I’ve continued to look into the whole Mersenne factoring issue, and I’ve generalised my equations somewhat.

Suppose that and f doesn’t divide . Then, we have

Let and , so that . If we now assume that , then we get that

This is a more general form than seen in the previous post. If we take and , then we get a useful subset:

To see the power of this, consider that, for p=41, m=163. If we take r=0, then q = 35. But if we take r=7, then q=0.

Of course, p=41 is relatively uninteresting, so we look for a harder example. For p=67, m=1445580, and thus the best q = 397004. But if r=337, then q=492. And because 2pr+1 and 2pq+1 are of the same form, you only need to calculate (2pq+1)^p 492 times in total while searching, and when you calculate for q=337, you can reuse the result in testing r=337. There may be further ways to accelerate or simplify the process, too.

As some may be aware, I’m a mathematician (actually, Mathematical physicist, but I’m also big on pure Mathematics). So I’m going to turn this blog into a mathematical blog. Sorry to those who severely dislike mathematics… but you should really get over it, maths is fun.

Anyway, this post will cover some thoughts I’ve had regarding the Mersenne Prime search.

What is the Mersenne Prime search? It’s a search for primes of the form , where is a prime number (if p isn’t prime, then cannot be prime). Numbers of that form are known to be prime for – but it’s not true for all primes by any means. So that’s where the “searching” comes into it.

The common method of testing Mersenne numbers to see if they are prime is to use what is called the “lucas-lehmer test”, which is relatively fast, but still extremely slow when you get larger powers. It is also incapable of determining any factors of the number if it is composite. To date, we know of less than 50 Mersenne Primes. But I think it is possible to come up with a faster prime-test algorithm. And here’s a thought I’ve been having.

Mersenne numbers with prime powers can only even have factors of the form , with and being equivalent to the trivial factors 1 and . This gives us a hint as to how to test for factors. But it’s not quite enough.

Suppose that n is a factor of . Then for all values of “a”. This is because . This fact can be used to derive a number of interesting results. What is notable immediately is that if either n+a or a is a multiple of 2, you can divide that number by 2 and not change the result of the gcd operation – this is because applying in the second part of the gcd doesn’t change the result of the gcd.

One choice of a that is interesting is , which, assuming that , allows us to conclude that . But we can go further – if the difference between m and q is a power of 2 (that is, ), then , because of the aforementioned rule. Because q is an arbitrary number we have chosen, anyway, the requirement that is easily satisfied by choosing .

What this means is that q can be chosen to be the distance between m and the nearest power of 2 to m. For instance, if p=41, the smallest m (not counting m=0) is m=163. For this value of m, the smallest q is q = 163 – 128 = 35. But in testing q=35, you automatically are also checking m = 36, 37, 39, 43, 51, 67, 99, 291, 547… and so on. And so, a greater number of factors are tested at the same time. This advantage is good for smaller values of q, but as q increases, the number of factors being tested shrinks. Thus, more needs to be done.

Another step that can be taken is to note that p is not a factor of , and thus can be divided out of the right hand side. This gives, using under the gcd, the conclusion that (put on the next line for clarity):

There are a number of advantages to this form – for one, doesn’t have to be calculated. For another, rather than having to multiply numbers for each q, one only has to add them, before raising to the given power. It also shows us an interesting formula – if we choose q such that , then n is equal to . And this will be true for any integer j. Note that n hasn’t changed throughout this consideration, so one can propagate this conclusion back throughout the sequence. However, this conclusion isn’t useful, as it is true whether is prime or not, and doesn’t determine any factors.

To demonstrate this approach in action, consider p=29. For this number, . The value . Now, as it so happens, the smallest m for this number is m=4, which is a power of 2, and thus can be found with q=0. So we test like this:

This is equal to gcd(536870911,k) where k is of the order of , and thus won’t be actually included here. But what I can say is that , and therefore, the gcd(536870911,k) = 233. 233 is a prime factor of 536870911 (in fact, 233 = 2*29*4 + 1, just as I said – the m = 4). Interestingly, if one uses q=3, one actually gets the product of TWO factors out, of the three prime factors of the number. This is because the second m value is m=19 = 16+3, while the first one is m=4 = 1 + 3. And so, the gcd ends up being 233*1103 = 256999.

Now, there are avenues of investigation I still have, to try to further refine the approach. For instance, if and are both m-values for factors of a prime number, then . This fact may be of value, in conjunction with the aforementioned gcd considerations, to further narrow the number of situations requiring testing.

You keep hearing “Free Market” this and “Free Market” that from American media, and from the politicians. Even the most left-wing members of congress and senators espouse Free Market ideals – sure, they say that some regulation is necessary, but it’s only ever the bare minimum necessary. Why? And why is it that America is the only developed nation that had a backlash that led to “Happy Holidays” becoming almost the symbol of hatred, when it’s actually the best choice for tolerance?

Why is the country best-known for “separation of church and state” being in their constitution also the country most rife with religion being imposed on its citizens (at least amongst the developed countries)? Why is my own nation of Australia more tolerant of other religions, without having such a constitutional requirement?

Why am I writing about this now? Because I just watched a video that was somewhat eye-opening. I’ll link it here for you to watch (after the jump).

