id Boss: Third-party Wii Development 'Not Really Justified'

id CEO Todd Hollenshead remains unconvinced that there's a good reason for "independent, Wii-centric" development. He's willing to hear someone out, he just hasn't heard a good argument for it yet.

Hollenshead, in an interview with GameSpot, was asked if the Wii's meteoric sales and success inevitably meant a shift in resources toward third-party development more suited for that platform. Putting it gently, Hollenshead said no.

If you look at the data, the Wii is Nintendo-and then everybody else. And then among everybody else, it's licensed properties - and then stuff that people lose money on. So, for a really original, game-centric IP, if you're a third-party developer, I would say, "Show me what makes such a compelling case for the Wii.

That's not to say he ridicules Nintendo or the platform. Actually, he brings up a point I think we'd all do well to keep in mind: "Sometimes people lose sight of the fact that almost every company doesn't try to be all things to all people. Nintendo isn't trying to be all things to all people either.

Of course, this will be the year The Conduit finally releases, published by Sega. But Madworld (also Sega) despite a generous run-up of hype and reasonably good reviews, hasn't made the kind of splash on Wii analagous to a typical multiplatform drop on the 360 and PS3. That underlines another point Hollenshead made:

Even if we make an awesome game, there's still a question as to whether we're going to justify our investment. And also, I mean, if you look at the market, the type of games we traditionally make, those games are selling record numbers on non-Wii platforms.

Would Madworld have done so on PS3 and/or 360?

Taken from: Kotaku

Quotes from Todd Hollenshead are in Italics, FYI.

What are your thoughts on this?

Another dev has come out of the closet, then again what has ID done for me lately? BoloTheGreat

ID misses the point so I will say it again. What 3rd party games can even come close to competing with Nintendo's? What 3rd party game has had the kind of budget and effort as SMG? What 3rd party has put in the serious time and effort to make there games as big as PS3 or 360 games? Why is Madworld, a game no one asked for all of a sudden a bunch mark to determine support? What is suspose to entice wii owners who after 2 years of being left with virtually nothingto go buy games from third parties now? Why should wi games with lesser budgets need to sell as much as 360 or PS3 games. What big franchises are on the Wii from third parties. What does id even know about other companies sales? Come on devs, justify your descions better than this bull crap.

Good 3rd partygames failed on PS2 as well. Okami and Psychonauts for example.

Good 3rd partygames failed on PS2 as well. Okami and Psychonauts for example.

flazzle

They were the exception rather than the rule.

The PS2 was a goldmine for 3rd parties.

[QUOTE="flazzle"]

Good 3rd partygames failed on PS2 as well. Okami and Psychonauts for example.

GabeNewellsPie

They were the exception rather than the rule.

The PS2 was a goldmine for 3rd parties.

[QUOTE="flazzle"]

Good 3rd partygames failed on PS2 as well. Okami and Psychonauts for example.

GabeNewellsPie

They were the exception rather than the rule.

The PS2 was a goldmine for 3rd parties.

There are other good 3rd party games that simply don't do well, and many other 3rd parties that do. I haven't seen too many great Wii games that failed to sell,but I've some good 3rd parties that DO sell. De Blob and Bloom Blox are both getting sequels.

Ithink Todd Hollenshead needs to consider that maybe the games that his company is producing simply isn't appealing on either console, not just the Wii.

I really wasn't all the impressed at the start of this generation when I saw sequel after sequel scheduled for 360 and PS3, and even Wii in a lesser case. But at least 360 had more options of different titles such as Dead Rising (and others I'm sure).

The point I'm getting at is I think Todd Hollenshead is simply over simplifying not being able to sell games on Wii successfully. Sometimes the problem is with your game and or marketing.

...Okay...

What has iD done anyway this gen?

id is a hella overrated developers these days.

They remind me of one developer who makes games with a lot of cutscenes and convoluted storylines. I just can't put my finger on which dev it is, I think it starts with a K...

id is a hella overrated developers these days.

