Nintendo’s Wii a Testament to Innovation

Authored by Scott Goldberg on November 14, 2006 - 8:15pm.

I had a chance to test Nintendo’s Wii at the LA Games Conference last week, and it proved to be far more interesting than I had imagined. The Wii’s controller, which looks in form like it should be changing channels on a television, is a positive step ahead for the industry, offering a change to a device that has essentially been the same since the days when Atari’s Pac Man ruled the field.

I tried Ubisoft’s new game Red Steel on the Wii, a slant on the shooter genre and one that makes use of the Wii controller by offering the opportunity for sword play. Whereas the buttons on a traditional controller would dictate the slashes and stabs of the sword, the Wii remote allows you to swipe at your opponent with a swoop of your hand, or block incoming blows with a flick of your wrist. It certainly took patience to adjust, but I found that experienced video gamers would take to the controller within 10 minutes, thanks in part to the great tutorial at the beginning of the game.

It was especially interesting having both the Wii and the PS3 at the event because it offered a side-by-side comparison of the hot new devices expected to fly off shelves this Christmas. As in all holiday seasons where Sony, Nintendo, and more recently Microsoft have revealed new consoles, the debate has become which device will win the sales battle. From all the hype the PS3 has gotten of late, I had come to expect a battle with Xbox 360 alone, leaving the Wii to the kiddies and geriatrics, which Nintendo has been reported to be targeting.

And this is not to diminish the value of the PS3. To be sure, the graphics make you realize that Sony is creating art at least as much as it is entertainment. But the Wii proved to be a worthy competitor, and playing Red Steel came to be an addictive experience. It also reminded me of the health of competition in technology. If there’s an industry that is forced to innovate if only for sheer survival, the video game industry is it.

Random Thoughts on the Importance of Competition

In my 20 odd years of playing video games I’ve never, come to think of it, been disappointed by any of the innovations I’ve seen. Sure, some are better than others, and some games didn’t live up to the billing, but there hasn’t been a time when I felt that things had taken a step back. Stagnate they often may, but regress? There’s too much money at stake to risk it.

Top Gun on the original Nintendo was such an impressive flying game that my Dad even became addicted, and I remember numerous late nights getting up to use the bathroom and finding him wide eyed in the living room, attempting to connect his fighter jet to the hose of a fueling plane. Realistic as it seemed then, playing Top Gun now reminds you why we should be thankful for competition (aside from the fact that a modern day Top Gun game would include entirely too much Tom Cruise).

A nice game in its day, Top Gun on Nintendo now reminds us why competition is important

There seems to be a growing trend among techies to display loyalty to a product that rivals any professional football team’s fan base. I find it interesting when an article touting the Zune is shredded by iPeople, as if support for the Zune might be threatening to the iPod’s very existence. There was a time in video games, for example, when it was mandatory to criticize every product released. How else could innovation occur? If I’m an iPerson right now, I’m cheering for Zune to beat the expectations and be as good of a product as possible. You think Steve Jobs is going to ever say, “Man, they really got us on this one. I don’t think we’re capable of matching the Zune. Let’s close down the shops and stop all of this iPod nonsense.” Of course not! The only thing that will force Jobs to do what he does best is if the competition ups the ante. And if you’ve been paying attention lately, Jobs has already stepped it up, innovating like a mad man. People, this is a good thing...

Dipping in to the Mailbag for More on Competition…

Speaking of a fan base, Second Life needs to be praised for boasting perhaps the most vocally loyal supporters that any product has ever enjoyed. I played Second Life last week and just using the word “played” in relation to Second Life will undoubtedly rouse a huge response to this article. You see Second Life, as I’ve now been told numerous times, is NOT a game. A chap named FlipperPA wrote, “Second Life is not a game. It is a virtual world whose primary use is entertainment, however, there are many businesses (such as my real-life company) that use it for Corporate Training.”

That doesn’t really settle the debate for me, nor is it pertinent to the discussion at hand. No, what actually caught my attention was the same reader’s comment criticizing the very nature of shooter games in relation to the speed of Second Life (and for the record, if you missed my article, Second Life is slower than LA traffic). FlipperPA wrote, “Many of us are more concerned about meeting fun, smart people and seeing their incredibly imaginative creations instead of the frame rate of some predictable first person shooter.”

I find the comment confusing for two reasons: 1) Wouldn’t Second Lifers prefer the game to be fast? And 2) Why the comparisons to other video games, as if the debate isn’t about whether Second Life is a terrible product (which it is), but that it’s somehow superior to other options (which it isn’t)? If I’m a fan of Second Life, I’m hoping World of Warcraft and all the other MMORPGs dominate in the field in the coming months. Maybe then Linden Lab will have the necessary fire in its rear to make vital improvements. Competition will solve the problems in Second Life, not fan loyalty.

The overall point is that competition is good. It should be applauded by consumers, and, in my opinion, if consumers are hankering to be loyal to something, competition is as good a thing as any. There’s no Super Bowl or World Series for technology, thankfully. Tech companies are playing a game without a destination in sight, and the winners are consumers. Why settle for the current product? We, as consumers, should always be pushing for something better.

Scott Goldberg

To read other Millennial Modes columns, click here.

Email this page

add to:

del.icio.us |

digg | Yahoo! MyWeb | Slashdot

Comments

You're still not getting it,

Submitted by Sly (not verified) on November 15, 2006 - 4:27am.

You're still not getting it, though. SL is slower than a first person shooter because it is user created. Optimizing an environment for rendering is easy when you have pros doing it. When you have joe and jane public creating the visual environment, most of whom know little about meshes, polygons, and whatnot, well, you're likely to have some scenes that are very tough to render. *shrugs* it will improve. And then people will mung it up again. And then it will improve again.

that isn't going to force anyone to innovate anythin

Submitted by anonymous (not verified) on November 24, 2006 - 4:10pm.

------------ The only thing that will force Jobs to do what he does best is if the competition ups the ante. And if you’ve been paying attention lately, Jobs has already stepped it up, innovating like a mad man. People, this is a good thing... ---------- the only thing that forces competition is a better product, the Zune is a cheap knock off with a hog tied wi-fi system... that isn't going to force anyone to innovate anything... Jobs is doing just fine without the competition... even price wise.. what makes you think a cheap knock off is going to make him go any faster? jon.