Watch this

It’s a video showing what Michael Moore was going to include in his documentary, Sicko, but chose not to because nobody in America would actually believe it. First, it shows how America responded to the documentary itself, then it moved on to the cut portion of the “doco” (as we often refer to documentaries in Australia).

So, what was this content that America just wouldn’t believe? It was a video showing Norway’s quality of life, their prison system, etc. Norway is #1 on the list of countries as far as quality of life, etc, are concerned. They have the lowest murder rate in the world, the highest literacy, the best health standards, the second-highest female representation in government, the list of things to be envious of go on and on.

And in the doco, a “Conservative MP” is interviewed. In the interview, the guy comments on the fact that what is called “conservative” in Norway is what America would call “liberal”. There is no Death Penalty in Norway… indeed, the longest possible prison term is 21 years – that’s right, just 21 years. No Life sentences, no Death sentences, just punishment and rehabilitation.

So you’d think that, since America kills its worst criminals, and locks most of the other bad ones up for life, that the ones let free would be less likely to reoffend, relative to the worst in Norway that were released after less than 21 years, right? Wrong – Norway’s likelihood of reoffending (known as recidivism) is significantly less than that of America. Given this, you would think that their prison system would be extreme, right? I mean, if people are coming out of prison less likely to commit, they must have a much stricter prisons, right? Wrong again – the video shows a norwegian prison, which look much like a place that one might go for a school camp. The prisoners continue to work like a normal person, they live relatively normal lives, and there aren’t any fences or other such restrictions on their movements, either… and when they get out, they never want to go back.

So what is it about Norwegian culture that makes Norwegians so much less likely to commit crimes, and why is a prison system that looks almost like a camp so effective at reducing crime further? Well, it can’t be their immigration policy – 10% of Norwegian citizens are either first- or second-generation immigrants (meaning, either born in another country or the children of parents born in another country). This is somewhat comparable to (although most likely significantly less than) America’s numbers, with 10% of Americans being first-generation immigrants.

Could it be that they have a much more liberal culture? That when people are given more leeway in personal things, they’re less likely to do bad things? That recognising gay civil unions, for instance, might actually result in fewer drug users, or fewer people cheating the tax system? That when people are happier, they’re less likely to commit violent acts, or to otherwise try to harm other people?

Norway has  gay civil unions – they were the first country in the world to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. This, despite the fact that not only do they not currently have separation of church and state, but they actually have a state church, of which about 82% of citizens are members. And yet, their religious tolerance is great, and active participation in religion is actually quite low – apparently, as few as 3% of Norwegians go to church every Sunday.

And Norway is far more socialist than America. Obviously, they aren’t actually socialists, in the sense that Russia and China are socialists (they aren’t communist, by the way), but there’s far less capitalism than in America. And this is despite Norway being one of the per capita richest countries in the world. Could this also be contributing to this difference? Well, let’s look at something more…

Norway is far more of a welfare state than America. So you’d think that, with their generosity to the unemployed, there’d be rampant unemployment, right? Wrong once more – 2.4% was their unemployment rate in 2008, when America’s unemployment rate was 4.6%.

Is there any doubt about it? Improve overall quality of life, and crime drops. Imagine if America implemented such an approach to government – you could very easily have a great country. Australia, too, should be implementing this – I am under no illusion that Australia is anywhere near this quality.

So what’s standing in the way? Well, it’s probably the ultra-conservative, ultra-capitalist way that America conducts itself, and its general fear of *real* liberalism and *real* social welfare. Why improve everyone’s quality of life when there’s rhetoric at stake?

And you know, I really should come up with something to end my posts, as sort of a “tag” if you will. Rob Galbreath uses “Save Completed”, for instance. So, here’s one I’ll start trialling…

We can change the world, if only we try.

There was a recent post on Kotaku about Journalism versus Criticism, which refers to a comment by someone during a roundtable on the issue of reviews, and how to write them. In that comment, the person notices that, when most sites review a game, they’re actually trying to critique it, even though that isn’t the purpose of reviews.

The point, of course, is that reviews are, as he puts it, “consumer reports on the elements of a game that advise the person of what they’re buying”. In other words, they’re intended to inform the reader on what they’re buying, rather than to work out how artistic and innovative a game is.

The difference between a review and what most sites have been doing can easily be seen by looking at instances such as Wii Fit. When they review it, they focus more on what Nintendo could have done to make the game better, more artistic. They then rate the game according to the same set of rules that would apply to a game such as GTA IV or MGS 4 – two games that are clearly a world apart from Wii Fit.

Review ratings, at this point in time, seem to focus on trying to identify which games are most innovative and/or “artistic”. This is why Super Mario Galaxy is one of the highest-rated games of all time, along with GTA IV – both games aim to be innovative and artistic. Meanwhile, Super Smash Bros Brawl and Mario Kart Wii, although of greater value to most gamers than Super Mario Galaxy, get lower ratings, because  they’re less innovative and less artistic.

So, it’s time to change all that. We can still have our “critiques” of games, we can have people who play the game specifically to identify flaws and ways to improve the game, work out just how innovative and artistic the game is… but we should return the “review” to what it should be – a summary of the game, and talk of its value to the consumer.

