What's Wrong with the Wii?

(This is an email I sent to X-Play's Adam Sessler. Consider it an open letter.)

Mr. Sessler,

I am writing this in response to your Soapbox podcast of 12/27/07 (“Buy More Wii Games!”). In this post you ask for people to email you regarding reasons why they are not buying Wii games. Please excuse the lateness of this response; I have only viewed the post recently and feel that the topic is still relevant now, a year and a half later.

As an avid gamer I purchased a Wii early last year and have regretted the decision ever since. The reason as to why is that there are very few interesting games available for the Wii, which goes a long way to answering your question. The games that I have enjoyed most have been those such as the Lego games which are available on the other consoles. Considering the superiority of the other consoles in terms of online support, unlockable content and graphical capabilities, there is little reason for playing those games on the Wii. (Incidentally, this is also the reason why I refuse to buy a PS3; there are only a handful of games exclusive to the system that I want to play and since Sony has removed backward compatibility from the system there is no reason for me to upgrade from my PS2. Besides, if paying $250+ for a Wii caused buyer’s remorse, imagine what shelling out in excess of $400 for an extraneous console would do.)

Sure, one can argue that the Wii allows you to download games, including classic NES games, to its built-in hard drive. But so what? The 360 does essentially the same thing and it allows you to try out the games before you buy them so you have an idea of what you are getting. The same cannot be said of the Wii and in these budget-conscious times, in which I for one will not buy a game that I have not played, this lack of consumer support on Nintendo’s part acts as another strike against the Wii.

So what is the Wii good for? The only use I have for mine is playing old GameCube games. I would have been so much better off buying a used GameCube instead! And, as you note, I do not seem to be the only one bothered by the Wii’s pointlessness. In fact, the situation is so bad that my local Blockbuster has ceased to stock new Wii games for rental, presumably because nobody is renting the games they do carry. Unfortunately, they no longer carry GameCube titles either, so I am left to scrounge through used game dealers’ bins instead.

Please pardon me if I have stated anything here that others have stated before. It is probably obvious to game aficionados and professionals such as yourself that Nintendo has squandered the Wii’s enormous potential when it comes to non-casual gamers. I doubt, however, that Nintendo is losing sleep about this loss. They have identified an otherwise neglected segment of the gamer population, the casual, older and predominantly female demographic, and have exploited it to great effect. Good for them. But I fear that the end result is to limit themselves by catering to a niche market which will harm them in the long term. In the short term, though, they know where their metaphorical bread is buttered which allows the company to thumb their noses at the rest of us as they did at last year’s E3. Perhaps you can bring up these issues with the Nintendo folks at this year’s E3?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Why Innovation Sucks

Resident Evil 5 is a betrayal. I have been a fan of the series since 1996 when the original game first appeared. Sure, there’s been some crap over the years (i.e. the first person shooters and the Outbreak sub-series), but on the whole the games have been fun. But with RE5 Capcom has taken the fun and defecated on it, all in the name of innovation.

Innovation has become one the watchwords in the game industry today. Another, equally heinous word is “co-op.” RE5 takes both as its mantra and therein lies the source of its failure. Innovation in particular is not necessarily a good thing. Just look at the classic example of when Coca-Cola changed its formula. Changing something that is good to begin with does not lead to something better. Unless you’re in an abusive relationship, change does not automatically equal good.

Unfortunately, “innovation” has become a too frequent criterion in video game reviews. It has gotten to the point where a game automatically wins points if it does something differently and loses points if it uses tried and true techniques. This is one of the reasons why co-operative gameplay has become so ubiquitous in games, even if the gamers don’t want it. Just because Gears of War’s innovative “stop and pop” control mechanic and co-op mode was successful with knuckle-dragging frat boys doesn’t mean that every developer has to change what they’re doing. But that’s exactly what Capcom did with RE5, throwing out the proverbial baby with the bathwater in order to appear hip and relevant and get good reviews.

Well here’s some news for Capcom and other developers: many gamers, myself included, hated Gears of War! We fit the demographic of the average gamers: mid-thirties, educated, professional, with a nearly-even distribution of gender. We like consistency in our games. We require substance from games. We don’t like games that entail pointless destruction or violence and we certainly don’t like co-operative gameplay. We grew up with games that provided substantial single-player experiences (games like, oh, I don’t know, Resident Evil?). We play games in order to relieve the stresses of our daily lives and to get away from dealing with people. We don’t want to have to interact with any more jackasses than we have to, which is what co-op games force us to do (refer to the classic Penny Arcade strip “Green Blackboards and Other Anomalies” for an illustration of this principle: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/3/19/). The point is that just because something is popular with a subset of the gamer population does not mean it needs to be force-fed to the rest of us. By attempting to do so, RE5 has betrayed those of us that have been loyal followers of the franchise.

The ultimate litmus test for a game is whether it’s fun or not. Look at Resident Evil 4. Yes, it’s innovative compared to the previous games in the series, but it doesn’t innovate for the sake of innovation. RE4 fixed the problems that plagued the previous games and the result is a game that provides a nearly perfect gameplay experience. As the old saying goes, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Instead of staying with what worked great in RE4, Capcom broke what was working and, as far as my gaming dollars are concerned, cannot fix it.