Why Devs Aren't Interested In The Wii UMay 14, 2013 by

I haven't written a blog for 3 days, which I know is a while, but it was the weekend and I was very busy and Monday I felt like crap. 

Anyway, I was reading an article on IGN about how Call Of Duty: Ghosts is not yet confirmed for the Wii U and it got me thinking. I wanted to write an article on this a while ago but I never got round to it. 

So here it is: why developers aren't interested in, well, developing for Nintnedo's newest console. 

It's actually really important to note that all of the things I say below about why devs don't like the Wii U are linked. All of the issues with the console go hand in hand to create a device that ultimately isn't good to make games for. 

It's More Effort To Develop For

You can view the Wii U's nifty tablet controller as a plus. Or you can view it as a con that weighs it down. In a way it's both, but unfortunately, to developers at least, it's far more of a problem. 

Why? Why is this added feature that was supposed to change the way we play and the way devs develop disliked? Simply because it's so much more hassle, really.

You don't HAVE to incorporate it into your game, but it's one of the highlight features of the Wii U; you'd be cutting corners and ignoring what seems like the 'point' of the entire console if you didn't implement any gameplay features that utilised the use of the tablet controller.

The thing is that devs develop mainly for the likes the PS3 and Xbox 360. Why? Well because of popularity of course (popularity is also noted below as an issue with the Wii U). The PS3 and Xbox are the most popular consoles of this gen. The Wii U may be 'new' and what Nintendo wants to call the 'next-gen' but in truth the device is more the 'next-gen' of Nintendo consoles. Not consoles on the whole (which, again, we'll touch on a bit later). 

The Wii U's extra bit of tablet tech is cool but it takes extra effort to use. To put a game developed on Xbox onto the PS3, all the devs need to do is port it and clean up the bugs it has. Sure some issues occur but they're often nothing that can't be fixed. 

However due to the Wii U's extra requirements, a simple port won't really suffice. It's far more effort to develop for the Wii U than other consoles.

However it would be totally worth it, right, if the Wii U was popular. And is it popular? Well that's another issue entirely...

Less Fans & Popularity 

It wouldn't be a big deal having to go to the extra effort of porting a game to or developing it entirely for the Wii U if it was actually popular. Unfortunately the Wii U isn't that popular. 

As of late April 2013 it's sold over 3 million units. Which isn't much. Respectable, but for a piece of tech that requires extra effort to develop for from developers, that isn't a good number. 

If devs are going to put in extra money and time just for the Wii U, their going to want borderline guarantee that their game is going to sell well on that platform. If you're a still a bit skeptical about what I'm saying, maybe this figure will help:

The Wii U, as of late April 2013, has sold over 3 million units.

Bioshock Infinite, as couple of days ago, has sold nearly 4 million units.

Now what I'm saying here is not that a game has surpassed Nintendo's console's sale figures and that's stupid, what I'm saying is that a game has sold more copies than there are Wii U users. If Infinite had only been released on the Wii U (in fact, in real life it wasn't even released on it at all) it would have been IMPOSSIBLE, even if EVERY SINGLE WII U USER BOUGHT IT, for Infinite to get as many sales as it has now. 

I know, I know; Bioshock Infinite was released on PC, Xbox 360 AND PS3 and if you want to work it out in a very generic way then you could say that that means Infinite has sold around 1.3 million copies PER platform it is on. And obviously there are more than double that many users of the Wii U.

However I'd also like to pose the question: how many of those 3+million users actually, well, USE their console? Not as many as you'd think. In recent years Nintendo's consoles have appealed more to casual gamers who either rarely game or, when they do, play games like Mario and Animal Crossing. So how many of THOSE do you think would be totally into a first person shooter like Bioshock Infinite? Exactly.

A lack of popularity means there is little reason for devs to go out of their way to develop for the Wii U and risk more money. So far the Wii U isn't looking a good investment for anyone. And it's clear why.

It Doesn't Move Consoles Forward

The PS4 looks pretty awesome and no doubt the next Xbox will rival it well too. They're both consoles that will move the industry forward. They'll give devs more options and do a better job of matching the gorgeous visuals that PC gaming offers. 

They're going to move consoles forward.

This is something the Wii U does not do. And why should any developer or publisher waste time with something that's as good as a fad, just like the first Wii?

A tablet controller does not pass, by anyones standards, as 'moving the industry forward'. It's a gameplay feature at most. To really move forward you need to have a technical edge more than anything. Things like the Kinect and PSMove prove this easily (they too lack popularity and success and they are gameplay features that offer little technical awesomeness).

And where is the Wii U's technical edge? Where is it? It doesn't have one. It doesn't exist. 

The Wii U has nothing new or technically brilliant to offer developers. It will be outdated the moment the next Playstation and Xbox are released. And, as I said before, why does anyone want to invest and spend time working with a console that does nothing for them? 

The Wii U has little popularity. And the fans it does have might be mostly casual gamers that don't like hardcore games for all devs and publishers know. That is, after all, the audience Nintendo has been attracting recently. 