For a while, I’ve had an idea for a scheme by which games could get a “review rating”, which actually fits this idea perfectly. Instead of rating a game according to how good the graphics, the sound, the controls, or the presentation of the game are, rate according to how much the game should be worth to different types of gamer. For instance, Wii Fit wouldn’t be of that great a value to someone who specifically prefers FPS games, but it would be much more valuable to those who like to use their body more. As such, perhaps the former would be willing to pay AU$50 for the game, while the latter would be willing to pay AU$150 for it. Thus, if we define the value based on the assumption that a game worth AU$100 is precisely equal to 10 points, then the rating would be 5 for the former, and 15 for the latter.

Why is this a good system? Suppose that, tomorrow, Nintendo dropped the price of the game from AU$150 to AU$50 – now, the game would be worth getting for the average FPS fan. For most of the time that Wii Fit has been available, it has been available for about AU$120 or so, if you shop in the right place. Suppose that some particular group gets a rating of 11 for the game – now, if the game goes on sale for only AU$110, it would be worth getting, but not at the current best-price of AU$120. Therefore, the rating tells people how much they should pay for the game, rather than trying to tell them how artistic it is. Another good example is Wii Play – it’s not that great a game, really, but for $10 in combination with a controller, it’s worth it. Sure, the game is really only worth maybe a 1 or a 1.5, but that’s how much it costs, so it’s as good a deal as, say, Sonic Unleashed, which is worth about a 6, and is currently selling for about AU$60.

Why have the points set to an arbitrary number, rather than the actual price? Because different countries have different prices, and different people have different standards for how much a game is worth. Therefore, while the reviewers might be using 10 = AU$100, someone in America may interpret 10 to equate to US$45, even though AU$100 games tend to cost US$50. In this way, the rating becomes region and personally agnostic.

But of course, as I pointed out before, different groups of people would have different standards – some would pay more for an FPS game, and less for a party game. Others might prefer violent games, and dislike games with a lot of colour. Still others may absolutely love offline multiplayer, or online modes, or pick-up-and-play gaming. Where relevant, the value to each of these groups should be accounted for.

And this is why each game would get more than one value – usually four or five. For instance, MySims might get a rating for casual gamers, hardcore gamers, Sims fans, and fans of games that involve creativity – each of these are significant for this game, and thus ratings should be given for these groups. On the other hand, FPS-lovers probably don’t need to be told that MySims isn’t really for them – and they fall neatly into the “hardcore gamer” category.

Of course, the specific implementation is up to the particular site hosting the reviews. Perhaps it would be effective to have categories by which games are given values – for instance, “creativity”, “challenge”, “violence”, etc, would all get values. And then, the user can choose what typethey fall into, and that type would give weightings to each of the categories. Or perhaps a manual system is better.

Suffice it to say, an approach like this would be more informative to gamers – it would tell them just how much the game is worth to them (to the best of the reviewer’s ability),  and the value of the rating wouldn’t be in any way dependent on the current price of the game.

And of course, if a game is one that people should immediately buy, the value can be well above the recommended retail price – for instance, a game that costs AU$100 could very well be given a 20 – meaning, even if some place is charging double price, it’s still worth it.

First, there’s E3. I made a prediction that E3 would be huge this year… I was off by a long, long shot. The thing is, had I actually paid attention to how Nintendo would view E3, and Nintendo’s overall strategy, I would have seen what was to come from a mile away. For you see, Nintendo placed a lot of their focus at E3 on peripherals and casual games. The only real “core” announcement was that GTA would be coming to the DS. As you can see by looking a couple of blog posts back, I made predictions of a long list of titles revealed at E3… and yes, I was way off. Most “core” gamers were waiting for a repeat of Nintendo’s spectacular E3 2006, and thus were beyond disappointed when it was merely comparable to E3 2007.

Mind you, the announcements that were made weren’t all that bad – a new peripheral that would make the Wiimote significantly more sensitive to rotational motion, thus allowing 1-to-1 motion control, along with a game that shows off its capabilities. A voice chat solution in the form of the “Wii Speak” microphone, to be introduced late in 2008 along with the newest entry in the Animal Crossing series.  Wii Music to be released in 2008 was also announced, with gameplay shown off… albeit rather poorly.

None of this on its own would be a problem. The problem was that they didn’t announce anything else of significance, resulting in a lacklustre E3 presentation. But as I said, we should have seen it coming from a mile away. Why?

Because E3 changed between 2006 and 2007. In 2006, it was the Electronics Entertainment Expo, an event for the gaming public first and foremost. It was also Nintendo’s big coming-out, their chance to show off the Wii in all its glory. In 2007, E3 had become the “E3 media and business summit” – that’s right, a summit for media and business, not for the public. Indeed, the public weren’t even allowed in. In both 2007 and 2008, Nintendo targetted their presentations to who would actually be in attendance – mainstream media and potential investors. And there’s nothing that the mainstream media and potential investors love more than peripherals and simple games that’ll sell hugely well, unless it’s the announcement of an extremely huge franchise showing up on a Nintendo platform – GTA.

What’s more, there was a significant risk that Microsoft or Sony would start actually “attacking” Nintendo by shifting towards the new value system that Nintendo introduced with the Wii.  That, too, was a good reason for Nintendo to emphasise their “casual” expanded audience side. However, neither Microsoft nor Sony bothered to attack Nintendo, thus making Nintendo’s defensive mode useless – Microsoft and Sony instead targetted each other, as they have done so many times before.

