never see their games embraced the way they want to.

I like railshooters but, jesus every surivial horror game that comes out is just a rail shooter ffs.

Litchie:

Wild guess here - you haven't tried DSE, have you?

roxlimn

I haven't even gotten suckered into the DSi yet...and now there's a DSE?

[QUOTE="roxlimn"]

Litchie:

Wild guess here - you haven't tried DSE, have you?

chefstubbies

I haven't even gotten suckered into the DSi yet...and now there's a DSE?

I cannot take any developer seriously when they say that they're limited by the Wii's hardware. Wii processing is RELATIVELY weak compared to that found in the 360 and the PS3, but even those are RELATIVELY weak compared to what can be done on the PC. Why are they limited by Wii hardware, but not by 360 hardware, huh? It's totally bogus reasoning. If they want to reason that way, they should only be developing for the PC.

the Wii is only RELATIVELY weak. It is more powerful than the Xbox, which was the most powerful system last generation, and whose true power was not fully utilized. Games like SMG could not have been done on previous machines, and there's a lot of really nice artistic direction given power in that game. Developers want the HD so that they can simply plunk down high def graphics and fool gamers into thinking they're playing a "beautiful" game, when they're really just playing a high-def game. Gamers today are so unimformed, and so easily dazzled by technology that they can no longer tell the good from the bad. Plants vs. Zombies can't be "good" because it's using lower amounts of pixels and power. UC2 can't be terrible because the resolution is higher.

Rail shooters are great, keep 'em coming. If one doesn't like such games, then I wouldn't buy them. Dead Space and HOTD Overkill are outstanding titles; heck even Ghost Squad is a fun shooter. I agree with previous remarks about the Wii being pefect for such games.

I hope they don't stop as I enjoy buying them. I don't pay full price for them but when they get to be around $25 I buy them and play them with my friends.

I cannot take any developer seriously when they say that they're limited by the Wii's hardware.

roxlimn

It's sad that devs feel that Wii's hardware is such a big limitation, because the controls are incredible for a TPS game. I hope Nintendo's next console is on par with whatever MS and Sony have tech wise because getting left out on so many games that would be amazing with Wii's controls just keeps ticking me off more and more.umcommon

I don't see the point. Consoles aren't suppose to have 90% of the same games. If the Wii was on par already the developers would complain about the controls and if the controls were normal developers would complain about Nintendo.

I cannot take any developer seriously when they say that they're limited by the Wii's hardware. Wii processing is RELATIVELY weak compared to that found in the 360 and the PS3, but even those are RELATIVELY weak compared to what can be done on the PC. Why are they limited by Wii hardware, but not by 360 hardware, huh? It's totally bogus reasoning. If they want to reason that way, they should only be developing for the PC.

the Wii is only RELATIVELY weak. It is more powerful than the Xbox, which was the most powerful system last generation, and whose true power was not fully utilized. Games like SMG could not have been done on previous machines, and there's a lot of really nice artistic direction given power in that game. Developers want the HD so that they can simply plunk down high def graphics and fool gamers into thinking they're playing a "beautiful" game, when they're really just playing a high-def game. Gamers today are so unimformed, and so easily dazzled by technology that they can no longer tell the good from the bad. Plants vs. Zombies can't be "good" because it's using lower amounts of pixels and power. UC2 can't be terrible because the resolution is higher.

roxlimn

Developers are limited by Xbox, and PS hardware, but they have to compromise somewhere. Right now the common ground is PC / Xbox / PS multiplatform. Developers can only take so much risk; publishers are satisfied with multiplatform game sells.

Unless you have a genre that absolutely require motion controls, or pointer capabilities it's not reasonable to expect an effort towards the Wii. FPS and TPS have used the analog stick for quite a while and evolved gameplay wise far beyond what the Wii can do.

That doesn't mean we will never see strong 3rd party games being released ever, but they will be far and few between. Plus even with the huge install base, games that explore the Wii in a good way doesn't sell as much even when it is arguably the best version.

