Why do all game sites keep gushing over Kinect's voice commands?

[amendonz]

Yeah a lot of inaccurate statements flying around here, from people who I suspect haven't hardly touched it, if at all

[AtomSmasher]

The engine lead at my last job (I was a videogame programmer) as he was working on the 360 engine to support the Kinect.  Granted this was around 6 months ago, so it's possible they've further optimized their software, but I doubt by much.

Why do you doubt that?  When the libraries are first developed, they are very "dirty" and designed only to get the job done and be in the hands of developers at the earliest opportunity possible.  If you are saying that the 1% figure is a lie, then it's going to be a hard one to contain.

Or are you referring to this particular developer's control engine?

At that late of stage in the development cycle, libraries generally don't get optimized that much.  If they did, it would screw over any developer currently working on the game since they would of made crazy cuts to account for the lack of horsepower. 

Anyways, that 1% could easily be a lie (why would the guy who created the system only say good things about it?), or maybe the dev system they sent our company is crap, all I know is that when one of the best programmers I've ever known tells me something, I tend to believe it.  Obviously I don't expect you (or anyone else here) to believe me since it's just something I've been told by someone smarter then myself working with the unit, and not something I can point to online blogs or microsoft execs to back me up.

[RandyT]

Obviously I don't expect you (or anyone else here) to believe me since it's just something I've been told by someone smarter then myself working with the unit, and not something I can point to online blogs or microsoft execs to back me up.

He may be right.  If he is, there will be plenty of those things to back up the comment in short order.  Lots of folks are using it, though, on machines other than the 360.  If it was a resource hog, it seems like someone, somewhere, would be talking about it by now.

As for the development cycle, that doesn't seem to be the case.  Based on some recent digging, MS was working out pretty significant stuff, pretty late in the cycle.  One in particular was the base node being re-located from the tailbone, to the base of the neck to better accommodate sitting players, who would have their "base node" buried in a sofa.  This was apparently an 11th hour change.

Also, I read that MS dropped a lot of the node information from the original system, as it was considered extraneous to the mission at hand.  This supposedly freaked out a number of developers who, again supposedly, thought it was a good decision once it was demonstrated to them that the extra nodes did not add anything meaningful for gaming.  It may be that the extra processing power requirement was a result of using the earlier "more nodes than necessary" system.  But this does add a level of support for the idea shmokes and others are promoting, that a more capable system is possible and will likely be used with the next generation system that is unlikely to feel the burden.

[AtomSmasher]

Come to think of it, companies often do make huge changes to their libraries late in the game that I suppose that is possible it had some big optimizations.  I remember I had to completely rewrite how we interfaced with the motion plus library shortly before it came out, which sucked.  I think that no matter what, the 1% remark is a hugely inaccurate, but it could be much better then 30%.  It would also help explain that lack of anything technically impressive in the initial game lineup (impressive in the game, not in the controls).

[shmokes]

But this does add a level of support for the idea shmokes and others are promoting, that a more capable system is possible and will likely be used with the next generation system that is unlikely to feel the burden.

BTW, while I do see various technical issues keeping this thing from greatness, I think that if this system, exactly as it is, were released as a default part of a next-gen system, we'd see a lot of great stuff for it and it would probably be an enormous commercial success.  It couldn't be a replacement for the gamepad, for reasons stated over and over again already.  But it would be a fantastic supplement and also enable new types of games (e.g., Dance Central). 

My argument about technical shortcomings is by far secondary to simple economic realities for publishers and developers.  Kinect is WAY too late in the game.  But when Wii 2 comes out, it will be competing against Kinect 2, not Kinect.  That's important--not just in terms of the way it is perceived by consumers, but in terms of how good it actually is  (see: Xbox Live vs. PSN)

[RandyT]

But when Wii 2 comes out...

I'm glad you brought this up.  Much has been made about a statement made by Yoshio Sakamoto;

At Nintendo we always have the obligation to surprise users with a new console. We have never done what others have done. We prefer to create something new that catches attention, and I think this will continue at this time. Surely the new Nintendo machine will leave you all with your mouths open.”

This probably deserves a new thread, but all the speculation surrounding this statement is probably a pointless exercise.  It very much sounds like he was spouting general hyperbole, rather than referring to something specific.  But if he wasn't, what do you think he could possibly be referring to, that would have such an effect?

[Dartful Dodger]

if you think about it it's kind of funny.

The Wii is like last generation consoles, but it's inputs were like next generation consoles, so it kicked Sony and Microsoft's butt.

I think PS3 and Xbox are both offering to little too late.  They both feel like Guitar Hero competing with Rockband.  I did buy Guitar Hero's band package only to be disappointed because it was only slightly better than RB and then RB2 was a leap ahead of both.

I really wanted the PS3 Move to be good, but I've grown tired of the Wii and I really don't think the PS3 Move(or Kinect for that matter) is going to be anything more than a novelty.  They are both different enough to be a burden for game developers to develop for the motion technology on both platforms so they’ll just stick to developing for the basic setup of the systems.

I'll wait for at least three "must have" motion games I can't play on the Wii before buying the Move and so far there isn't even one.  That dance game gives Kinects a one game advantage, but XBox would need two more games before I'd think it was worth it.