Disaster suddenly popped up on the OFLC’s classifications board, despite rumours that it had been cancelled. A couple of weeks later, details and screenshots of the game started to show up again, and surely enough, the game was still on its way. It has now been released in Japan, and will be releasing in PAL regions in November. Strangely, Nintendo aren’t releasing it in America until they see how it performs in other regions… an odd choice, given that Disaster’s style best suits the American core gamer crowd, and the game itself is set in America. Suffice it to say, the confirmation that this game was coming in 2008 was a nice surprise.

More games have been announced for the Wii, too – for instance, Cursed Mountain is yet another survival horror title. But most of these announcements happened at the next two significant conferences.

The first of these was Nintendo’s Fall conference, which was really two conferences – one in Japan, the other in America, held on the same day. Some “hardcore” gamers say that this was Nintendo making up for their poor E3 showing. Those with a critical eye, however, see that it was a matter of audience – at E3, it was mainstream media and potential investors. At this Fall conference, it was gaming media almost exclusively. And what did Nintendo announce there?

First Party titles: Punch Out, Sin and Punishment 2, Trace Memory Wii, Endless Ocean 2,  Cosmic Walker, Dynamic Slash, Tact of Magic, Spawn Smasher, and Line Attack Heroes, as well as Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon and Mario & Luigi 3 on the DS, and I believe there were a couple more DS titles, too.

Third Party titles: Let’s Tap, 428, Family Ski World Ski and Snowboard, Dynasty Warriors, Joysound, Tenchu 4, Harvest Moon: Animal March, Rune Factory Frontier, as well as a number of DS titles. And the biggest of the revelations? Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: Echoes of Time to release on Wii and DS with connectivity, separate from The Crystal Bearers.

And then there’s the “Play on Wii” line of Wiimakes of classic Nintendo Gamecube first-party titles, like Pikmin, Metroid Prime, and Donkey Kong Jungle Beat. And Nintendo reconfirmed  the existence of Pikmin 3, distinct from the Wiimake of Pikmin. And they announced the DSi, which is a half-generation step up from the DS Lite – much as the GameBoy experienced a half-generation step in the form of GameBoy Colour.

And then there’s TGS, where many, many DS titles and Wii titles were shown off, even though Nintendo themselves weren’t there. Arc Rise Fantasia, Little King’s Story, Sonic Unleashed, and others were in attendance… but bigger news came, in the form of Suda 51, who announced that the sequel to No More Heroes, called “No More Heroes: Desperate Struggle”, was revealed to be coming to the Wii exclusively. And it’s not the only info to come from TGS, either… but my post has gone on long enough.

Suffice it to say, the Wii is looking to have a blockbuster year, as is the DS/DSi. And to think, we don’t even know a quarter of the titles that we’ll be seeing next year.

When Xbox 360 gamers protest, Ubisoft replies, “You guys don’t know business. We must appeal to the demographics of the system.” You only appeal to demographics if you are running for Congress. Politicians pander. Businesses make products. If your product’s differentiation is just pandering, it won’t sell. If the product’s differentiation is better performing a job, it will sell.

And this is what made me stop and think. I didn’t even finish reading the article (I will after posting this), because I was too inspired to focus on reading.

Why do politicians pander? Why do people running for congress, or political appointments in general, appeal to demographics?

Could it be that politics is the one industry – and yes, it’s an industry – that has failed to produce a single true disruption since the introduction of democracy? Perhaps the problem is that people think you have to work within the system to change it, and by the time they’re in the system, they’re already corrupted by it? Could this be where the world has gone wrong – allowing politics to stagnate into the murky waters that are now found around the world? We have leaders in many countries being investigated for various wrongdoings, a large proportion of the world is suffering under various pains (such as AIDS, famine, etc), and worse.

And through all of this, politics hasn’t changed. Sure, the specific issues that are the focus of the era have changed, but the methods have only been refined. As Sean Malstrom, and before him, the authors of a number of books, have pointed out, disruption occurs when a new value set is introduced, when prevailing tradition and standards are scaled back in preference for the new and different.

People are clearly hungering for change in politics. This is how Obama is doing so well, and his being “black” only helps that image. But it’s all a facade. I have nothing against Obama, of the two current American presidential nominees I hope Americans choose Obama. Between Obama and McCain, Obama does, indeed, represent change. But it’s not nearly enough of a change. In videogame terms, Obama brings the idea of shoulder buttons to politics – it’s something that alters how things are played, but not by all that much. What we need is motion controls, to continue the analogy.

Even that small amount of change almost guarantees that Obama will win. If the SNES had released with a slightly modified NES controller, there is little doubt that the Sega Mega Drive would have easily outsold it. It was the small changes that ensured that Nintendo would remain on top. But in the end, as Malstrom has said a number of times, it was only the next generation, not a new one. And that’s what Obama is – he’s the next generation of politics.