Why spend time and money in a Wii game when you can reach the consumers with the other three platforms with minimal effort to make a game run between them.

Tamborific:

Why is it that the point of compromise is the PS3 and the 360? If they made a game that ran well on the Wii and upscaled it for PS3 and 360, then they would have a game that could be put on all the platforms. For instance, Plants vs. Zombies has a ridiculously low power requirement - therefore it can be placed pretty much anywhere. Developing a game with lower resolutions costs less - it's LESS risky, not more risky. That is why you see Suda games and Madworld on the Wii - the capital outlay is significantly less.

"Unless you have a genre that absolutely require motion controls, or pointer capabilities it's not reasonable to expect an effort towards the Wii. FPS and TPS have used the analog stick for quite a while and evolved gameplay wise far beyond what the Wii can do."

Nonsense. There is nothing that they have done on the higher power consoles that can't be done on the Wii's power with enough graphical compromises. It IS slightly more powerful than an Xbox. It can do HALO just fine. It can probably do Killzone2 gameplayjust fine. I'd wager that it can even do Dead Rising just fine, if enough time and budget were sunk into it for optimizing.

We already know that both FPSs and TPSs controal fantastically on the Wii, allowing both a gameplay experience and gameplay designs that were not practical before. Develoeprs do not want to take advantage of the opportunity for reasons known only to them. I think it's reasonable to want a serious effort towards a Wii-centric TPS, but I agree with you that it's not going to happen, because US devs don't want to, and traditional US gamers are so blinded by resolution wars that they can't recognize a good game when it's right under their noses.

That said, RPGs do not require motion controls. We are getting nice titles imminently anyway. 2D brawling does not benefit from high power processing. What is the point of making it on a higher power console? At a certain point, more power simply does not benefit particular games. The 360 and the PS3 have been seeing realistically styled games because those games ARE TECH DEMOS - they showcase the console power most obviously, so the big budget projects do them. Where have all the Ratchets, Jaks, and Banjos went to? Do those games benefit from high-resolution textures? Not that much. Wii can do those genres justice graphically, and advance them forward in gameplay design.

Imagine this - instead of a weapon-wheel, you switch weapons as Ratchet by twisting the remote left or right, each time going down a circle of 5 weapons in a weapon wheel. Instant and intuitive weapon changing! Melee on up/down, Guns on B, Jump on C, lock on Z, Melee on A Special Melee Combo: Hold A, up/down for one move. Hold A, swipe for another. With IR-aim and look and zoom on +, it'd be so, so, so awesome. It's so obvious, Ican come up with that control scheme (and previous games already prove that they work), and I'm not a game designer. But no one is making this game (and the protagonist doesn't have to be named "Ratchet," of course) even though it'd be so, so great.

It takes an indie low-budget developer like Suda to take obvious motion control game ideas and show everyone how awesome they are.

"That doesn't mean we will never see strong 3rd party games being released ever, but they will be far and few between. Plus even with the huge install base, games that explore the Wii in a good way doesn't sell as much even when it is arguably the best version."

Tiger Woods 2010 begs to differ. Guitar Hero begs to differ. There has been NO - NONE - ZIP - NADA - big budget third party US game released on Wii in the 3 years since its release. Not a handful, not two, not one. NONE. Western developers and publishers do not like making games for the Wii. That is not looking to change for the forseeable future. Tiger Woods Wii sold the best of all the versions. Are we seeing major bucks being expended on the most profitable version of the game? I'm not seeing reports of that. It's stupid, and it's nonsensical.

"Why spend time and money in a Wii game when you can reach the consumers with the other three platforms with minimal effort to make a game run between them."

Better question: Why exclude 50% of the console market, when you can lead development on the Wii, and then upscale versions to the other platforms?

