Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Games Entertainment

Mainstream Audience 'Noticing' Games Again 58

Posted by Zonk
from the nice-to-be-noticed dept.
In an interview with the San Jose Mercury News, Shigeru Miyamoto makes it plain that he's extremely pleased with the way the Wii has changed the face of gaming. He says that he gets the feeling that 'because of the Wii, people ... are finally taking notice of videogames again.' The interview goes on to discuss some ways in which Miyamoto hopes to capitalize on that 'notice', including the possibility of introducing new Nintendo characters sometime next year: "For characters, we came up with the concept of the Miis and that allows people to come up with their own characters. Maybe next year sometime, we may have new characters in the same way we came up with Pikmin when we introduced the GameCube."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mainstream Audience 'Noticing' Games Again

Comments Filter:
  • It's just that people have something to comment on besides the same old "better graphics" stuff?
  • ...wrong. The mainstream has been noticing video games for quite some time now. Hence why all these juvenile violent crimes are being blamed on video games. The Wii had nothing to do with it. Jack Thompson put video games more under the spotlight than the Wii.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by EtoilePB (1087031)
      ..wrong. The mainstream has been noticing video games for quite some time now. Hence why all these juvenile violent crimes are being blamed on video games. The Wii had nothing to do with it. Jack Thompson put video games more under the spotlight than the Wii.

      There are two different kinds of "notice" at work here. The one Miyamoto's after is, "Hmm. This is a form of entertainment that I am interested in learning more about, and perhaps even in participating in." The one Thompson creates is, "Clearly, t
      • Unfortunately, negative news always outweighs positive news. So while Shiggy might be looking for the silver lining around the clouds, most people are going to focus on the clouds.
      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by Slider451 (514881)
        The attention Miyamoto's after is the kind of "notice" that hopefully means, in the future, that when I say, "I like video games" to my co-workers, they take that in the same vain as they take it when I say, "I have a film degree,"

        If the vain they're taking is thinking that you're probably unemployed, I'd say it's already the same.
  • by Drogo007 (923906) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @02:40PM (#20061095)
    Summary takes one small point from interview and excludes the rest of the interview, most of which was much more interesting. Particularly the questions about the lack of new characters/franchises in the launch lineup and Miyamoto's response.

    I think the main point of the article (and thus the summary headline) should've been "Nintendo still focused on fun" - Miyamoto stressed that they worry about making the games fun before focusing on a target market - because as every runaway success in the videogame industry has shown:

    If it's fun and interesting, it's going to transcend the boundaries of any target market (e.g. GTA, Sims, Wii)
  • by Opportunist (166417) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @03:01PM (#20061365)
    For me the moment was there when I sat in the cafeteria and heard two people who are anything but geeks talk about WoW. Not as in "my son is playing this horrible game" but actually discussing strategies how to slaughter some boss.

    That was when I realized that games broke out of the geek sphere, that it's no longer the pastime of teenagers and people who don't want to realize they ain't teenagers anymore. There were two usually quite sensible guys in suits, with ties, discussing the relative benefits of the racial differences of gnomes and elves.

    It's not like they'd watch a second of a pro-gaming tournament. Nor would they waste a week of their vacation on a LAN party. But they're playing a game. Whether that game is good or a waste of time to a "true" gamer isn't relevant. They're playing.

    The Wii certainly adds to this. A coworker who is anything but a gamer recently came in on monday with a severe case of a tennis arm, telling me he was at a party where they played Wii Sports all day (and according to the age calculator he's like 70 or something and he's asking the boss for retirement...). But I doubt the Wii is the mark of the start. It's more like something that adds to it.

    Games aren't as "hardcore" anymore as they were years ago. Anyone ever played R-Type, Menace, Blood Money or Katakis? You simply couldn't play them as a "casual gamer". Made no sense. They were geared towards people who could and would waste months to get the sequences of enemies JUST right. This didn't appeal at all to people who actually had a life outside the silicon box.

    Games today are more for enjoyment, less for "proving something". Sure, the latter kind still exists, but the game industry found the casual market. And the Wii (and Nintendo generally in the more recent time) is geared for this market, mostly. Personally, I think they will succeed with this strategy. After all, someone who doesn't spend his entire life sitting in front of a console must have some kind of job that enables him to buy more games...
  • And Yu-Gi-Oh, the Movie [warnerbros.com] is in production. From Warner Brothers, makers of Pokemon, the Movie [warnerbros.com].