But why are we allowing politics to continue to yet another “next generation”? It’s time for politics to experience disruption, for the “new generation” of politics to begin. It is time for a grassroots effort to get people interested in politics again, by making politics interesting again. In most democracies, politics has become bland, to the point that many would have trouble naming high-ranking political leaders such as America’s house minority leader. The entertainment industry continually refreshes itself, it is always being disrupted in one way or another, but politics has become dry and boring.

Could it be that the problem is that politicians are pandering? That they are appealing to demographics, rather than, as Sean Malstrom says in terms of video games, focusing on jobs? When an American politician tries to get elected to congress, they appeal to demographics – they sell themselves as a person who can, for instance, serve the best interests of the religious bloc. They pander to demographics, and because they’re all doing it, it starts to get boring. As a result, those who do take interest in politics generally become highly partisan, much as happens with videogame fanboys.

Why are there either broad-platform parties or single-issue parties? Why do politicians, more often than not, get elected based on their personal opinions rather than their abilities? It can be partially blamed on the system – when it’s a popular vote, it’s the popular candidate who wins. But much more importantly, it can also be blamed on politicians – they pander, and when they pander, they pander to those things that people feel passionate about – their opinions. And thus we find ourselves, as a world, in a bad situation.

What if someone were to form a new political party? One that, rather than focusing on opinions and pandering, instead directed all of their energy into promoting a structured arrangement where each candidate, although representing an area, brings something specific to the table? What if each candidate in this new political party were to be chosen to serve a specific job, rather than being chosen to represent some key demographic? What if the political party chose to not be partisan, nor bipartisan, but entirely nonpartisan? To have candidates of all types, with just one unifying property – a desire to improve the country.

Perhaps then, instead of having the constant bickering and partisan politics that we find in most modern democracies, we might be able to produce a government that is capable of representing everyone by focusing on the jobs, rather than the demographics. The representatives might be able to have a freeflowing exchange of ideas, and compromise might be easy and sensible. Leaders would be chosen, not based on who is most likely to win the election, but who is the most capable of performing in the position of leader.

By changing the focus from demographics to jobs, I honestly think that we, as a global society, could make amazing progress. What’s more, it naturally satisfies both major persuasions – the right wing likes the idea of a free market, and the government as a business would be most effective if that business worked based on jobs rather than demographics. The left wing, on the other hand, likes the idea of government working for the people in a progressive manner, and a government based on jobs would involve the representatives working at jobs progressively, rather than always being partisan and, as a result, being held back.

The people who are going to absolutely hate such a party are the current politicians. Certainly, some will embrace the new approach, as they were only working within the system because they had to, but the majority of politicians, who have refined the current political system values to their utmost, won’t want to be returned to being on equal footing with others, again. These politicians are the biggest roadblock to the implementation of this disruption, as, unlike other industries, politics involves the “companies” (read: political parties) actually having power over countries directly, and they can change laws to try to keep these things down.

Fortunately, grassroots activism on an issue like this is very difficult to kill – even with law changes, they would be unable to keep it down. Slowly, more and more people would be converted, and all the while the political pundits and the politicians and political fanboys will proclaim that this is the end of the world, that this will lead to the downfall of the nation, that it’s a fad, etc. It would work very much like what we have already seen in instances such as the Wii. As Sean Malstrom has said before, disruption is difficult to counter, and very rarely does true disruption fail.

OK, I’ve said my piece – I’d like to see what others feel about my suggestion. Do you think it’s a viable approach? Could we truly change politics with something like this, or is it still just tinkering at the edges? I would particularly love to hear Sean Malstrom’s take on this, as he seems to be developing into a true expert on disruption.

This “something” is a noticeable change. It began, as I see it, with the announcement of a new engine, aiming to give the Wii graphics comparable to standard-definition Xbox 360 or PS3 graphics. The company that made the announcement was High Voltage Software, and the engine was Quantum3. To go with this new engine, High Voltage Software also announced a new game, called The Conduit, which has caught the interest of many avid gamers.

With this announcement, many avid gamers released a massive breath that they had collectively been holding since not long after the Wii was launched. Finally, a third party developer looked to be treating the Wii as a serious system that deserved quality content. Of course, I exaggerate slightly – there were already a number of developers who had made quality titles, including Capcom, Konami, and Sega. Capcom stands out amongst this list, with quality ports (Resident Evil 4), new quality IPs (Zack & Wiki), and new AAA titles (Monster Hunter 3). However, The Conduit and Quantum3 stood out – this was a company making a statement: The Wii is a quality platform, worth making quality games for.

The Conduit, however, was just the beginning.

Slowly, other developers started to announce games. What began as a refreshing new whiff of air started to become much more than that. The developers of Call of Duty 5 (now named Call of Duty: World at War) revealed that the Wii version of their game would be using a Wii version of the Call of Duty 4 engine – an engine that produced one of the most popular HD titles since the current generation began. Along with this, it was also revealed that another game by the same people, the James Bond title, Quantum of Solace, would also be using this engine.

The was also a blast of putrid rotten-egg filled air from one particular direction – Ubisoft announced that their lineup consisted of a very poor Wii port of what looked to be a quality Xbox 360/PS3 title, a third title in the same franchise, all on the Wii, with each installment coming less than a year apart, and two pure shovelware titles. This acrid, smoky air got many avid gamers into a true fury, and unfortunately, another developer announced their newest Wii exclusive title not long after this.