If the Wii was on par already the developers would complain about the controls and if the controls were normal developers would complain about Nintendo.Burning-Sludge

Every discussion about gameplay seems to go nowhere. But I sand behind the evolution I see when I watch GTA IV with alive cities, for example. You always can trim down the number of NPCs, cars, and everything surrounding the core gameplay and make it to Wii. But you lose part of the immersion these games offer. Yes HD plays a big part in many games, but if you look past that, you will see much more going on behind the scenes. You may not care about them, but many others do.

Tiger Woods 2010 sold the most on Wii individually, but my point is the Xbox360, PC, PS3 combined still sold more (vgchartz), even with the Wii version being arguably the best. "Combining them is not fair", but the developer just make a PC version limited by the Xbox360 power, and make the port without changes. While the Wii version requires a completely different approach with model changes, textures, a different control, reduced environment features... This path has proven to be problematic to some developers. We have some successful cases, but they still sold poorly on Wii.

When you exclude the Wii, you are not excluding every Wii owner. I would assume Wii owners also have a PC. One not as powerful as an Xbox 360, or PS3, but they can at last run any game the Wii can, minus motion controls. Besides some Wii consumers also have either one of the other consoles. Developers and publishers only care about reaching the end consumer; if they can do that by more successful means, they will do that.

We have a vicious circle going on right now. No 3rd part wants to take changes with big budget games on Wii because they are afraid it won't sell. Most games don't sell well because they are cheap cash-ins. Our hope is Japan developers making good games that sell over 2 million in America. Until that happen the safest route for high budget projects is everything but the Wii.

Those complaining about not buying Dead Space Extraction because its On-Rails are really missing out. It is one of the best games on the Wii this year and really expands the Dead Space universe. If you're gonna buy one rail shooter it has to be this one.

Tamborific:

I venture that most discussions about gameplay you have don't go anywhere because you keep spouting nonsense. GTA did not start out on the PS3. Arguably, the PS2 iterations of that series are better, and certainly no less alive. Heck, the game's got a fantastic version on the DS, and that's alive, too. MySims games are easy cash-ins with limited spaces and graphics optimization, but the locales are also alive. Some of the hairer confrontations on The Conduit have lots of enemies onscreen with a good draw distance. Legend of Zelda TP's wagon sequence populates the Hyrule Field with enemies, and Castle Town has lots of folk and that's a GameCube title - optimized for Wii, you could simulate that in a GTA game, and easily replicate a crowded area.

If you're looking past the resolution and the first impressions and the subtle details, then you are examining the game engine, and that's not conducive to immersion.You may care about minute graphical effects that are ultimately barely noticeable, and only if you squint, but that's what makes you a graphics whore - you care about pointless graphics.

"Tiger Woods 2010 sold the most on Wii individually, but my point is the Xbox360, PC, PS3 combined still sold more (vgchartz), even with the Wii version being arguably the best. "Combining them is not fair", but the developer just make a PC version limited by the Xbox360 power, and make the port without changes. While the Wii version requires a completely different approach with model changes, textures, a different control, reduced environment features... This path has proven to be problematic to some developers. We have some successful cases, but they still sold poorly on Wii."

Your point was answered before it was even begun. The Wii is the biggest market for that series of game. Why NOT lead on the Wii and upscale up to the other platforms? You don't play Video Game Golf for the graphics anyway. If you can lead on the 360 and expect PC gamers to eat a port of a game that is on an inferior platform, then why is it that you can't do the same leading on the Wii?

"When you exclude the Wii, you are not excluding every Wii owner. I would assume Wii owners also have a PC. One not as powerful as an Xbox 360, or PS3, but they can at last run any game the Wii can, minus motion controls. Besides some Wii consumers also have either one of the other consoles. Developers and publishers only care about reaching the end consumer; if they can do that by more successful means, they will do that."

Similarly, when you exclude the 360, you are not excluding every 360 owner. At this point in time, most PC owners have a PC at least as powerful as a 360, so why not exclude that platform? In fact, it makes more sense to exclude it because while most people may have a PC, most people don't play Wii Sports on it. There are many consumers who will only game on a Wii and nothing else. Comparatively, anything you can put on a 360, you can put on a PC, and it'll have the exact same controls, and better output. Your logic makes more sense when applied to excluding 360 support.