    (Major idea shortage in Hollywood. Too many movies this year were either sequels or adaptations of successes in other media. The comic book genre is being mined out; it started at Superman, and bottomed at the Silver Surfer. We're now down to trading card movies and toy doll movies. [hollywoodreporter.com] The better ideas in game movies have been done. Effects movies have maxed out; with current CG technology you can put anything

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by morari (1080535)

      Effects movies have maxed out; with current CG technology you can put anything on the screen, so nobody is impressed.

      I don't recall ever being impressed by CGI in film. They have always looked so ridiculously fake that it destroys any possible suspension of disbelief. At least scale models and what-not were actual, solid things that existed. Not like CGI, which also has the downfall of instantly looking dated no matter how "well done". Traditional effects which were more focused on ingenuity tend to stand the test of time much better.

      • Wow, really? I remember watching Armageddon as a 12 year old on one of the first DVD players in the UK [My Dad worked for a now-extinct computer company, and he often had to review products to see if they should stock them. Like DVD players, Lego Mindstorm etc] and I was absolutely blown away.

        Compare the new Doctor Who series with the older ones.. it really is no contest. But CGI shouldn't really be there to blow you away, it should really add to the story or facilitate it. For example, 300 was shot on
        • by morari (1080535)
          I had probably watched Armageddon around the same and wasn't impressed even then. Of course it was the utterly boring and cliche story that failed to motivate me more than anything. Deep Impact was much better, despite facilitating even more CGI rubbish. As far 300, I've not seen it. I rarely waste my money on theater trips and probably won't run out to rent it when it comes to home video either. Why waste the time on a juvenile "retelling" of a story that is already interesting enough in its own right? The
          • Because most stories are retellings. For example, if you strip Lord of the Rings down (book/movie) to its' simplest form, it'd be "Good Vs Evil" of which there are many different variations with differing twists etc, but generally can be stripped down to "Good Vs Evil".

            I think the movie captures the graphic novel perfectly - it translated really well onto the big screen and kept its unique style with it. It wasn't a cinematic masterpiece, but it's not often you get those, that's why they're masterpieces.

            T
            • by morari (1080535)
              I must admit to always thinking that the Lord of the Rings were rather boring for just that reason as well, novel or film. But I'm biased when it comes to high fantasy, as it does all seem so overtly cliche. ;)

              As far as 300 goes, it does capture the comic well, as Sin City did. That doesn't necessarily make for a good film however, and even further makes one wonder what the point is at all if it's going to be exactly the same. With comic book adaptations such as X-Men and Spiderman you have the physical, "r

              • I don't think the original Star Wars trilogy HAVE held up that good, effects wise. You compare the original theatrical release to the latest digital retouch/remodeling of the trilogy and it's a lot better, in my opinion.

                Apart from, of course, Han shot first.
    • by tepples (727027)

      We're now down to trading card movies and toy doll movies.
      Toy doll movies have been out for a long time, way back to Pinocchio (1940).
    • by LKM (227954)
      Totally off-topic, but I've noticed there are tons of ads for Renaissance on /. right now. It's not a sequel, and the visuals are extremely impressed. Maybe you should click on an ad for once :-)

      Of course, it's a French movie, not from Hollywood.
  • by PresidentEnder (849024) <wyvernender@gmail.cCOWom minus herbivore> on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @03:39PM (#20061921) Journal
    I think that's the whole point: cartoon graphics are good enough. People watch anime, and don't need it to be photorealistic; people play Wii sports, and it's fine. Less complex, more approachable games have always been where it's at. I'd like to see someone market a cheap handheld, easy to develop for, and allow anyone to put games out for it. You probably don't even need the cool controller to make it work.
    • by gad_zuki! (70830)
      >People watch anime, and don't need it to be photorealistic;

      But Anime is hand drawn lines by usually a very talented cartoonist/illustrator, which is then colored by someone just as talented. Videogames cannot compete on this level.

      I'm not a big graphics guy, but when I played the new Harry Potter game for the Wii I was shocked at how incredibly crappy the graphics were. THey were so bad they caused distraction. I don't expect geforce 8800 level graphics here, but certainly more than the old geoforce 2
      • But Anime is hand drawn lines by usually a very talented cartoonist/illustrator, which is then colored by someone just as talented. Videogames cannot compete on this level.

        They are both done by talented artists, the difference is that you can't "play" anime. Video game screens have to be rendered in real time, animation is pre-rendered.