The developer was the aforementioned Capcom, and the title was Spyborgs. Initially, there were some lacklustre screenshots for the title, at which point the avid gamers started lumping Capcom’s air in with Ubisoft’s. Then the video came, revealing the inadequacy of the screenshots in demonstrating the quality of the title. However, many avid gamers still felt burned by Ubisoft’s acidic air, and as a result Capcom still received a backlash. Capcom hastened to assure gamers, however, that Spyborgs was a AAA title, getting full funding, etc. In short, Capcom were treating the Wii correctly.

But the fresh air didn’t end there – we saw more titles announced. We learned that Guitar Hero: World Tour, the next big installment in the series, would provide the Wii with downloadable content, online functionality, and more. Electronic Arts revealed that the Wii would not only be getting more exclusive MySims titles, but also an entirely new Simcity designed for the Wii. We discovered that not only would we be getting exclusive multiplayer content in Star Wars: The Force Unleashed, but that we would also be getting another Star Wars title – The Clone Wars.

Little King’s Story finally started to show up, and has once more caught the interest it had when we first learned about who was making “Project ‘O’”. Tales of Symphonia started to be shown off. Another major addition to the lineup came from Sega, who were publishing an incredibly violent game called Madworld, which ironically made a lot of gamers happy. We learned of EA’s Wii version of Skate, known as Skate It.

But all of this comes to nothing without the statements by that great third party developer/publisher, Capcom. They stated that the reason for Wii games being lacklustre so far has been because developers were caught unaware by the Wii’s success. As such, they started development of titles for the Wii later than they should have, and thus only the lesser, weaker titles have been appearing so far. But as we pass the 18 month mark, higher tier titles are starting to turn up.

Capcom continued by hinting that there’s a huge, top-secret, Wii title on the way from Capcom. When taken as a pair with the other comment, it is strongly being suggested that E3 will be big for Nintendo, this year, as it was two years ago when Miyamoto conducted a Mii orchestra, Ubisoft showed Red Steel, and a huge lineup of titles was announced.

So here’s just some of what we can expect (none is confirmed, obviously, but what fun is writing an article without any speculation?):

• Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: The Crystal Bearers – revealed over two years ago, the game hasn’t been seen for about a year, yet Square Enix are almost certainly still working on it. It’s basically certain to show up, and to be an amazing unveiling.
• Monster Hunter 3 – revealed to be coming exclusively to the Wii after having previously been announced for the PS3, this title is certain to show up at E3, and if old screenshots are to be trusted, it’s going to be one great title.
• Capcom’s ‘top-secret’ title – some think this is Mega Man, others think it’s Resident Evil, or Street Fighter 4. I won’t try to guess which series it is, but the hint suggests it’s a major entry into a well-known franchise, and the fact it’s being kept top-secret suggests that it’s going to be a great game.
• Red Steel 2 – in spite of my disgust at Ubisoft, I still hold out hope for this one title. With the first game having been one of the first ever third-party million sellers on the Wii, Ubisoft would be insane not to make a sequel, and with more than two years of development time behind it, it could be a great title. Or, Ubisoft could make it as bad as their other Wii titles… I guess we wait until E3 to find out the true status of this title.
• Spore – the amazing Will Wright is making this game, and EA and Mr Wright can’t seem to decide whether to confirm or not that the Wii is coming… but it’s certainly established that it is coming. And it is almost certainly going to show itself at E3.
• New Square Enix games – Square Enix has a certain modus operandi in the industry – they always throw their strongest support, by far, to the system with the biggest market share. Square have made a point to announce their Xbox 360 titles already, and they have an event scheduled for after E3 to announce and display various PS3, PSP, and DS titles. This just leaves their Wii lineup, which is almost a lock for E3. What can we expect? Who knows – we’ll have to wait and see. Most likely, we’ll be seeing Kingdom Hearts 3, a new Dragon Quest title, perhaps even a Wii-specific Final Fantasy XIII title.
• Another Activision CoD4-powered Wii title – Activision has gone to the effort of porting the CoD4 engine to the Wii, it’s highly likely that the engine will get used for at least one more title (in addition to Call of Duty 5 and Quantum of Solace, both of which will show at E3, most likely). For the fun of it, I’ll make a prediction – I think it will be a new Infinity Ward IP, most likely a shooter title aimed at a different type of experience than that found in the Call of Duty series. I also expect that it will be a title released on all three current-gen consoles.
• SSX 4 – Making use of the Balance Board, I expect this title to appear on the Wii with a significant graphical boost over that seen in SSX Blur. I also expect this to be multiplatform, but with the Wii being the primary platform.
• Elebits 2 – We know it’s coming, we just don’t know when. This title is expected to take what was great about Elebits, and make it a whole lot better. And this game has something in common with my next prediction:
• Portal Wii – Featuring the innovative gameplay of the original PC title, I expect this version to be an updated version, with extra content, Wiimote controls, and perhaps even a sneak preview of what is to be expected from Portal 2. It may also share its position with Team Fortress 2 or Half Life 2, but that’s all speculation. And of course, in porting this game over to the Wii, the most likely approach will be to port the Source engine over, which is why the next prediction is:
• Left 4 Dead – not an entirely unjustified suspicion, as Valve hinted as much in a recent inteview, and it makes sense – if they’re going to port the Source engine across, this would be one title that would be a good choice to bring with it. And given the success of Resident Evil 4, perhaps there’s more reason to expect it.
• Beyond Good & Evil 2 – Ubisoft have said it’s PS3/360, but my gut instinct tells me that Michel Ancel wouldn’t accept that from Ubisoft – I think it’s being made for all three current-gen consoles, and Ubisoft were hinting at that when they said they wanted it to be more “accessible”. Expect it at E3 – Ubisoft may be making crappy titles, but Michel Ancel is the Miyamoto of Ubisoft, and can be expected to make a great Wii version.
• A THQ title – we know about De Blob and Deadly Creatures, but THQ have been particularly quiet recently. I think there’s a big Wii title on the way, perhaps even two. One might be a new Summoner title. The other might be related to Saint’s Row. I think both are coming, but whether both will show at E3 is another matter entirely.
• Koei Wii title – Koei have been particularly quiet, recently. Perhaps they’ve got something ready for the Wii.
• Shenmue III – Sega’s already got Sonic Unleashed and MadWorld, but perhaps there’s more from them – they certainly seem to be putting extra effort into the Wii, recently. Shenmue is another of Sega’s older franchises screaming for rebirth, and perhaps E3 08 might be the place for it to happen, on the Wii.
• Phantasy Star Wii – if Nintendo are announcing a hard drive or other storage space for the Wii at E3, as many are expecting (especially given DLC in Guitar Hero IV), this would be a title Sega would be certain to choose to debut with the new peripheral.
• Ninja Gaiden Wii – Tecmo have Fatal Frame IV coming, as well as Tecmo Bowl, but could we expect this as well? Ninja Gaiden Dragon Sword for the DS seems to be getting a following, and the Wii is a system that would suit the series well, I think, as long as it isn’t implemented poorly.
• A surprise SNK title – SNK have made basically nothing but anthologies over the last couple of years. Perhaps they were just filler titles while they worked on their bigger titles. They’ve certainly got some interesting IPs to work from, and they really haven’t been moved into the modern gaming world, yet. Could we be in for some 3D Metal Slug, for instance?
• A new Sierra game – King’s Quest, maybe? It would be well-suited to the Wii, in my opinion.