"We have a vicious circle going on right now. No 3rd part wants to take changes with big budget games on Wii because they are afraid it won't sell. Most games don't sell well because they are cheap cash-ins. Our hope is Japan developers making good games that sell over 2 million in America. Until that happen the safest route for high budget projects is everything but the Wii."

Quite frankly, I've almost completely lost faith in most North American game developers, especially as far as the Wii is concerned. Dead Space Extraction is good, and I did but it, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't a cheap cash-in. It still is. I'm not holding out on a change of heart. For the forseeable future, much of my money will be going to Japan and Europe.

We obviously have different points of view. I was going to say how Legend of Zelda looks dead, with characters walking fixed scripts or just standing still waiting interaction. Of course TP is not meant to be a city simulation so it's quite a moot point, that's why I talked about GTA evolution. But considering you see LoZ as an example of a busy city shows how different we think about the very same subject.

I agree that early iterations of GTA where great, but you can't look at recent versions and not see the environment differences, NPCs interactions increased complexity. The DS version of the game is also great, the core gameplay is there, but GTA IV have a lot more going on, something I'm yet to see an "optimized" Wii game do. Maybe you are right and it's possible, but I'm skeptic.

The Wii has the biggest market for the PGA Tour, and yet it sells poorly. We have twice the number of Wiis around, the best version and yet we can't get so much more games sold. That's why they don't invest more.

Developers don't risk building games for Wii and upscale because it doesn't sell enough games on its own. Besides the Xbox, and PS have exclusives that sets the bar higher, in complexity, and obviously graphics. Basically the same reason we get pissed when a PSP port is launched on Wii. Once Legend of Zelda, and Super Mario Galaxy were launched they raised the bar of what the Wii is supposed to deliver. Anything less and you will be disappointed. The same would apply to ports from Wii to Xbox, PS.

Excluding the Xbox doesn't make sense unless you exclude the PC too. If you develop to one, you hire some monkeys to port to the other. If you are asking me if buying an Xbox makes sense, I have to say it doesn't unless you have a weaker computer, or friends playing online with it. But the Xbox console market is solid right now, so it doesn't make sense to make it to PC, and not deliver the Xbox version too.

And again I agree, DSE is a great game, great story, but too expensive for what it is. In my opinion it's worth $30. I bet if they did the marketing at this price point it would sell much more.

Tamborific:

Sales for Tiger Woods PGA Tour Wii were fantastic for the month of its release. The other versions weren't even in the charts. Where are you getting your data and how reliable is it?

We obviously have different points of view. I was going to say how Legend of Zelda looks dead, with characters walking fixed scripts or just standing still waiting interaction. Of course TP is not meant to be a city simulation so it's quite a moot point, that's why I talked about GTA evolution. But considering you see LoZ as an example of a busy city shows how different we think about the very same subject.

I agree that early iterations of GTA where great, but you can't look at recent versions and not see the environment differences, NPCs interactions increased complexity. The DS version of the game is also great, the core gameplay is there, but GTA IV have a lot more going on, something I'm yet to see an "optimized" Wii game do. Maybe you are right and it's possible, but I'm skeptic.

The Wii has the biggest market for the PGA Tour, and yet it sells poorly. We have twice the number of Wiis around, the best version and yet we can't get so much more games sold. That's why they don't invest more.

Developers don't risk building games for Wii and upscale because it doesn't sell enough games on its own. Besides the Xbox, and PS have exclusives that sets the bar higher, in complexity, and obviously graphics. Basically the same reason we get pissed when a PSP port is launched on Wii. Once Legend of Zelda, and Super Mario Galaxy were launched they raised the bar of what the Wii is supposed to deliver. Anything less and you will be disappointed. The same would apply to ports from Wii to Xbox, PS.