They remind me of one developer who makes games with a lot of cutscenes and convoluted storylines. I just can't put my finger on which dev it is, I think it starts with a K...

Aljosa23

I know!!11!1 Kojima Studios? Konami? Kapcom? Uh, help me out. ( Yes I know Capcom is spelt with a C)

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

id is a hella overrated developers these days.

They remind me of one developer who makes games with a lot of cutscenes and convoluted storylines. I just can't put my finger on which dev it is, I think it starts with a K...

ActicEdge

I know!!11!1 Kojima Studios? Konami? Kapcom? Uh, help me out. ( Yes I know Capcom is spelt with a C)

Lies.

I know!!11!1 Kojima Studios? Konami? Kapcom? Uh, help me out. ( Yes I know Capcom is spelt with a C)

ActicEdge

RROD! :D

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

id is a hella overrated developers these days.

They remind me of one developer who makes games with a lot of cutscenes and convoluted storylines. I just can't put my finger on which dev it is, I think it starts with a K...

millwrought

I know!!11!1 Kojima Studios? Konami? Kapcom? Uh, help me out. ( Yes I know Capcom is spelt with a C)

Lies.

I'm so confused now. SOMEBODY HELP ME !!!!!!!

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

I know!!11!1 Kojima Studios? Konami? Kapcom? Uh, help me out. ( Yes I know Capcom is spelt with a C)

Aljosa23

RROD! :D

Can I get it for the road? I couldn't possibly use it here. ;)

[QUOTE="millwrought"]

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

I know!!11!1 Kojima Studios? Konami? Kapcom? Uh, help me out. ( Yes I know Capcom is spelt with a C)

ActicEdge

Lies.

I'm so confused now. SOMEBODY HELP ME !!!!!!!

W00T! Made a person confused, mission success!

*Fades into the Shadows*

People are expecting 3rd party software to sell milions on Wii but they dont realize that the milion sellers franchises so far havent been made for Wii. The day developers start to put their Resident Evils, Metar Gears, Gears of Wars. etc and they dont sell millions, then you have a point.

The only two huge 3rd party games announced so far for WII ara Monster Hunter 3 and Dragon Quest X, if those dont sell millions, then there is some validity to the argument that software doesnt sell on Wii.

Dont get me wrong, there have been plenty of good games on Wii, but none as mainstream as the ones I mentioned. The only mainstream games on Wii are first party (Mario KArt, Mario Galaxy, SSBB, Zelda) and all of them are among the top sellers of this generation.

...Okay...

What has iD done anyway this gen?

millwrought

I think the problem is that too many developers are trying to swing for the homerun and they strike themselves out. They need to be able to hit singles, doubles, and triples with their games in order to build a strong library of games. This is what has gotten many of them in trouble by focusing all their big hits on the HD consoles and many of them are reporting record losses and some devs are closing their doors. The Wii gives the developers an advantage by allowing them to have these smaller hits to help them out.

Also, I really don't like their argument that only Nintendo games sell. This isn't even the same audience from last gen unless they really believe that the GC sold the most consoles. Rather, the reason why Nintendo is rewarded is because they put more effort into their games and they are rethinking the way games work by introducing new genres. Everyone else is just following, much like the Birdman Fallacy theorizes. If devs put their best games on the Wii, they will sell too. No one can argue that games like GTAIV, MGS4, and RE5 would not have sold on the Wii if the game was on there. Put your best efforts on the console and the game will sell. There really has not been any AAA worthy effort from any 3rd party developer for the Wii.

id is a hella overrated developers these days.

They remind me of one developer who makes games with a lot of cutscenes and convoluted storylines. I just can't put my finger on which dev it is, I think it starts with a K...

People are expecting 3rd party software to sell milions on Wii but they dont realize that the milion sellers franchises so far havent been made for Wii. The day developers start to put their Resident Evils, Metar Gears, Gears of Wars. etc and they dont sell millions, then you have a point.

The only two huge 3rd party games announced so far for WII ara Monster Hunter 3 and Dragon Quest X, if those dont sell millions, then there is some validity to the argument that software doesnt sell on Wii.