Anyway, those are just a few examples of what I expect to see at E3. I think we’re in for a big lineup, based on what we already know.

Let us begin with a simple listing of the four key rules that one must follow in making a Wii game, if you want that game to be a success. These four key rules will be elaborated on further below, but for now, let’s put it in terms simple enough for even the slowest amongst you to understand.

1. Set a reasonable budget for the game. Don’t skimp - you may be able to eke out some sales from a low quality game, but you’ll see far greater returns if you give the game a bigger budget.
2. Give the game a reasonable development timeframe. 2 months is never sufficient for a game.
3. Advertise and hype the game until everyone in the appropriate demographic knows about it. Make sure the advertising and hype are appropriately targetted.
4. Set quality requirements, and if a game isn’t of sufficient quality at the end of its development timeframe, delay the game. A bad game that is delayed can become good. A bad game that is released immediately will always be a bad game.

These four key rules are essential to success on the Wii. These same four key rules can be seen to be applied to almost every game Nintendo makes, and this, not Nintendo’s popularity, is the key to Nintendo’s first-party success on the Wii, on the DS, and in anything else they do. Even Nintendo have their flops, occasionally they produce a game that fails significantly on one of the key points, but their greatest games are always controlled by these rules.

Let’s delve a little deeper, now, and see some evidence supporting these key rules, as well as going into greater detail on the workings of these rules.

First, we have the Budget key. A game made with $10,000 might be able to pull $20,000 profit, but a game with a $2 million budget has a far greater chance of pulling over $10 million in profit. This is because a better quality game is generally a more popular game, given equal advertising and hype. This rule scales with the genre and the platform, meaning that a game made with $1 million on the Wii for a casual puzzle game is probably a little more than necessary, and significantly more than necessary if the game is for Wiiware, but such a budget would be insufficient for an epic RPG game.

This key is essential, because without sufficient funds, the developers must cut corners, resulting in a lower quality game. This can be seen by comparing Activision’s Call of Duty 3 with Ubisoft’s Far Cry Vengeance. Both were launch titles, both were FPS shooters, both used the Wii remote for point-and-shoot gaming. However, Call of Duty 3 sold 370,000 units, whereas Far Cry Vengeance managed a meagre 60,000 units.

So where’s the difference? Neither game was particularly well advertised. The only other factor is quality. However, as both were launch titles, neither had extended development timeframes, nor did either of them get significant quality assurance. We can thus conclude that the difference lies in budgets. Call of Duty 3 for the Wii was one of a number of versions of the game, and across the versions, the game got a significant budget. Far Cry Vengeance, however, was one of a number of Ubisoft titles that were thrown at consumers with minimal budget, and thus the quality was far lower. Far Cry Vengeance is, to date, the 12th-lowest-rated Wii title, out of more than 210 games released so far. Call of Duty 3, on the other hand comes in at 82nd best.