[shmokes]

At Nintendo we always have the obligation to surprise users with a new console. We have never done what others have done. We prefer to create something new that catches attention, and I think this will continue at this time. Surely the new Nintendo machine will leave you all with your mouths open.”

. . . what do you think he could possibly be referring to, that would have such an effect?

It sounds like something that he might say even if he had no idea what Nintendo R&D were working on.  Basically, "Nintendo always does something awesome, thus the next thing they do will be awesome."

Beyond that, who knows?  They're into touch screens and they admire/fear Apple.  Maybe the next controllers will be touch screens.  Or maybe they figured out how to make a holodeck.  Maybe their next innovation will be the elimination of friend codes.   

[Dartful Dodger]

Or a new R.O.B. with an intelligence.

Not only will the new generation console stop your kids from playing with others outside, your kid will stop playing with others online too.

[Loafmeister]

I've got a Wii, a PS3 and a 360.  I stopped using the wii; not because it's a limited system, not because I prefer standard analog based controller gameplay, rather just because I got bored with it. I've now purchased a Move and again, it's a nice tech but it took even less time to be bored with it.  Finally, I bought the Kinect and to my surprise, we're still having fun with it at home.

This doesn't mean the kinect is better than the Move or the Wii; but the difference in the full body tracking certainly has given it a fresh feeling. Although the Wii felt fresh for a cup of coffee, anyone who's played it understands not long after that if you're sitting on the sofa and flicking your wiimote, you'll be just as good at table tennis as if you're standing up doing full arm swings and lunges for balls.  THat's not a knock against the wii, its' just inherent lazyness prevailing .  At this moment, the Move kind of feels the same way. My favourite game is probably that PSN mini-putt game. It's pretty well done but can be done sitting down.  Note that its my favourite game probably for that very reason .

So what is it about Kinect that seems to be working for me, and especially for my daughter?  I don't know, probably because for the first time, the promise of motion gaming maybe is hitting home. IMHO, Sony's and Nintendo's solution is more akin to "motion detection", then "motion tracking" and there is a clear difference.  I'll also right out and say it; for the typical existing gameplay type we all love dearly, the Move has the biggest potential for hitting a homerun as I do think Metroid Prime 3 has shown that FPS games could potentially be better with the Move controller, than a standard controller. Time, and I suspect Killzone 3, will tell.

However, as much as someone could state "but Kinect can't translate well to hardcore gaming", I can also postulate that potentially, kinect could be opening up to different types of gaming not before conceived. I don't know, wishful thinking?  Or rather an understanding that it really does something different.

Whatever the case, as long as nobody videotapes me doing "the torch" while dancing to "poker face", I'm cool for the ride.  I just know that at the end of the day, I appreciate the chance MS took with this tech. At least its different, up to the devs to see if it has legs.

[RandyT]

My argument about technical shortcomings is by far secondary to simple economic realities for publishers and developers.  Kinect is WAY too late in the game.  But when Wii 2 comes out, it will be competing against Kinect 2, not Kinect.  That's important--not just in terms of the way it is perceived by consumers, but in terms of how good it actually is  (see: Xbox Live vs. PSN)

Time to take another look at this discussion.

As several owners of the units here have expected, it looks like the Kinect has surpassed MS's expectations and has sold 8 million units in just 2 months, and it's still driving 360 sales.  That's what you call an untapped growth market that you can be sure all the developers are eyeing, given the continuing decline of every other segment of the videogame market.

If that's not enough to drive innovation in the way of new software, then I'm not sure what it would take.  Looks like "Wii 2" will have it's hands full just answering this call, let alone anything beyond.

[shmokes]

It has sold faster than I expected.  I still don't feel much differently about it.  I still don't see any software that provides a very deep experience with the possible exception of Dance Central, if this doesn't change Kinect fatigue will occur more quickly than Wii fatigue did. 

And developers are still faced with the same question:  How do I justify creating a 360 game that is unplayable by the vast majority of 360 owners (51 million vs. 8 million)?  How do I justify voluntarily cutting 43 million potential customers out of my market?  It seems to me that there are two obvious answers to this question. 1) Get a game out quick and get some extra sales based on the lack of competition (because there are so few Kinect games) or 2) rush shovelware to market that is cheap to produce so can turn a profit with low sales.

Either of these will turn out crap games.  But the alternative is to take the time and invest the enormous capital in a game that has a small fraction of the potential market available to it.  It doesn't make much sense, especially since the 360 is in its twilight years. 

Nintendo is/would be able to overcome some of this because they can develop whatever they want.  There's no stronger game developer in the world than Nintendo's own in-house studios.  Microsoft doesn't have this.  Kinect will never have a large library of compelling games. 

[RandyT]

It has sold faster than I expected.  I still don't feel much differently about it.  I still don't see any software that provides a very deep experience with the possible exception of Dance Central, if this doesn't change Kinect fatigue will occur more quickly than Wii fatigue did.

At this point, it's primarily Dance Central, IMHO, that is driving those sales.  When my daughters visited on Christmas Eve, that title took center stage for over two hours, at which point I had to force them to turn it off so we could give out presents.  My youngest, whose husband owns a 360, bought a Kinect for it and DC about a week later.

And developers are still faced with the same question:  How do I justify creating a 360 game that is unplayable by the vast majority of 360 owners (51 million vs. 8 million)?