Dont get me wrong, there have been plenty of good games on Wii, but none as mainstream as the ones I mentioned. The only mainstream games on Wii are first party (Mario KArt, Mario Galaxy, SSBB, Zelda) and all of them are among the top sellers of this generation.

It's not like he's bashing nintendo. He's just saying that publishing 3rd party games on the platform really isn't better than producing for 360/PS3. Where's the evidence that 3rd party games on the wii are a better investment than 360/PS3? He sees evidence to the contrary.

id CEO Todd Hollenshead remains unconvinced that there's a good reason for "independent, Wii-centric" development. He's willing to hear someone out, he just hasn't heard a good argument for it yet.

Hollenshead, in an interview with GameSpot, was asked if the Wii's meteoric sales and success inevitably meant a shift in resources toward third-party development more suited for that platform. Putting it gently, Hollenshead said no.

If you look at the data, the Wii is Nintendo-and then everybody else. And then among everybody else, it's licensed properties - and then stuff that people lose money on. So, for a really original, game-centric IP, if you're a third-party developer, I would say, "Show me what makes such a compelling case for the Wii.

That's not to say he ridicules Nintendo or the platform. Actually, he brings up a point I think we'd all do well to keep in mind: "Sometimes people lose sight of the fact that almost every company doesn't try to be all things to all people. Nintendo isn't trying to be all things to all people either.

Of course, this will be the year The Conduit finally releases, published by Sega. But Madworld (also Sega) despite a generous run-up of hype and reasonably good reviews, hasn't made the kind of splash on Wii analagous to a typical multiplatform drop on the 360 and PS3. That underlines another point Hollenshead made:

Even if we make an awesome game, there's still a question as to whether we're going to justify our investment. And also, I mean, if you look at the market, the type of games we traditionally make, those games are selling record numbers on non-Wii platforms.

Would Madworld have done so on PS3 and/or 360?

Taken from: Kotaku

Quotes from Todd Hollenshead are in Italics, FYI.

What are your thoughts on this?

Salt_The_Fries

Regarding your Madworld question at the end...I think the answer is simple. Heavenly Sword. Awesome game, awesome graphics, interesting concept and excution...but nobody is going to pay $50 - $60 for a 5 hour game. As a result, the game bombs. What I find interesting though, is when it happens on PS3/360 then it is the games fault, but when it happens on the Wii, it is supposedly the consoles fault?

It's not like he's bashing nintendo. He's just saying that publishing 3rd party games on the platform really isn't better than producing for 360/PS3. Where's the evidence that 3rd party games on the wii are a better investment than 360/PS3? He sees evidence to the contrary.

hakanakumono

Call of Duty: WaW sold over a million copies on the Wii, despite being an inferior port of the HD versions. Why? Because it is part of a big name franchise. It's obvious he isn't bashing Nintendo, but devs keep using this excuse and it's a bunch of crap. If Kojima were to put a Metal Gear game on the Wii it would sale, same as if Capcom put a big RE or SF release on the system. However, if devs want to sell games that don't have the benefit of having a big name slapped on the box, then they need to put actual effort into making it a game worth taking notice of.

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

id is a hella overrated developers these days.

They remind me of one developer who makes games with a lot of cutscenes and convoluted storylines. I just can't put my finger on which dev it is, I think it starts with a K...

psychobrew

I find cutscene bashing hillarious. I'm sorry, but name one game that tells a REAL story through gameplay and not cut scenes. Seriously...just ONE. Because games like FPS or Metroid that have you reading a ton of files, or documents or whatever, which you have to hunt around to find, NEVER makes a story. At best it gives background to the mission, but there isn't a plot, character development, etc. and that means NO STORY.