Excluding the Xbox doesn't make sense unless you exclude the PC too. If you develop to one, you hire some monkeys to port to the other. If you are asking me if buying an Xbox makes sense, I have to say it doesn't unless you have a weaker computer, or friends playing online with it. But the Xbox console market is solid right now, so it doesn't make sense to make it to PC, and not deliver the Xbox version too.

And again I agree, DSE is a great game, great story, but too expensive for what it is. In my opinion it's worth $30. I bet if they did the marketing at this price point it would sell much more.

Tamborific

I can see where you're coming from with Dead Space's price point, but let's look back at last year with the 360/PS3 version of Dead Space.

360/PS3: 10 hour story, little replay value other than achieving higher difficulty levels, no multiplayer, $60 (still a fantastic game mind you)

Wii's Extraction: 9 Hour story, challenge maps, unlock all pages for the comic, 2-player co-op, multiple difficulty levels, $50 (also fantastic)

Frankly I see Dead Space Extraction as the better value

On-rails on Wii need to come to a stop! It's getting out of hand!:evil: Who wants to play Dead Space Extraction and RE: Dark Side Chronicles being moved automaticly!? Not me! These games that are on-rails could be so much more without rails! WHY CANT WE MOVE ON ARE OWN?!?!?!?!?!?

insect13

You forgot The House of the Dead: Overkill. That game is funny and kinda fun, but not worth fifty bucks. :/

Tamborific:

Sales for Tiger Woods PGA Tour Wii were fantastic for the month of its release. The other versions weren't even in the charts. Where are you getting your data and how reliable is it?

roxlimn

I don't know how reliable http://www.vgchartz.com/ is, if you have a more reliable source please tell me. Being misinformed is bad, but passing misinformation along is the worst.

I can see where you're coming from with Dead Space's price point, but let's look back at last year with the 360/PS3 version of Dead Space.

360/PS3: 10 hour story, little replay value other than achieving higher difficulty levels, no multiplayer, $60 (still a fantastic game mind you)

Wii's Extraction: 9 Hour story, challenge maps, unlock all pages for the comic, 2-player co-op, multiple difficulty levels, $50 (also fantastic)

Frankly I see Dead Space Extraction as the better value

fleig_man

But the development of the original Dead Space needed a bigger budget, and has more appeal than Extraction. The number of hours really is an important aspect of what you get for your money, but as many posted in this thread, they would be willing to buy Extraction if it had the original gameplay. You kind of become more willing to pay more if you see more effort put into it. I see a great $30 game/movie.

[QUOTE="roxlimn"]

Tamborific:

Sales for Tiger Woods PGA Tour Wii were fantastic for the month of its release. The other versions weren't even in the charts. Where are you getting your data and how reliable is it?

Tamborific

I don't know how reliable http://www.vgchartz.com/ is, if you have a more reliable source please tell me. Being misinformed is bad, but passing misinformation along is the worst.

I can see where you're coming from with Dead Space's price point, but let's look back at last year with the 360/PS3 version of Dead Space.

360/PS3: 10 hour story, little replay value other than achieving higher difficulty levels, no multiplayer, $60 (still a fantastic game mind you)

Wii's Extraction: 9 Hour story, challenge maps, unlock all pages for the comic, 2-player co-op, multiple difficulty levels, $50 (also fantastic)

Frankly I see Dead Space Extraction as the better value

fleig_man

But the development of the original Dead Space needed a bigger budget, and has more appeal than Extraction. The number of hours really is an important aspect of what you get for your money, but as many posted in this thread, they would be willing to buy Extraction if it had the original gameplay. You kind of become more willing to pay more if you see more effort put into it. I see a great $30 game/movie.

Before I go into detail in my answer, did you play Extraction?

Before I go into detail in my answer, did you play Extraction?

fleig_man

[QUOTE="fleig_man"]

Before I go into detail in my answer, did you play Extraction?