      • In fairness, "Harry Potter" isn't capitalizing on the horsepower of the Wii. It's basically just a PS2 game ported over with new controls. "The Wii's graphics are good enough"-argument applies to games like Twilight Princess, Mario Galaxy, and other Nintendo titles that use the power of the Wii well. I'd even count Wii Sports in that category: although primitive, the graphics still get the job done without being distracting.
      • by Applekid (993327)

        But Anime is hand drawn lines by usually a very talented cartoonist/illustrator, which is then colored by someone just as talented. Videogames cannot compete on this level.

        They did. For a while there cel-shading became really popular and a crazy percentage of games were using it just to use it. The most beautiful uses of which, however IMHO, was Dragon Quest VIII.

        3D-models always start out as sketches and artwork anyway. During the year or years of development there are plenty of talented 3D artists working on keyframes and filling in the gaps and transitioning from one position to another. They've got to cover so much possibility when a non-interactive medium doesn't have t

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by LKM (227954)

        But Anime is hand drawn lines by usually a very talented cartoonist/illustrator, which is then colored by someone just as talented. Videogames cannot compete on this level.

        What you're actually saying is: Art direction trumps realism. And if you look at it like that, games absolutely can compete. Look at things like Okami, Alien Hominid, Dragon Quest, Super Mario Galaxy, the Katamari games, Wind Waker, Jet Set Radio, or even the Wario Ware games. None of these have particularly "good" graphics if you loo

  • There's a reason why everyone listens when Miyamoto talks. This is in response to Metroid which is about to be released and it will be in Gamestops next to the other 2 consoles. No mater how pointed the question, he gives an honest straight forward answer.
    I was in Gamestop the other day and a customer came in looking for a PS3 game. After inquiring about 5-6 games, and being told they were of poor quality, both the clerks behind the counter said that the PS3 has no quality new titles to purchase. When aske
    • That's actually strange to me.

      I've not bought a new game for my Wii since February due to the lack of interesting games, and it's practically been collecting dust.

      Since then I've picked up Crackdown, Command and Conquer 3, Dirt, Forza Motorsport 2, and Overlord for my 360. And heck, that doesn't even count my playing of games that came out in 2006.

      • by LKM (227954)

        I've not bought a new game for my Wii since February due to the lack of interesting games, and it's practically been collecting dust.

        I find that hard to believe. Some of the Wii games that came out during the last 6 months according to gamerankings.com: Sonic and the Secret Rings, Kororinpa, Tiger Woods, SSX Blur, Godfather: Blackhand Edition, Mario Strikers (it's out in the US by now, I think?), Mario Party 8, Cooking Mama, Super Paper Mario, Resident Evil 4.

        There most certainly is no lack of interesting games on the Wii. Oh, and if you like Overlord, try the original. Pikmin runs on the Wii, after all :-)

        • by Gravatron (716477)
          Those aren't "good games" they just aren't "terrible games".

          Sonic: Decent, but a rental at best.
          Tiger Woods: Great start, but not any better than the other platforms.
          SSX: Having to memorize shapes to draw really doesn't make it any easier than the previous games i the series. I gave it a rent, but it was too aggravating to buy.
          Godfather: Didn't think it was that much better than previous versions.
          Mario strikers: somewhat interesting, if unoriginal. I've heard it plays more like hockey than soc
          • by LKM (227954)

            Sonic: Decent, but a rental at best.

            Best 3D Sonic. Including the Adventures.

            Godfather: Didn't think it was that much better than previous versions.

            Huh. That's easily the best GTA clone I've ever played, simple due to the insane violence of the motion control.

            Mario strikers: somewhat interesting, if unoriginal. I've heard it plays more like hockey than soccer.

            Incredible amount of fun. Think Sega Soccer Slam: Online.

            Mario party: Hated it. Then again, i've never been much a fan of mini-games collections nor the MP series in general

            I think it's the best Mario Party. The "Monopoly"-style star rule makes it a lot more tactical and a lot less luck-based than earlier versions. No clue why it got such bad ratings - the only thing I dislike is the bad graphics and the lack of widescreen.

            Super paper mario: the 2d looked great, but 3d was empty and ugly. Toss in thats its too chatty to be a platformer, and too lacking in thought to be a RPG means it just didn't do enough good to outweight the bad.

            It's got an average rating of 86.3%

  • by Lemmy Caution (8378) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @05:41PM (#20063485) Homepage
    The first stage of cinema was as a coin-operated novelty, with nickelodeons and zoetropes accompanying carnivals. It was associated with seediness and the demimonde, although a group of researchers (Melies, Lumiere, etc.) were very excited by its possibilities.