Before cut scenes (and still used today), story was told in RPGs through tons of endless text. Reading, reading, reading. Nobody complained about all the time spent in old Phantasy Star or Final Fantasy games hitting the button to scroll through endless text. But the second you turn reading into watching, and endless text into a movie, then suddenly it is a disgrace and takes away all the awesome gameplay that reading text apparantly provided.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

It's not like he's bashing nintendo. He's just saying that publishing 3rd party games on the platform really isn't better than producing for 360/PS3. Where's the evidence that 3rd party games on the wii are a better investment than 360/PS3? He sees evidence to the contrary.

TreyoftheDead

Call of Duty: WaW sold over a million copies on the Wii, despite being an inferior port of the HD versions. Why? Because it is part of a big name franchise. It's obvious he isn't bashing Nintendo, but devs keep using this excuse and it's a bunch of crap. If Kojima were to put a Metal Gear game on the Wii it would sale, same as if Capcom put a big RE or SF release on the system. However, if devs want to sell games that don't have the benefit of having a big name slapped on the box, then they need to put actual effort into making it a game worth taking notice of.

I think Umbrella Chronicles DID sell, and that was a crappy, arcade style on-rails light-gun game. Thanks to the success of that game, there are now a bunch of other craptacular on-rails shooters on the way (or already out). Since nobody wants to have a library of light-gun style shooters, all of course costing the same price as a Grand Theft Auto...most will flop and the developers will blame Nintendo and the Wii. meanwhile, fans continue screaming for real, serious games that are worth paying full price for and developers keep ignoring them.

[QUOTE="psychobrew"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

id is a hella overrated developers these days.

They remind me of one developer who makes games with a lot of cutscenes and convoluted storylines. I just can't put my finger on which dev it is, I think it starts with a K...

I find cutscene bashing hillarious. I'm sorry, but name one game that tells a REAL story through gameplay and not cut scenes. Seriously...just ONE. Because games like FPS or Metroid that have you reading a ton of files, or documents or whatever, which you have to hunt around to find, NEVER makes a story. At best it gives background to the mission, but there isn't a plot, character development, etc. and that means NO STORY.

Before cut scenes (and still used today), story was told in RPGs through tons of endless text. Reading, reading, reading. Nobody complained about all the time spent in old Phantasy Star or Final Fantasy games hitting the button to scroll through endless text. But the second you turn reading into watching, and endless text into a movie, then suddenly it is a disgrace and takes away all the awesome gameplay that reading text apparantly provided.

Well what has ID done this gen, well they got the quake live platform rolling, not to mention their wolfenstien and Rage games comming out.

[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]

[QUOTE="psychobrew"] Nintendo is guilty of this as well. I think it's a Japanese thing. There's nothing worse than a game that spends almost as much time on cut scenes as gameplay, especially when they can't be skipped (Fire Emblem, Batalion Wars II). Cut scenes should be kept to a minimum. If the game can't tell the story through gameplay, it's not a good game.psychobrew

I find cutscene bashing hillarious. I'm sorry, but name one game that tells a REAL story through gameplay and not cut scenes. Seriously...just ONE. Because games like FPS or Metroid that have you reading a ton of files, or documents or whatever, which you have to hunt around to find, NEVER makes a story. At best it gives background to the mission, but there isn't a plot, character development, etc. and that means NO STORY.

Before cut scenes (and still used today), story was told in RPGs through tons of endless text. Reading, reading, reading. Nobody complained about all the time spent in old Phantasy Star or Final Fantasy games hitting the button to scroll through endless text. But the second you turn reading into watching, and endless text into a movie, then suddenly it is a disgrace and takes away all the awesome gameplay that reading text apparantly provided.

Quite a few videogames have better stories than most movies do.

It's a good storytelling medium. It's just largely untapped and underappreciated as one. Thank god for Japanese devs.

[QUOTE="psychobrew"][QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]

I find cutscene bashing hillarious. I'm sorry, but name one game that tells a REAL story through gameplay and not cut scenes. Seriously...just ONE. Because games like FPS or Metroid that have you reading a ton of files, or documents or whatever, which you have to hunt around to find, NEVER makes a story. At best it gives background to the mission, but there isn't a plot, character development, etc. and that means NO STORY.