This is like saying "There are only 8 million 360's in the world, so why should anyone waste any time making a game everyone wants if we can only make 200 million dollars."  If developers really thought this way, there would be no games for any system.  And the game that is mostly responsible for the 8,000,000 units sold was created when there were 0 units sold.  It's not like the moment you make a game good enough to drive sales of hardware, it can only be used on the hardware that was sold before you released it.

Either of these will turn out crap games.  But the alternative is to take the time and invest the enormous capital in a game that has a small fraction of the potential market available to it.  It doesn't make much sense, especially since the 360 is in its twilight years.  

360 consoles are still in a growth stage as sales are concerned.  It's therefore hard to consider these "twilight years" for the machine.  In fact, MS is claiming (if you wish to believe them)
that they are the only one of the 3 major players who can boast this growth, while the others are losing momentum.

Nintendo is/would be able to overcome some of this because they can develop whatever they want.  There's no stronger game developer in the world than Nintendo's own in-house studioso.  Microsoft doesn't have this.  Kinect will never have a large library of compelling games.  

This is, at minimum, very subjective commentary.  I'm not sure you noticed, but the latest "big thing" from Nintendo was a drawing tablet for the Wii.  And while I do enjoy some of Nintendo's games, I certainly would not put them at the top of the heap when discussing strength of a game developer.  It's just measured in too many ways, based on too much subjective criterion, for anyone to make that claim with a straight face.  For example:

Top sellers of 2010

1. Call of Duty: Black Ops (Activision Blizzard) - Xbox 360, PS3, Wii, PC, DS - more than 12 million
2. Madden NFL 11 (Electronic Arts) - Xbox 360, PS3, Wii, PS2, PSP
3. Halo: Reach (Microsoft) - Xbox 360
4. New Super Mario Bros. Wii (Nintendo) - Wii
5. Red Dead Redemption (Take-Two Interactive) - Xbox 360, PS3
6. Wii Fit Plus (Nintendo) - Wii
7. Just Dance 2 (Ubisoft) - Wii
8. Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (Activision Blizzard) - Xbox 360, PS3, PC
9. Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood (Ubisoft) - Xbox 360, PS3
10. NBA 2K11 (Take-Two Interactive) - Xbox 360, PS3, PS2, PSP, Wii, PC

...Nintendo makes this list only twice, at 4 and 6, with 6 being an unfair boost as the list is based on revenue and the Wii Fit Plus is a hardware software bundle that sells for much more than a normal game.

[shmokes]

What are you trying to say, that someone else has as much talent at their Disposal as Nintendo? And that chart somehow supports this?  Who cares? Is that someone Microsoft?  The point is that if Developers don't support Kinect in a big way, MS can't pick up the slack the way Nintendo could.  Have your fanboy wars till you're blue in the face, you can't change that.

And the numbers don't work out for you even ignoring the absurdity of a developer thinking that his as-yet undeveloped game can achieve %50 percent attach rate.  Cos developers have limited resources.  Not just money, but everything.  They can only work on as many projects as they can staff (but money too).  So that same dev who says, "%50 percent of hardware owners will buy my game if I make it so I'll make $200 million with Kinect," follows up with, "but I'll make $1.5 billion if I make the game for the wider 360 market."  They can't make them both, and the wider market is going to win that argument the vast majority of the time for largely the same reason we see so many more sequels than original IP.  Businessmen like to play it safe with their millions and millions of dollars.

[RandyT]

What are you trying to say, that someone else has as much talent at their Disposal as Nintendo? And that chart somehow supports this?  Who cares? Is that someone Microsoft?  The point is that if Developers don't support Kinect in a big way, MS can't pick up the slack the way Nintendo could.  Have your fanboy wars till you're blue in the face, you can't change that.

And the numbers don't work out for you even ignoring the absurdity of a developer thinking that his as-yet undeveloped game can achieve %50 percent attach rate.  Cos developers have limited resources.  Not just money, but everything.  They can only work on as many projects as they can staff (but money too).  So that same dev who says, "%50 percent of hardware owners will buy my game if I make it so I'll make $200 million with Kinect," follows up with, "but I'll make $1.5 billion if I make the game for the wider 360 market."  They can't make them both, and the wider market is going to win that argument the vast majority of the time for largely the same reason we see so many more sequels than original IP.  Businessmen like to play it safe with their millions and millions of dollars.

Yet Harmonix did just that with Dance central, and it is now not only achieving extremely high attach rates, but also seems to be selling hardware.  So what is your point?  That good games will sell well and bad games won't?  In a new, and growing, market such as this, users who have already invested in the add on will be hungry for another great experience.  Where there are currently few choices, unlike the glut in the standard market, there is much greater potential for a good game to sell.  Developers know this and the first ones to take advantage of the opportunity will be the ones who stand to profit the most.

As for talent, you don't need it when you can buy it, and MS can certainly do that.  Not to mention,  Microsoft was in the #3 slot in that list, so apparently they have some of their own as well. So that particular "advantage" you cited really isn't one.

Have your fanboy wars till you're blue in the face...