It also has little edge over even the current Xbox and PS consoles in terms of technical ability. 

It does nothing new except offer a tablet controller that, if anything, makes the console HARDER to develop for. And why spend the extra time, effort and money on something with the above issues? It makes zero sense from any perspective. Especially a business one. And gaming is a business. First and foremost.

I'm sorry for being so harsh on the Wii U. I know Nintendo has a shit ton of lovers and I'm not trying to be a hater. I'm just being brutally honest. I love Nintendo to bits. They produce some of the most consistently brilliant and borderline perfect exclusives like Mario and Pokemon and Animal Crossing and I have awesome memories of using their products and playing their games. But I don't see a future, or much of one at least, for the Wii U. Especially not with the more hardcore audience it seems to be wanting to attract. Nintendo need to step up their game and stop marketing themselves as these softy, plushy, casual game and console developers. That is if they really want to attract more serious gamers and be taken, in general, more seriously themselves.

What are your thoughts on Nintendo's current predicament and the Wii U itself? Leave a comment below!

Like vhat you read? Yah? Then go to my blog michaelthekyle.blogspot.co.uk for way more exclusive shit and knock yourself out. Not literally of course. Oh and follow me on twitter too if you want: @mookyst.

Submit Blog
The Sun Is Back & Yodel SUCKSMay 7, 2013 by
























Then I realised something.






Then I sighed.













































Check out meh blog (michaelthekyle.blogspot.co.uk) way more, exclusive, content and follow me on twitter @mookyst. Peace.

Submit Blog
Rant - Why Google Glass SucksMay 5, 2013 by

Contains a lot of language. 


Ho-ly shit. I wasn't paying much attention to Google Glass until recently and now that I've had a good look at it and what it does I have to say it looks like the creepiest, most disturbing piece of pointless, shitty, just plain HORRIBLE, tech EVER.


So Mike, why do you hate Google Glass so much? I mean have you even USED it?


Well no, I have not. And I don't intend to. Ever. Except maybe if I'm offered a free pair by Google for being such an awesome blogger (*cough*bullshit alert*cough*). However that's unlikely to happen.


There are many things about Glass I think are awful, however just looking at them is enough to put any normal, sane, human being off of ever wearing them. EV-ER.

I mean look at them. LOOK AT THEM.

No dude of course you look good. Although I'd just like to point out you have a MASSIVE FUCKING CAMERA ATTACHED TO YOUR FACE.

Fuck me. C'mon. Who in fucks name is going to walk around wearing those? I wear glasses and I get enough (or I used to) "Alright Harry Potter" comments, but what the fuck are people gonna think if you walk around wearing THOSE? I MEAN LOOK. AT. THEM. What the fuck is that? What the actual fuck is that Google?


Guy: "Hey baby, how you doing?


Girl: "I'm doing fine, Ken."


Guy: "I've, ah, got a new pair of Google Glasses babe."


Girl: "Really, I, uh, didn't notice..."


Guy: "Really, well, they're pretty discreet huh?"


Girl: "Yeah, I'm leaving now you deluded freak."


And that's how FOREVER-A-FUCKING-ALONE happens people.


I haven't exactly pointed out exactly what makes them so horrible to look at but I think it is pretty obvious, that is unless you actually think they look good (do you? Leave a comment with what you think on their design!).


For starters the camera is the most hideous thing I've ever seen on a pair of glasses before.




This will probably be peoples reaction to Google Glass in 50 years.

Of course, that camera alone isn't going to draw a shit ton of attention to your face, is it Google? No of course not. Of COURSE not. And I don't mean the type of attention that revolves around you being attractive or having nice eyes, I mean the type of attention that is often followed by gawping, looks of awkwardness and maybe sniggering too.


Also, what's with the lenses? I know they're glasses and I know you NEED the lenses to see the images projected by the camera, however what are Google trying to do? Make every human being on the planet earth wear glasses? People who don't even need glasses will be walking around in glasses. Mind fuck right there.


And what's more, imagine if Google got their way and every human really DID wear Google Glass in the future. No one would be able to tell who actually needed prescription glasses or not.


Also it would never work because glasses themselves just don't work. I wear them and I know the cons of having to wear them every day. These include things like having to be wary of big crowds in fear of getting them knocked off and not being able to play certain sports. If Google got their way then there would be new laws stating that people can't group together anymore in case they lose their Google Glasses or something and sportsman, where would all the sportsman go? It just wouldn't work.


Now going back to the fashion side of things, I know what you are thinking:


But Mike, didn't you write that article A Question Of Fashion wear you clearly said people should wear what they want and generally DO what they want too? So aren't you contradicting yourself by saying Google Glasses suck because they look stupid?


You know what, you're right! But I guess the reason I think Glass is so horrible to look at and to be avoided at all costs is also due to what it does in terms of functions and features.