Before cut scenes (and still used today), story was told in RPGs through tons of endless text. Reading, reading, reading. Nobody complained about all the time spent in old Phantasy Star or Final Fantasy games hitting the button to scroll through endless text. But the second you turn reading into watching, and endless text into a movie, then suddenly it is a disgrace and takes away all the awesome gameplay that reading text apparantly provided.

hakanakumono

Quite a few videogames have better stories than most movies do.

It's a good storytelling medium. It's just largely untapped and underappreciated as one. Thank god for Japanese devs.

I would have to disagree. With the exception of Shadow of the Colossus (which has a story with so many hidden layers you could write a thesis on it) no game has a story that is good enough for film. Now, don't get me wrong, there are TONS of terrible films that have stories worse than most games, but if you were to take the best of films and games, films would come out on top by a mile.

Simply put, there's no citizen kane of games.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="psychobrew"] A good game does not need a story, either text based or told through cut scenes. A good game is fun to play over and over again reguardless of the story, where games that rely on the story have almost no replay value. The story, no matter how it's told, should always come in second to the gameplay itself. Final Fantasy is a Japanese RPG, and Japanese RPGs rely on the story to get people to play them. I did not care for the Final Fantasy series at all. I have no idea what Phantasy Star is, but I'm guessing it's the same thing. Games like Battlefield, Guild Wars, and perhaps WoW are great games without stories or where stories are secondary to the gameplay itself. Don't forget about games like Oblivion either. What makes these games so great is that you get to create the story yourself. Did the origional Mario Bros games need much of a story to make them fun? No. The 2D Mario games had great replay value. The 3D Mario games....not quite so much. People who like Japanese games like highly involved stories in their games, and most of the time the stories are laughable. People who like Western games don't need a highly involved story because the gameplay usually speaks for itself.goblaa

Quite a few videogames have better stories than most movies do.

It's a good storytelling medium. It's just largely untapped and underappreciated as one. Thank god for Japanese devs.

I would have to disagree. With the exception of Shadow of the Colossus (which has a story with so many hidden layers you could write a thesis on it) no game has a story that is good enough for film. Now, don't get me wrong, there are TONS of terrible films that have stories worse than most games, but if you were to take the best of films and games, films would come out on top by a mile.

Simply put, there's no citizen kane of games.

That's an interesting proposition. Yes, if you take the best of movies the best of games may not be able to compete as well in terms of storyline in most cases. But I'd say Silent Hill 1 & 2 and Siren are definitely better plotwise than any given horror movie. Xenogears is also EXCELLENT in terms of storytelling. It doesn't really get better than Xenogears when it comes to games and I think it would be a worthy contender for most movies.

Excellence: Silent Hill, Silent Hill 2, Siren, Xenogears, Final Fantasy Tactics

Great: Final Fantasy VIII, Siren 2,

Good: Resident Evil (remake), Resident Evil 2, Final Fantasy VII, Parasite Eve

Have you ever owned a playstation? That might be why. Nintendo games are rarely plot oriented. In any case, the gaming industry should be striving for mor excellence.

[QUOTE="goblaa"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Quite a few videogames have better stories than most movies do.

It's a good storytelling medium. It's just largely untapped and underappreciated as one. Thank god for Japanese devs.

hakanakumono

I would have to disagree. With the exception of Shadow of the Colossus (which has a story with so many hidden layers you could write a thesis on it) no game has a story that is good enough for film. Now, don't get me wrong, there are TONS of terrible films that have stories worse than most games, but if you were to take the best of films and games, films would come out on top by a mile.

Simply put, there's no citizen kane of games.

That's an interesting proposition. Yes, if you take the best of movies the best of games may not be able to compete as well in terms of storyline in most cases. But I'd say Silent Hill 1 & 2 and Siren are definitely better plotwise than any given horror movie. Xenogears is also EXCELLENT in terms of storytelling. It doesn't really get better than Xenogears when it comes to games and I think it would be a worthy contender for most movies.