This seems to be more your M.O. than mine.  You stated that you didn't see the numbers happening for the Kinect, yet they have surpassed the rosiest of predictions.  You keep referring to the 360 in the past tense, yet the adoption numbers are on the rise, likely fueled by the Kinect, while the others are declining.  You keep referring to Nintendo as the mother of all software developers, yet the sales figures don't back that notion up.  And you still hang onto the notion that the hardware won't "make it" because...well because, in your eyes, Nintendo is the only one who can pull something like that off.   

[shmokes]

I already mentioned that MS specifically does not have that talent.  They lost Bungie.  And that list is retarded anyway.  Your going to judge the overall strength of a software developer based on a list of software sales from a single year (a list that apparently omits DS sales)?  Why not show a list of the highest rated games of 2010?  I suspect Nintendo probably tops that list.  Or if sales concern you, why not expand beyond 2010?  How about a list showing the highest selling games of all time.  Nintendo owns 22 of the top 25 slots on that list, including slots 1-16.  And more than half of those titles are current gen (Wii or DS).

This is so stupid.  Why are you even arguing this point?  Microsoft needs third party support far more than Nintendo does.  It's indisputable, but more to the point, why do you even want to dispute it?  Even arguing that Microsoft's deep pockets negates any in-house talent disparity between the two companies is absurd.  Nintendo's pockets are just as deep.  It's not like the Xbox division has access to the entire value and cash reserves of Microsoft.  Some of that money has to pay for, you know, the rest of the company.

[amendonz]

Why not show a list of the highest rated games of 2010?  I suspect Nintendo probably tops that list. 

lol wut?

wii and ds games are terrible (except maybe 4 - 5 games) they are not high rating at all, sell heaps, but no ones rating them

[RandyT]

I already mentioned that MS specifically does not have that talent.  They lost Bungie.  And that list is retarded anyway.  Your going to judge the overall strength of a software developer based on a list of software sales from a single year (a list that apparently omits DS sales)?  Why not show a list of the highest rated games of 2010?  I suspect Nintendo probably tops that list.  Or if sales concern you, why not expand beyond 2010?  How about a list showing the highest selling games of all time.  Nintendo owns 22 of the top 25 slots on that list, including slots 1-16.

Highest rated by whom?  And feel free to post it, and the source ( it's free  ).  Also, we are talking about the present.

This is so stupid.  Why are you even arguing this point?  Microsoft needs third party support far more than Nintendo does.  It's indisputable, but more to the point, why do you even want to dispute it?  Even arguing that Microsoft's deep pockets negates any in-house talent disparity between the two companies is absurd.  Nintendo's pockets are just as deep.  It's not like the Xbox division has access to the entire value and cash reserves of Microsoft.  Some of that money has to pay for, you know, the rest of the company.

Well, no it's not "absurd" and it is those very same deep pockets that muscled MS into the video game industry and later allowed it to not only survive through probably one of the worst hardware debacles in video game history, but continue to thrive in the face of it.  What is "absurd" is your notion that they can't (or won't)  fund software development, should the need arise.  And I do agree that Nintendo has some great talent, but the scope of what they do is so limited to franchises that they expect to "sell themselves", because they often do (just like Halo and COD), that it's unlikely we will ever see them actually going "toe-to-toe" with other developers in the mainstream.  Sega has had to do this, and things aren't going the best for them.  Until Nintendo leaves the safety of their own environment, it's difficult to really make an apt comparison.

BTW, if you think the discussion is "stupid" then stop discussing it.  Unless you only feel that way when I don't agree with you

[shmokes]

 Super Mario Galaxy 2 has a Metacritic rating of 97, so by everyone.  And I know we're talking about the present.  That's why I pointed out that more than half of those 22 top-selling games are on current gen systems, or do you think that Nintendo's 2010 dev teams are not as good as their 2009 and 2008 teams.  Maybe I should point out that in the last week neither Blizzard nor Valve have released top-selling games.  While those teams have excelled in the past, they have clearly lost their touch . . . you know, speaking of the present, I mean.

[shmokes]

And, by the way, there are limits to the amount of money even MS can throw at top-tier third parties to bend them to it's will.  It cost them $50 million to get Rockstar to make (temporarily) exclusive DLC for GTA 4.  Bioware, Valve and 2K Boston (their better-known name is escaping me for some reason, but think Bioshock) once developed exclusively for 360 and all have jumped ship (and don't forget Bungie).  Obviously MS would love to keep them all on board.  The obvious answer is that it's too expensive.  Even for Microsoft.   

[RandyT]

Super Mario Galaxy 2 has a Metacritic rating of 97, so by everyone.  And I know we're talking about the present.  That's why I pointed out that more than half of those 22 top-selling games are on current gen systems, or do you think that Nintendo's 2010 dev teams are not as good as their 2009 and 2008 teams.  Maybe I should point out that in the last week neither Blizzard nor Valve have released top-selling games.  While those teams have excelled in the past, they have clearly lost their touch . . . you know, speaking of the present, I mean.

Well, those two companies are surely profitable, but I wouldn't put them at the top nowadays.  Of course you may also want to keep in mind that developers like Valve license out their engines to other developers to make great games with, which may or may not have done as well without Valve's work.