Tamborific

ok I played the original and it might as well have been on rails, it was extremely linear and not as immersive as extraction, but had great production values and scare factor. Now our opinions differ on whether it's worth it or not but I think we can both agree it was a pleasant surprise, and i do expect the sales to pick up later on since it was released at the very end of the month. :)

I read what a couple of people said and what I have to say is that I am sick and tired of rail shooters. Some rail shooters are ok but for some reason game companys think the Wii is their outlet to make a rail shooter. I like house of the dead its a good rail shooter in the arcade, along with the crises one. The first couple of games were ok but now almost all mature games for the wii are railshooters and that is annoying. Railshooters are boring and are meant to be in the arcade at movie theaters.

I would be ok with a couple of them but now they are making too many of them.

I read what a couple of people said and what I have to say is that I am sick and tired of rail shooters. Some rail shooters are ok but for some reason game companys think the Wii is their outlet to make a rail shooter. I like house of the dead its a good rail shooter in the arcade, along with the crises one. The first couple of games were ok but now almost all mature games for the wii are railshooters and that is annoying. Railshooters are boring and are meant to be in the arcade at movie theaters.

I would be ok with a couple of them but now they are making too many of them.

jayd02

If you don't want any more rail shooters then don't buy any. If I want to play a rail shooter what would be more convent, me going to the bank to get quarters then go look for nearly non-existent arcade or look for a working game in a movie theater, or going to GameStop buying the rail shooter (only have to purchase once) and go home to play it?

I like on-rail shooters one of the best on the Wii was House of the Dead Overkill as for Dead Space Extraction I haven't played it yet I'm waiting for a price drop. But the thing is if you don't like them don't buy them and if you want games that you can walk round more freely then you have the wrong console.

The only bad on-rail shooter on the Wii was Mad Dog McCree Gunslinger Pack and do I need to explain why I think Not.

you don't understand I don't buy them I played one with my friend and he was the one who bought it because he is a really big resident evil fan

I have no other games to play because good devs are just making rail shooters.

I didn't get RE4 for wii because I got it for the gamecube and ps2 and beat the crap out of both and i didn't want to kill the same zombies for the 100th time

Now for some reason capcom won't make another RE for wii unless it is a rail shooter???? this is bs to me dead space extraction a rail shooter......bs just make it an adventure and don't worry about what the game looks like as long as it is fun nobody cares that has been Wii's bargaining chip over the 360 and ps3 wii is more fun I think 90 percent of gamers would prefer good gameplay over good graphics

sells can prove that is the truth with the wii

On-rails on Wii need to come to a stop! It's getting out of hand!:evil: Who wants to play Dead Space Extraction and RE: Dark Side Chronicles being moved automaticly!? Not me! These games that are on-rails could be so much more without rails! WHY CANT WE MOVE ON ARE OWN?!?!?!?!?!?

insect13

they want to play dead space extraction cause its AWESOME

Tamborific:

NPD sales data for console software sales are generally reliable, if you take what they cover into account. VGChartz is nothing more than a site for making estimates of projected sales - it doesn't actually count receipts. The NPD data for June should be widely available by now.

"But the development of the original Dead Space needed a bigger budget, and has more appeal than Extraction. The number of hours really is an important aspect of what you get for your money, but as many posted in this thread, they would be willing to buy Extraction if it had the original gameplay. You kind of become more willing to pay more if you see more effort put into it. I see a great $30 game/movie."

That's the kind of nonsense I expect from a gamer brainwashed by gaming media. We're supposed to be living in a free market economy. Who the hell cares how much money and "effort" it took to make a product? If it's good, it's good. The problem is that most "hardcore" gamers no longer have their own opinions - they cannot tell a good game from a bad one. They need to have their decisions made for them, and Gamespot obliges.