Glass is supposed to make our lives easier and the superficial things we do more convienent. So you know that incredibly difficult task of taking out your camera or phone and manually taking a photo? You know how long that took? You know how much your poor arms hurt afterwards? Well that's gone with Glass! Just say "Glass take a picture" and that giant fucking growth on the side of the glasses does exactly what you just said!


You can record video in the same way too. In fact, you know all the things you can already do on your phone and/or tablet, like check the time, your calendar, search Google Maps for nearby places of interest, have video chats and thing like that? Well Glass does all that, except handsfree.


Actually it does less than your phone or tablet does. Yes, less, not more. It doesn't play games like Angry Birds or Pinball. It does convenient things, but no proper recreational things.


It might seem, after what I just said, that Glass isn't so bad. That it just tries to help you out. But are we REALLY that lazy? Are we really going to walk around looking like part-human part-robot things? And the fact Glass is controlled via voice commands makes it even weirder. Goons wearing these creepy-ass glasses will be wandering around talking to themselves, seeing things through the lenses that no one else can see. Why don't we just load everyone up on LSD? No seriously, why don't we? That's basically what Glass is: A recreation of LSD.


I don't have a problem with phones or whatever. I love them. But the moment technology crosses over into affecting our appearance and the way we work in our DAILY lives, then it is crossing the line.


We were not built as humanoids with cameras on the side of our fucking heads. Glass is taking away our humanness. It's turning us into something we weren't meant to be originally. Phones, they just sit in your pocket waiting to be manually activated by YOU. Glass sits on your fucking head, forcing itself upon you. It's RIGHT THERE. It's on your Goddamn head people. It's not an option anymore, like a phone is, it's a part of your body.


I think an app you can download summed Glass up for me perfectly. This app is called 'Winky' and it takes a snapshot when you make a very deliberate wink at someone when wearing Google Glasses. It's there to automatically capture those fun, flirty, winky moments you have. But what I don't get is who the fuck is gonna find a goon wearing Glass winking at them attractive? Take that motherfucking machinery off your Goddamn face and be a normal fucking human being for Christ's sake. Jesus. This is technology going TOO far. Way too far.


What are your thoughts on Glass? Leave comments below! 

Submit Blog
Anticipating Batman: Arkham OriginsMay 2, 2013 by



When I first heard about Origins I was mega excited. I mean, I absolutely adored the two previous Batman games by Rocksteady and I was totally psyched for a third game in the series. Unfortunately Origins isn't being developed by Rocksteady and has instead been handed over to WB Games Montreal. To be honest, while this is quite worrying, it isn't the end of the world from where I'm standing. Rocksteady have already developed two Batman games and have laid the foundations for the series. WB Games Montreal are dealing with a prequel, not the sequel, so they have had two games developed by the masters Rocksteady to learn and appreciate how to develop a good Batman game. I'm really confident that they can do a fantastic job.


That said, the lack of Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill is slightly worrying. Nobody noticed that Harley Quinn's voice actor in Arkham City had changed, however The Joker and, obviously, the mighty Batman are two of the most, if not the most, important characters in the entire game and their voice actors are not easily replaced, especially Batman's. Kevin Conroy is a legend and the voice that he uses for Batman in borderline irreplaceable. His gravelly tone hasn't just set the standard for how Batman's voice should sound, he has 100% MADE it Batman's voice - and his ONLY voice.


I don't think it's impossible for WB to find a guy who sounds similar or who does a good, maybe even great or amazing, job of replicating Conroy's tone, however it's still a BIG disappointment not to have the master doing it. What's more, it is slightly worrying WHY he decided not to do Batman's voice in Origins. Is the game not good enough?


As for Mark Hamill, well, we all knew he wouldn't be returning for anything Joker related since Arkham City as he said he was giving up the whole Joker thing, so obviously there was always going to be a new voice actor for Batman's nemesis. I'm kind of split with this one. While I do believe there are many other actors who can do great Joker voices, being able to do a GREAT Joker impression doesn't mean that they can still BE the Joker. Mark Hamill is also irreplaceable from the perspective that his Joker voice is so borderline unique and perfect that other people who might even be able to do really good impressions of the bad guy, can't do it exactly how Hamill did. It's a tricky situation and I hope WB's have chosen their voice actors EXTREMELY carefully. This is NOT the type of thing they can be all blasé about.




As for the rest of the story, well, here's the synopsis:










I also found the story in AA completely uninteresting. I adored the parts where you had to go after The Joker and battle Ra's Al Ghul and the mini little side stories were nice, however the main plot was feeble at most. Maybe the main story hasn't always been the focus of Batman, and it has always been more about the fights and the characters and everything, however I do expect more from a video game.


Aside from those couple of things I had no other significant beefs with Arkham City, so there aren't really any proper 'issues' with the game that Origins needs to avoid doing, however it certainly will need to switch things up. Rehashing is never good and hopefully it will offer a brand new story and mission selection.





Remember to check out my blog (michaelthekyle.blogspot.co.uk) for way more exclusive content and follow me on twitter @mookyst.

Submit Blog