Also, as I alluded to above, is it really surprising that lots of Wii owners really like Super Mario Galaxy 2?  If my primary, or only, gaming system was a Wii, then there would be a very good possibility that I was a big fan of Nintendo franchises, or that mom and dad bought it for me for Christmas.  Like I said, until they put their software out onto a level playing field (meaning cross platform) Nintendo is "shooting fish in a barrel".  It's not overly difficult to shine brightly in a catalog for a specific system which is rife with shovelware.  Outside of such an environment, it becomes considerably more difficult.

[shmokes]

Metacritic scores are not surveys of regular game owners.  It's an aggregation of critic scores.  That 97 rating comes from IGN, 1Up, Joystiq, Gamespot, etc., etc.  And if I'm not mistaken, it's the highest rating of any game in 2010.  Even if it was just user scores, why would Wii owners be happier about their Wii games than 360 or PS3 owners would be about the games on their respective platforms.  I can certainly say the opposite has been true for me.  I much prefer playing my PS3 to my Wii.  It seems to me that the Wii would go into critical reviews with an automatic handicap rather than an advantage.  If so, that would make those top marks all the more a testament to the skill of Nintendo devs.

And while Nintendo releases A LOT of sequels, they are no more tied to franchises than any other major developer.  They release new IP at least as frequently as the others, and they create or popularize new genres probably more frequently than anyone.

[RandyT]

And, by the way, there are limits to the amount of money even MS can throw at top-tier third parties to bend them to it's will.  It cost them $50 million to get Rockstar to make (temporarily) exclusive DLC for GTA 4.  Bioware, Valve and 2K Boston (their better-known name is escaping me for some reason, but think Bioshock) once developed exclusively for 360 and all have jumped ship (and don't forget Bungie).  Obviously MS would love to keep them all on board.  The obvious answer is that it's too expensive.  Even for Microsoft.   

Of course, this assumes that one would need one of those companies in order to make a great game, which we all know isn't true.  If an upstart had a great idea, and showed they could deliver on it, MS would pull them into the fold.  They did it with Bungie, and understandably, Bungie would want to broaden their horizons once they matured as a company.  That's simple business, and it's why contracts aren't "forever".  But to think that there's no worthwhile talent out there, which isn't already part of a conglomerate, is a pretty narrow view.  

As an example, one of the most addictive games I have played in a long time is Angry Birds, which was just recently released for the PC.  It plays fantastically on my tablet PC and it cost me $5.  It also came from an unknown developer, which, from what I understand, was scooped up by one of the big software houses (EA?).    Anyway, proof that great games come from many sources, even those from outside the established super-corporations, and are much easier to "mold" than the examples you gave.

[shmokes]

If Angry Birds was on Kinect I bet it would get a 98 Metacritic score.

[RandyT]

Metacritic scores are not surveys of regular game owners.  It's an aggregation of critic scores.  That 97 rating comes from IGN, 1Up, Joystiq, Gamespot, etc., etc.  And if I'm not mistaken, it's the highest rating of any game in 2010.

Meh.  Critics will be critics.  They have biases and specialty interests, just like any other consumer. If a Wii game comes in, they will hand it to the "Wii guy" to do the review.  To do it any other way would probably end up unfair to the game, as a hard-core MMORPG / FPS fanatic would likely look at Super Mario Universe Eleventy with little more than passing interest.

 Even if it was just user scores, why would Wii owners be happier about their Wii games than 360 or PS3 owners would be about the games on their respective platforms.

Because it's like eating gruel for breakfast for 3 months and one day getting a bowl of Cap'n Crunch.  Chances are, you'd think that the Cap'n Crunch is the "food of the gods", when really, it's still just Cap'n Crunch.

And while Nintendo releases A LOT of sequels, they are no more tied to franchises than any other major developer.  They release new IP at least as frequently as the others, and they create or popularize new genres probably more frequently than anyone.

Such as?   And how successful are these diversions from their stable?  Also, if Mario or Donkey Kong shows up in it, it's probably not much of a diversion.

[shmokes]

Wii Sports, something of a success.  Mario Kart and Mario Party.  Pikmin.  Advance Wars.  Nintendogs.  Animal Crossing.  Smash Brothers.  Super Mario 64 (not to mention practically every other Mario game).  Wii Fit.  That's off the top of my head.  I'm sure Google can help me out with more if you like.

[shmokes]

Meh.  Critics will be critics.  They have biases and specialty interests, just like any other consumer. If a Wii game comes in, they will hand it to the "Wii guy" to do the review.  

But when a 360 game comes in and they hand it to the 360 guy his biases and specialty interests don't encourage similar score inflation?   

[shmokes]

By the way, judging by his top 2010 picks, I'd say that at least the Joystiq reviewer is not the "Wii guy".  Yet he thinks Mario Galaxy 2 was the best game of 2010.

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/01/02/best-of-the-rest-randys-picks-of-2010/

Maybe there is actual professionalism in game journalism and, more importantly, maybe a lot of journalists are just in love with great games and have long grown out of giving a ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- about the platform on which they get to play them.

[RandyT]

By the way, judging by his top 2010 picks, I'd say that at least the Joystiq reviewer is not the "Wii guy".  Yet he thinks Mario Galaxy 2 was the best game of 2010.

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/01/02/best-of-the-rest-randys-picks-of-2010/

Maybe there is actual professionalism in game journalism and, more importantly, maybe a lot of journalists are just in love with great games and have long grown out of giving a ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- about the platform on which they get to play them.

