Epic Games too good for the Wii
Mikey 7 comments
How do you commit game industry suicide? Deliberately not cater for a significant part of your audience. Epic Games president Mike Capps has said something rather odd when queried about whether or not the games company will develop games for the Wii: "no, we go forward, not back. It makes more sense for us to invest in the next-generation tech."
The reason I find this statement odd has nothing to do with the physical hardware of the Wii - I agree the games on it are an eyesore by today's graphical standards. But Capps seems to have forgotten something crucial to gamers - a little thing called 'Game Play'. If you have ever played Epic Games' latest Unreal Tournament reincarnation, you will be forgiven for getting bored quite quickly. Every version of Unreal Tournament that has been released since (Unreal Tournament 2003, Unreal Tournament 2004 and Unreal Tournament 3) has basically been the exact same game but with better graphics. I can tell you first hand they all bored me sleep. I played Unreal Tournament in 1999 and loved it, but playing it today is snooze inducing even with a bleeding edge rendering engine.
If Epic think that re-releasing the same game with a different engine every few years is what constitutes a good game, they won't last as long as they might think. Sure I understand there is the capital gained from newer audiences, but you can only push that for so long.
Bottom line: At least entertain the notion of developing for an audience that, lets face it Mike, is fricking huge.
Rick
Tuesday 22nd April 2008 | 02:05 AMIt's one thing to say that his comment is false, another thing to say Unreal has no innovative gameplay.
I agree with the fact that the Wii, as a product of technology, is rather inferior. It does introducte new ways of enjoying video games, though.
Epic, a game studio that focuses much of its resources on its home-built engine (Unreal Engine), is spot on about the fact that the Wii hardware doesn't allow for *their* creative freedom, and in fact limits *their* creativity.
But anyway, it's best to look at the current game industry with 2 pairs of glasses.
P.S. spelling in title, 'too'.
Mikey
Tuesday 22nd April 2008 | 05:22 AM...in response to this comment by Rick. Thanks for the typo spotting Rick.
I stand by my comment about UT having no innovative gameplay. Having played them a all, they are just the same game. And normally I am one to excuse a little weak gameplay over outstanding graphics - Crysis is testament to the fact it looks so damned gorgeous you could excuse it's shortcomings to a certain degree, but the latest UT3 feels like the same game I played in 1999.
This is interesting. I agree that the lack of change in game play and originality in Epic games is a poor strategic move.
I interpret the comment slightly differently, however. It seems to me that Epic performed an analysis of what capital investment would be required to develop and manufacture Wii games and the result was a lower return on investment than Epic was willingly to accept. This is not necessarly a bad decision, in itself.
...in response to this comment by The Captain. Maybe. But Epic have a handful of older Unreal engines that can be used to pump out a few Wii games relatively quickly and cheaply. Think Unureal1 and 2 Engines. I've used Unreal Ed and it's piss easy, and the Epic game dev's would have a much easier time than I. That's my assumption anyway. It still seems to me like a bad idea to ignore such a significant portion of the market when it would seem they could cater for it quite easily.
Justin
Tuesday 22nd April 2008 | 02:44 PMI might be wrong, but game-play change in online FPS games? Counter Strike 1.3 is almost same as 1.6 or even CSS? So are almost all other such games. UT is more of a online FPS than a offline one.
Just my 2 cents.
...in response to this comment by Justin. Agreed with that. There isn't much innovation in FPS games, and CounterStrike is no different.
Nate >.>
Monday 21st April 2008 | 05:53 PMI lol'd :p