    The subsequent phase of cinema was that of the movie house that should serials, to which young people would enthusiastically and uncritically congregate. These series might go on for years, but despite their scope, they were often aesthetically limited. A few auteurs worked to expand the form, but it was generally the provenance of people with a lot of spare time and not very much cultural capital.

    The third phase was the "breakthrough" - the arrival of the film house as a place for everyone to go. This is the era of Cecil B. DeMille, Charlie Chaplin, and Buster Keaton, and the other early silent stars. What changes is the format: instead of long serials, there are 2 hour-long films that are meant to be enjoyed by busy, intelligent people.

    This is where I see games going - into the era of DeMille, and out of the "Lone Ranger" phase. The one quirk I see is that the kids who spend all Saturday at the movies which the serials are considered the "hardcore" enthusiasts. I think this will change, when it becomes those who appreciate games like Flow who are identified as the more advanced gamer. Notice that the high age of film-as-art comes after the DeMille period (it varies to time and place: German expressionist film in the 20's and 30's, French new-wave film in the 50's and 60's, American New Hollywood film in the late 60's and early 70's, etc.)

    But what happened to that enthusiast who spends all day watching Lone Ranger serials, but who could never really get a Bunuel, Godard, or Kieslowski film? He loses his status as a cinematic connoisseur, and is instead seen as kind of lowly figure. I imagine that could happen to the people we call "hardcore" gamers now.
    • by pixelite (20946)
      I thought the hardcore in film now, was all the dirty pictures, or the seedy and illegal films such as the snuff films from 8mm. Are we going to see people trading illegal games in back alleys in the future?
  • by Cyno01 (573917) <Cyno01@hotmail.com> on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @06:57PM (#20064321) Homepage
    All the men folk went outside for cigars (a good half hour), and when we went back upstairs, all the girls were engrossed in a game of mario party to the point when 11:45 rolled around and it was time to head to the bars, i had to drunkenly yell "Ladies, quit playing with my Wii!" to get them to look away. I cant see that happening with any other console ever. The Wii is a hit, nintendo has changed who a gamer is.
  • Well after giving up trying to get my wife to play with me on the playstation/xbox360, this thing called the wii seemed to appear.
    We borrowed a friends Wii to play and next thing you know the whole family is playing, Grandma, my 4 year old daughter, and yes my wife who never plays video games.

    For me the wii has become a social game where you can socialize with a whole group of people while playing together.

    But on the other hand when I want to relax and take it easy I turn on the playstation/xbox and
    • by Is0m0rph (819726)
      The Wii hype wore off on me before it came out so I ended up not buying one. My wife and I were at a party a few weeks ago and played 4 player Wii bowling. Now she demands we get a Wii. Can't find one anywhere of course and I'm not paying $400 for one. Tiger Woods 08 would be the main reason I would get it now. Nintendo knows how to get normal non-gamers interested. Between the Wii and the DS with games like Pogo, Touch Master, etc
  • It's a Gimmick... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Duffy13 (1135411)
    The Wii is a gimmick. A very cool gimmick when implemented correctly, but a gimmick none the less. The problem I foresee, which is the same problem other consoles eventually run into: it will become stale rapidly. How long till they can't think of any other cool things to do with a Wiimote? They've covered most of them already, with varying levels of success. Which brings us to the question spawned from the other next-gen consoles: Why do we need better graphics? Because basic gameplay has barely changed i
    • by oliderid (710055)
      Wii means that I've found a common ground with my girlfriend finally. We can both play and having fun doing it. A bit like the dumb ping-pong that I played for the first time on a Atari with my brother. Ten minutes there, 30 minutes later. And then going back to the "normal life".

      I guess I'm a bit tired of playing alone...Shadow of the beast, X-wing, Wing commander, civilization, Halo I & II, hitman...Or I'm getting old. I don't know.

      Let's "resocialize" :-)
    • by rjung2k (576317)
      "The Wii is a gimmick. A very cool gimmick when implemented correctly, but a gimmick none the less."

      Someone should save this nugget of wisdom in a time capsule, open it up in ten years, and laugh...
      • by walnutmon (988223)
        I think that the chance that we agree it is a gimmick then, and that it wasn't is still to be decided... and it certainly isn't obvious which way it will go now.

        Either way, most of the cool things that could be done with a Wii can't be done on the hardware of the Wii... Wii Sports is great for playing with friends. It's the only game I have gotten into, and I own all the other top rated ones too...

Anyone can do any amount of work provided it isn't the work he is supposed to be doing at the moment. -- Robert Benchley

Working...