And of course, you didn't cherry-pick that individual's list, from the hundreds or more on the web, simply because it supports your assertions, right?  It did seem to have made the droves of Wii fanboys who left comments about it happy enough.   Here's another one, where that title made the list, but was at the bottom.  Still positive comments, but not nearly as gushing.  Basically stated "if you own a Wii, then get this game", which is quite different from saying the game was worth buying a Wii for.

But when a 360 game comes in and they hand it to the 360 guy his biases and specialty interests don't encourage similar score inflation?   

Of course it does.  That is exactly my point, and that is the reason why when someone makes a statement like "There's no stronger game developer in the world than XXX", especially when that developer only develops for it's own system, and produces games only of fairly specific genres, there's strong reason to suspect "fanboyism".

[shmokes]

Randy, what is your point?  There are a bunch of game reviewers.  When you average them all together, Super Mario Galaxy was the best reviewed game of 2010.  The year before it was probably Grand Theft Auto IV.  It's not a conspiracy.  

My point, if you're wondering, is that using a list of top game sales for a single year is a bombastically stupid way to evaluate the quality of particular game publisher/developer (especially when the developer you're trying to derogate makes at least as good a showing as any other on the list, and the developer you're evangelizing has only one showing from a development house it no longer controls).  

By the way, I "cherry picked" that individual list for one reason: cos I read Joystiq daily so I'd already seen it.  I didn't need to go searching for something to illustrate the absurdity of your claims because I already knew exactly where to find it.  Who cares, though?  Did I cherry pick Metacritic too?  You asked me to give you a source for my claim that Nintendo would top a list of best-reviewed games of 2010.  You need to see a counselor.  Give it up.

[shmokes]

. . . and produces games only of fairly specific genres, there's strong reason to suspect "fanboyism".

Fairly specific genres, let's see what those are:

Platform
Action RPG
RPG
Tennis
Golf
Football
Basketball
Soccer
Fighting
Strategy
Pet simulator?
Kart racing
Party Games
Stadium fighting/collection (or whatever the hell Pokemon is)
Animal Crossing (I think that's it's own genre)
Brain training
Casual sports
Fitness
Drawing
Music
Puzzle
Flying, of sorts (Pilotwings)
Snowboarding
Jet Ski racing
Boxing


Lol . . . pretty narrow focus, I have to admit.  And again, that's just off the top of my head.  I'm sure Google could help me add to that list.  Randy, I haven't played a Nintendo game in at least a year, maybe a couple.  Wait . . . strike that, I played New Super Mario, but only for about an hour.  Fanboyism is blindly refusing to see the merits of a company that you don't support.  Think about it.

edit: Here are a few more, with Google help:

Pinball
Lightgun
Motorcycle racing
Traditional racing
Powerpad stuff
Baseball
Wrestling
Skiing
Volleyball
Ping Pong
Ice Hockey
R.C. car racing
Speedboat racing
Demolition (Blast Corps)
Hovercraft racing
City building
3d scrolling shooter (Star Fox)
Casino gambling
First person shooter (duh, how could I forget Goldeneye)
Competitive bomb throwing  (Bomberman)
Survival horror (Eternal Darkness)
Dancing
Casual table games
Scuba diving/underwater photography
Rhythm

Granted, there are a couple of unfair entries in the list--games that were published by Nintendo but developed by a third party over whom Nintendo has no control (like Bomberman), but overall it seems like this list definitely shows what a narrow focus Nintendo has--ya know, what with always sticking to the same genre.

[RandyT]

By the way, I "cherry picked" that individual list for one reason: cos I read Joystiq daily so I'd already seen it.  I didn't need to go searching for something to illustrate the absurdity of your claims because I already knew exactly where to find it.  Who cares, though?  Did I cherry pick Metacritic too?  You asked me to give you a source for my claim that Nintendo would top a list of best-reviewed games of 2010.  You need to see a counselor.  Give it up.

Meta-who?  I had never even heard of that site until this thread.  But hey, on the front page, it showed a 38 for the movie Green Hornet, and the few people I know who have seen it said it was pretty good.  I guess the "critics" are always right.  BTW, when the users of that site were asked, the game was number 3, with only half the "points" of Red Dead Redemption and Mass Effect 2.  And BTW, I didn't "go searching" either.  The link I posted was the first "top ten" list Google handed me.

As for your "genres", you forgot the word "cutesy" in front of each of them.  Would you seriously put Super Smash Brothers up against Mortal Kombat, Tekken, and similar fighting games?  Or Mario Golf against Tiger Woods PGA?  If you like Nintendo stuff, then you are a fan of the "cutesy" genre of gaming.  How about Mario Kart against Gran Turismo?  Do you think Nintendo could even produce a game of the likes of Gran Turismo?  Because if they can, they sure as heck haven't demonstrated the ability.

Do they make good games?  Yes, in fact they do.  But you give them a heck of a lot more credit than they deserve, and it's because your taste in games coincides with the the type of games they produce.  Personally, I would sooner buy COD than "Super Mario anything" at this moment in time.  But that's me (and apparently, a hell of a lot of others.)

[shmokes]

edit:  Wow . . . sorry.  This post turned out to be really really long.  There's no excuse for that.   