Excellence: Silent Hill, Silent Hill 2, Siren, Xenogears, Final Fantasy Tactics

Great: Final Fantasy VIII, Siren 2,

Good: Resident Evil (remake), Resident Evil 2, Final Fantasy VII, Parasite Eve

Have you ever owned a playstation? That might be why. Nintendo games are rarely plot oriented. In any case, the gaming industry should be striving for mor excellence.

[QUOTE="goblaa"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Quite a few videogames have better stories than most movies do.

It's a good storytelling medium. It's just largely untapped and underappreciated as one. Thank god for Japanese devs.

hakanakumono

I would have to disagree. With the exception of Shadow of the Colossus (which has a story with so many hidden layers you could write a thesis on it) no game has a story that is good enough for film. Now, don't get me wrong, there are TONS of terrible films that have stories worse than most games, but if you were to take the best of films and games, films would come out on top by a mile.

Simply put, there's no citizen kane of games.

That's an interesting proposition. Yes, if you take the best of movies the best of games may not be able to compete as well in terms of storyline in most cases. But I'd say Silent Hill 1 & 2 and Siren are definitely better plotwise than any given horror movie. Xenogears is also EXCELLENT in terms of storytelling. It doesn't really get better than Xenogears when it comes to games and I think it would be a worthy contender for most movies.

Excellence: Silent Hill, Silent Hill 2, Siren, Xenogears, Final Fantasy Tactics

Great: Final Fantasy VIII, Siren 2,

Good: Resident Evil (remake), Resident Evil 2, Final Fantasy VII, Parasite Eve

Have you ever owned a playstation? That might be why. Nintendo games are rarely plot oriented. In any case, the gaming industry should be striving for mor excellence.

Yes I owned a PS, even though I'm a sheep I skipped the N64 and GC fro the Ps1 and Ps2.

And the games you listed are pretty inferior story wise to films. Silent hill does not have the story required for a great film. Just look at the god awful silent hill film. Yes, they changed a lot, but that was an atempt to salvage a goofy story.

Xenogears is horribly written too. Like MGS it's in dire need of an editor and is way over pretentious. Characters constantly just declare how they feel with no sense of emotional depth or symbolism.

Parasite eve has a film too, and like silent hill its really goofy. And have you even played a RE game? Have you listened to the cheesy acting and paper thing plots/characters? Ignoring that there arlready three terrible RE films.

None of those games you listed (maybe tactics) would make a decent film.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="goblaa"]

I would have to disagree. With the exception of Shadow of the Colossus (which has a story with so many hidden layers you could write a thesis on it) no game has a story that is good enough for film. Now, don't get me wrong, there are TONS of terrible films that have stories worse than most games, but if you were to take the best of films and games, films would come out on top by a mile.

Simply put, there's no citizen kane of games.

goblaa

That's an interesting proposition. Yes, if you take the best of movies the best of games may not be able to compete as well in terms of storyline in most cases. But I'd say Silent Hill 1 & 2 and Siren are definitely better plotwise than any given horror movie. Xenogears is also EXCELLENT in terms of storytelling. It doesn't really get better than Xenogears when it comes to games and I think it would be a worthy contender for most movies.

Excellence: Silent Hill, Silent Hill 2, Siren, Xenogears, Final Fantasy Tactics

Great: Final Fantasy VIII, Siren 2,

Good: Resident Evil (remake), Resident Evil 2, Final Fantasy VII, Parasite Eve

Have you ever owned a playstation? That might be why. Nintendo games are rarely plot oriented. In any case, the gaming industry should be striving for mor excellence.

Yes I owned a PS, even though I'm a sheep I skipped the N64 and GC fro the Ps1 and Ps2.

And the games you listed are pretty inferior story wise to films. Silent hill does not have the story required for a great film. Just look at the god awful silent hill film. Yes, they changed a lot, but that was an atempt to salvage a goofy story.

Xenogears is horribly written too. Like MGS it's in dire need of an editor and is way over pretentious. Characters constantly just declare how they feel with no sense of emotional depth or symbolism.