That's the kind of nonsense I expect from a gamer brainwashed by gaming media. We're supposed to be living in a free market economy. Who the hell cares how much money and "effort" it took to make a product? If it's good, it's good. The problem is that most "hardcore" gamers no longer have their own opinions - they cannot tell a good game from a bad one. They need to have their decisions made for them, and Gamespot obliges.

roxlimn

So if someone disagrees with you "he must be brainwashed", good reasoning. I always care about how much effort something takes to be done and reward their work accordingly. Dead Space had to be done from scratch, while Extraction had a solid ground to work on. Plus a rail-shooter is naturally easier to program as you know where the player is, the path he will go, and what he is looking at.

Feel free to disagree with me and my $30 price, it's my opinion nothing else.

Tamborific:

No. When you reward producers for "effort" in production, you are going against the very principles of free market economies - you know, the kind of economic structure we ALL live in? If a pizza delivery guy is 30 minutes late because he forgot to fuel his bike, do you reward him for effort? No. If a company making a product can make more profit from it because they've automated the process, do you reward all the other companies that are "putting in more effort?" No. It's ludicrous.

Most gamers only behave this way in buying and assessing games because the games media tells them to do so. Mainstream Wii audiences? Yeah, they don't care. They do not care how much effort or budget was put into a Wii product. If they like the content, they get it. Otherwise, they don't. It's the only reasonable way to behave in a free market economy. You bet your ass I won't be rewarding YOU for effort at your job. Get the job done at the competitive prices. If you can get it done with more ease, so much the better for you. I don't really care either way.

No. When you reward producers for "effort" in production, you are going against the very principles of free market economies - you know, the kind of economic structure we ALL live in? If a pizza delivery guy is 30 minutes late because he forgot to fuel his bike, do you reward him for effort? No. If a company making a product can make more profit from it because they've automated the process, do you reward all the other companies that are "putting in more effort?" No. It's ludicrous.

roxlimn

Nice example, a pizza delivery that fail. That's exactly what the consumer feel compelled to reward... If two companies can build the exact same item what you say would apply. But that is hardly the case.

World of Goo is a great game, a huge success.
Could they ask for $50? Sure, it's a free market.
Would I pay $50? No.

Would you?

Bad example. I wouldn't even pay one cent for that game. I am not inclined to even get it for free - to pirate it. It does not interest me enough to even try it. Look for a better example.

How about Plants vs. Zombies? Fantastic game. I would be willing to buy it for $50. Your not willing to pay the same in this case bears no point - we already know that you're acting irrationally.

Are you arguing about the right EA have to set the price whatever they want? Because they already do that, and will continue do to so.

I'm not trying to convince you, just discussing how much DSE is worth for me, and why. If they set the price lower, with the marketing campaign still going on, maybe, the game could sell much more copies.

The game will eventually hit $40, $30, and bargain bin like others before it, but by then there will be no marketing to help with the sales.

You may have a point concerning some 'rail shooters', but survival-horror genre games generally aren't as effective unless the atmosphere of tension can be controlled, and being confined to a set, or 'railed', path is one way to achieve that. As far as RE: Darkside Chronicles goes, if you don't care for it, you could choose to get the NPC versions of the originals instead.

Tamborific:

It's reasonable to say that if you price a good cheaper, it'll sell more. It's so reasonable that it's one of the assumptions made for economic theory.

I know you're not trying to convince me. I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just commenting that your reasoning is completely inconsistent with the world you live in. Developers WANT you to think that more budget and more people and more "effort" should allow them to ask you a higher price. It's a ploy to coax you out of your hard-earned money. Don't listen to them. Listen to YOURSELF. Ask yourself if the game is fun, and how much fun you're having. Is that amount of fun worth $50? That is the only question you need to answer. Brutal Legend having higher pixel count and a MP option are just things thrown in to confuse you. Be honest to yourself. Do you find the MP fun? Are you going to be using it for any amount of time? How much is the higher resolution setting really affecting your fun?

The product is a game, and the only value in a game is fun. If you find a game fun and expect it to worth $50 of fun, then you should get it. The effort that went into producing it should not matter in the least.