Lol . . . Metacritic is not obscure, Randy.  And users said Super Mario Galaxy was only the 3rd best game made in 2010?  Wow, 3rd?  Nintendo does suck!!!  Seriously, you're just grasping at straws now.

Anyway, an average of critical scores is probably going to have a helluva better track record than the opinions of a few people you know, unless those people happen to share extremely similar taste in movies with you.  At any rate, you asked for a list of top-reviewed games for 2010.  What ---smurfing--- better list could I possibly give you?  It is a 100% unbiased source.  It just aggregates data.  Critics gave it better reviews last year than they gave any other game, the end.  And, frankly, critics would tend to be more reliable indicator of quality in my opinion since that's what they're doing for a living.  They are exposed to far more games than the users who chimed in.  In particular the gamers who voted for Red Dead Redemption and Mass Effect haven't played Galaxy unless they own both systems and vice versa.  But either way, whether you're talking about critics or users, sales or reviews, past or present, Nintendo is clearly making some of the very very best games in the world.  Consistently.  And are able to do it in-house.  Microsoft can't do that (to bring this whole digression back on point)

I wouldn't put Smash Brothers up against Mortal Kombat unless you were talking strictly about fun, since Mortal Kombat has almost always been awful.  But Killer Instinct is clearly the same genre.  And while I don't think that Nintendo has made a non-cutesy golf game (though they have published some exclusives, like Waialae Country Club: True Golf Classics), they have made non-cutesy baseball, basketball and football.  And Mario Golf is a deep game that is better than many of the Tiger Woods entries.  They've never made a racing sim (though they published an F1 Sim for the N64), but they've made plenty of non-cutesy racing games: Excitebike 64, Waverace, Excite Truck, 1080 Snowboarding.  How about Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Eternal Darkness, Metroid Prime, Blast Corps, Fire Emblem, Geist, Sin & Punishment?

Nintendo obviously has a specialty in cutesy games, but they've also made a ton of non-cutesy ones--really really really really good non-cutesy games.  And I doubt that you consider Rockstar or Irrational or Valve or Blizzard or BioWare inferior developers because they haven't developed cutesy games.  This requirement for a develope to cover all the bases seems to be a bit of a double-standard for you since it only appears to be a one-way street.  I will grant you that Nintendo will probably never develop a game as gratuitously violent as a Grand Theft Auto, but Eternal Darkness is one of the best survival horror games ever made and there was plenty of horror in that game, blood,violence and all.

[RandyT]

Lol . . . Metacritic is not obscure, Randy.  And users said Super Mario Galaxy was only the 3rd best game made in 2010?  Wow, 3rd?  Nintendo does suck!!!  Seriously, you're just grasping at straws now.

Never said "Nintendo Sucks"....Next.

Anyway, an average of critical scores is probably going to have a helluva better track record than the opinions of a few people you know, unless those people happen to share extremely similar taste in movies with you.  At any rate, you asked for a list of top-reviewed games for 2010.  What ---smurfing--- better list could I possibly give you?  It is a 100% unbiased source.  It just aggregates data.  Critics gave it better reviews last year than they gave any other game, the end.

And the users who frequent that site handed points to two other titles at a ratio of 4:1.  So either there are a lot more "non-cutesy-genre" gamers hanging out on Metacritic, or the aggregation of the critics scores is far removed from the feelings of people who actually have to purchase their games (reviewers, of course, do not).  And if you look at the point spread of the user ratings, it's pretty close to the sales numbers.  That's very telling.

Something else to consider:  There are a good number more Wii consoles out there than 360's and PS3's combined, meaning that, as far as sales of a supposed #1 $50 game are concerned, they should be able to easily make the top of a chart based on sales.  But the fact is that it didn't.  So this has to be explained somehow.  Lack of user confidence? Poor marketing of said game by Nintendo?  Did 3/4 of the purchasers of the Wii throw them in the trash?  You tell me.

 And, frankly, critics would tend to be more reliable indicator of quality in my opinion since that's what they're doing for a living.  They are exposed to far more games than the users who chimed in.  In particular the gamers who voted for Red Dead Redemption and Mass Effect haven't played Galaxy unless they own both systems and vice versa.  But either way, whether you're talking about critics or users, sales or reviews, past or present, Nintendo is clearly making some of the very very best games in the world.  Consistently.  And are able to do it in-house.  Microsoft can't do that (to bring this whole digression back on point)

The critics have been bombarded by FPS, MMORPG, and Strategy games.  The major companies know these types of games sell well, so the reviewers end up seeing a lot of them.  Because the critics have so much exposure (which costs them nothing, BTW) they are happy when someone does what few do anymore, and releases a feel-good platformer (or similar "blast from the past"), and no-one does that kind of game better than Nintendo.  But not everyone likes that kind of game, especially if they feel like they have bought it several times before.  The latest Mario game may be the best, super-duperest Mario game ever made, but for those who have moved on, it's not going to be enough to bring them back.  The reviewers, on the other hand, never left.

If Nintendo wants to win this gamer back (don't worry, they don't) they will need to stop plastering their mascots on everything and take a serious stab at competing at the same level as other developers.  Let them show who they are by ditching their mascots and offering a cross platform title that competes head-to-head with other developers in the same game genre.  If they are able to make it to the top with that one, they will have shown that they can kick-ass and take names with the best of them.  But what they are doing now only shows that they aren't comfortable when they are not "preaching to the choir".