Parasite eve has a film too, and like silent hill its really goofy. And have you even played a RE game? Have you listened to the cheesy acting and paper thing plots/characters? Ignoring that there arlready three terrible RE films.

None of those games you listed (maybe tactics) would make a decent film.

You've pretty much proven yourself to be full of BS now considering the Silent Hill film plot is totally different from the actual Silent Hill game plot. Looks like you never played Silent Hill.

My "good" category is just "good." It's not mindblowing, and the presentation may have some issues (although the majority of voice acting in the two RE games I listed was decent, actually), but it's like a fun movie. In other words, this is standard movie grade.

Sorry, no. Xenogears is full of depth. Just like Silent Hill, I highly doubt you've played this one either. The game is full of emotional depth. Xenogears is very philosophical and interesting questions.

I think you have this confused idea that i'm trying to say that these games would make great movies. They wouldn't. Movies are on average 3 hours and tell their stories in very different ways than videogames do. How would one go about making a Xenogears movie? Unless you butchered it, it'd be over a hundred hours long. It's not as if film is a superior storytelling medium in itself. The potential for videogame storytelling is very strong.

P.S. What is declaring how you feel with a sense of symbolism?

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="goblaa"]

I would have to disagree. With the exception of Shadow of the Colossus (which has a story with so many hidden layers you could write a thesis on it) no game has a story that is good enough for film. Now, don't get me wrong, there are TONS of terrible films that have stories worse than most games, but if you were to take the best of films and games, films would come out on top by a mile.

Simply put, there's no citizen kane of games.

SeanBond

That's an interesting proposition. Yes, if you take the best of movies the best of games may not be able to compete as well in terms of storyline in most cases. But I'd say Silent Hill 1 & 2 and Siren are definitely better plotwise than any given horror movie. Xenogears is also EXCELLENT in terms of storytelling. It doesn't really get better than Xenogears when it comes to games and I think it would be a worthy contender for most movies.

Excellence: Silent Hill, Silent Hill 2, Siren, Xenogears, Final Fantasy Tactics

Great: Final Fantasy VIII, Siren 2,

Good: Resident Evil (remake), Resident Evil 2, Final Fantasy VII, Parasite Eve

Have you ever owned a playstation? That might be why. Nintendo games are rarely plot oriented. In any case, the gaming industry should be striving for mor excellence.

Final Fantasy VI is a delightful game, although i feel that it was part of an evolutionary step in games towards better stories. IX probably belongs in my good category too. There are a lot more games that could be listed, like Xenosaga for example, although that is a little messy because although the first one has excellent storytelling ... the story switched around and took a silly route in the latter two titles. I've never actually played a MGS game for very long, believe it or not.

ID had blinders on. Madworld is an extremely niche game and is not a good example. Look at games like COD:WAW -- it's a gimped game, but it still sold over 1 million copies. Shawn White Snowboarding, Guitar Hero, a few Star Wars titles, and many others have done extremely well. Not that I really care -- there isn't much that ID produces that I'm interested in anyway.psychobrew

I couldn't have said it better myself.

what has id done sincen 64 absolutely nothing ill pass,

who cares about id, theyll be the ones missing out on the money,

lets not forget that half the games that sell well are those good wii games ,

like madworld,red steel obviously, re4 wii edition

bully etc stiff people like,

the reason the rest havent sold as well is because

a they are less known of -no more heroes, deblob

b they are bad-alien syndrome

c they dont get reviewd by the right people-the ones that would just stat facts- not that oh this version doesnt offer this this version dosent offer thaat, over another version ,

pathetic id , you may as well say developing duke nukem isn worth it an more since

1 i have waited to freaking long for a good sequal to dn64, -i hate those 3rd person ones,

2 wheres duke nukem forever the last good dn was gba but thats hand held somthing i expected ,

and you got a ds one coming good but is that all , oh well quak 4 was poor im sure doom 4 will to ,

becase of the oversaturated fps market, lol and they might just scrap split screen from dn any way and quake if they hadnt already

its not wiis fault , you are lazy!