Nintendo obviously has a specialty in cutesy games, but they've also made a ton of non-cutesy ones--really really really really good non-cutesy games.  And I doubt that you consider Rockstar or Irrational or Valve or Blizzard or BioWare inferior developers because they haven't developed cutesy games.  This requirement for a develope to cover all the bases seems to be a bit of a double-standard for you since it only appears to be a one-way street.  I will grant you that Nintendo will probably never develop a game as gratuitously violent as a Grand Theft Auto, but Eternal Darkness is one of the best survival horror games ever made and there was plenty of horror in that game, blood,violence and all.

Hmmm....Eternal Darkness or Resident Evil 5?  Granted, different style games, but the contrast between the two would be mind numbingly obvious.  And while Rockstar and Valve may not make cutesy games, I don't recall seeing the characters from their successful series being put into games which they have no real business being in, as a cheap attempt to make an average game more marketable than it would otherwise be.  But I have to admit, it would be funny to see Gordon Freeman in his bio-hazard suit playing tennis or golf against a Vortigaunt on the roof of the Black Mesa Research Facility.  But probably not funny enough for me to want to buy it.

And I don't expect other developers to excel in all gaming genres.  Likewise, I don't try to peddle their names as god's gift to the videogame.  You'd probably have noticed that if you weren't so busy trying to stuff words in my mouth.

[DJ_Izumi]

Girls, girls, you're both pretty.  Now give it a rest.

[shmokes]

Super Mario Galaxy 2 was derivative crap.  I guess kids liked it, I've yet to meet an adult that did (well, except you and your friends at meta-critic).

Granted, some of this aggression is couched in the fact I fired up Demons' Souls a few days ago... still not sure what to make of you and your love for that one.  

You didn't play Super Mario Galaxy 2, at least not for any extended length of time.  You're just being your usual ass self.  Neither did I, though.  I've never so much as seen a video of gameplay from it.  For all I know, I would hate it.  Keep in mind, though, that its average critical score was 97, but it was also ranked the 3rd best game of the year by users according to Randy.  So my friends are a pretty large and diverse lot, I guess.  Or maybe Metacritic is just a major attraction for small children . . .

As for Demon's Souls . . . it's probably too difficult for you.  I warned you that it was punishing.  You should probably give Mario Galaxy an actual shot, which we both know you haven't done.  I'm sure it's easier.

[shmokes]

[Okay, Okay . . . Nintendo is good, but you, sir, go to far!]

At any rate, if third party developers don't jump on Kinect in a big way, Microsoft cannot pick up the slack the way Nintendo could. 

Hell, even if developers all decide to jump on the bandwagon today, a serious game has, what, a minimum 18 month development cycle?  The Xbox will be like 7 years old by the time any of this stuff is coming out.  You're going to be in party-game heaven until Xbox 3, my friend.   

[Malenko]

this is one entertaining fanboy vs fanboy thread.

I wanna chime in:
" How about Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Eternal Darkness, Metroid Prime, Blast Corps, Fire Emblem, Geist, Sin & Punishment?"

Do you consider the Publisher the person who makes games? 3 games by RARE (Golden Eye, Perfect Dark, Blast Corps they also developed both Killer Instincts, RC Pro AM, and SOOOO many more), 1 by Retro Studios (Metroid Prime), n-Space did Geist; and Intelligent Systems does the Fire Emblem series.  Treasure did the Sin & Punishment game (and lets not forget the fabulous GunStar Heroes, Radiant Silvergun, and Ikaruga)

Also, of that list only golden eye and blast corps were any fun to me.

[shmokes]

Do you consider the Publisher the person who makes games? 3 games by RARE (Golden Eye, Perfect Dark, Blast Corps they also developed both Killer Instincts, RC Pro AM, and SOOOO many more), 1 by Retro Studios (Metroid Prime), n-Space did Geist; and Intelligent Systems does the Fire Emblem series.  Treasure did the Sin & Punishment game (and lets not forget the fabulous GunStar Heroes, Radiant Silvergun, and Ikaruga)

Also, of that list only golden eye and blast corps were any fun to me.

Yes, I would say that anything developed by Rare while Nintendo owned 49% of the company and had an exclusive publishing agreement with them (i.e., Rare could not make games for anyone but Nintendo even if they wanted to) = 1st Party.  Same goes for Left Field, which Nintendo owned a minority stake of and which developed exclusively for Nintendo.  Retro is a wholly owned Nintendo first party developer so that one's easy.  Intelligent Systems is another easy one, wholly owned first-party developer.  N-space is a little more difficult because I thought they were partially owned by Nintendo, but I haven't been able to verify that.  Wikipedia says they're a Nintendo 2nd party, though.  Sin & Punishment was co-developed by Treasure and Nintendo's internal R&D1.  The IP is owned by Nintendo and Nintendo included a character from that game in Super Smash Bros. (though I think Solid Snake made it into one of the Super Smash Bros. too, so that doesn't necessarily mean anything  )

Also, you didn't like RC Pro AM?  How black is your heart?   

[shmokes]

I found it more bleak and depressing

Wow . . . I was initially just taking a jab at you with the Super Mario Galaxy recommendation, but now it's really starting to seem like just the thing for you