This key, you see, is budget. Ubisoft have openly admitted to producing most of their Wii titles with meagre budgets, and thus they have found very weak profits from the system, just 10% of their total profit. This is the result of giving games insufficient budgets, and this is why Ubisoft games have, on the whole, been struggling.

Key 2 is timeframe. A game given a reasonable timeframe to be developed will come out better than one that is rushed, and a better game is a more popular game. This can be observed by examining a number of Wii launch titles, which people openly stated should have been delayed, as they were not ready for launch. These games invariably started development relatively late, and developers rushed the games out to make a deadline. A good example of this is Marvel: Ultimate Alliance, by Activision. This game had potential, but simply lacked any sort of polish – instead of being a popular game, the game flopped. It was not a bad game, in truth, but it required another 3 months or so to get it truly ready for release, 3 months which it did not receive.

In truth, the game didn’t do too bad, netting 270,000 sales in America, but this was in spite of decent pre-launch hype. However, the game could have done far better than it did. Another more recent title with this problem was Ubisoft’s Rayman Raving Rabbids 2. This game, following in the footsteps of the hugely popular launch title, Rayman Raving Rabbids, and had the potential to be an even better title than the first. However, development of the game didn’t even begin until after the first was released, which gave it less than a year to be created. This proved to be insufficient time, as the game contained less content than its predecessor, with only a couple of significant innovations to keep the game fresh. As such, in spite of releasing during the christmas period, with a bigger install base to work from than the original, the game didn’t sell quite as well as the original. This result is due to the game being rushed, and thus being a lower quality game – this is reflected in the game’s ratings, which were noticeably lower than those of its predecessor.

And so, we come to the most notable of the keys – advertising and hype. A game that people know about will do better than one they don’t know about; that’s a self-evident truth. As such, a game should be advertised and hyped in such a way that the target audience actually know the game exists. Furthermore, the advertising should go some way to showing why the target audience should buy the game.

This effect can be seen quite neatly with a number of games, but let us begin with Ubisoft’s Rayman Raving Rabbids series. This series has been under a state of constant hype since well before the first was released. It began with some funny little videos involving “facts” about bunnies, such as “Bunnies don’t like taking a bath“. Since then, there have been many videos and images of CG rabbids running around in the real world, doing various crazy things. As a result, the game was a hit with the core crowd, even though the game was weak on at least two of the other keys, and the game was designed with a more casual feel.

The game flopped on other platforms, which also demonstrates the importance of making a quality title. Even a heavily hyped game will flop if the quality isn’t there in sufficient amount. This is proving to be true of Ubisoft’s PS3 title, Haze. Hyped heavily, and advertised extensively, the game has already started a rapid drop in sales in the second week of it being out. This demonstrates that advertising and hype isn’t the only key. Had Rayman Raving Rabbids 2 had the quality there, in combination with the hype, it would have outsold the original by far – but the lack of quality meant that it didn’t perform any better, in spite of equal hype.

Hype – it’s what allowed Red Steel to sell over a million copies in spite of flawed controls and a relatively weak story. It’s what allowed Sonic and the Secret Rings to make nearly 1.4 million sales, and keeps Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games on top of sales charts. It’s what makes the lacklustre Mario Party 8 one of the best-selling titles, and it’s what makes Carnival Games such a popular game. It’s why LEGO Star Wars is selling so well on all platforms.

Lack of Hype – it’s why No More Heroes didn’t do as well as it could have. It’s what held Dewy’s Adventure, Elebits, Zack & Wiki, and Medal of Honor: Heroes 2 back from being million-sellers. It’s why NiGHTS and Super Swing Golf struggled, and why Nintendo’s own Battalion Wars II hasn’t even made 150,000 copies sold, yet. Without hype, the game will invariably struggle, as it must sell based almost solely on word-of-mouth advertising.

And this produces an effective segue to the final key, quality assurance. A game that isn’t up to scratch will always do poorly. You can hype it as much as you want, but without quality to back it up, sales of the game will drop rapidly following launch, leaving you with a game that promised the world, and gave little. Without quality, you don’t get the essential secondary form of hype, word-of-mouth advertising.

This form of advertising is driven by the consumer themselves. When a person buys, say, Mario Kart Wii, they enjoy it thoroughly, and recommend it to their Wii-owning friends. Those friends then buy the game, play it, and recommend it to THEIR Wii-owning friends, and so the chain goes. This chain works well irrespective of whether other forms of hype are applied or not, but the scale is far larger if backed with a proper hype machine.

Games that get this word-of-mouth advertising can be identified by their continued sales. Microsoft’s Halo 3, for instance, was hyped extensively (indeed, it was the most hyped game in history), whereas Activision’s Call of Duty 4 (for the 360 - the game also was released for the PS3) did not get much hype, relatively speaking. As such, at launch, Halo 3 broke sales records, seeing almost 4 million sales in the first week. However, sales of Halo 3 dropped relatively rapidly, whereas Call of Duty 4′s sales, which began with a more modest 1 million sales, has remained higher on the charts, and sales have been more consistent. As a result, Halo 3 has sold almost 8 million, while Call of Duty 4 has sold over 6 million on the 360 alone. Last week alone, Call of Duty 4 sold over 50,000 copies, whereas Halo 3 only sold 27,000 copies. If we add Call of Duty 4′s PS3 sales, we now find Call of Duty 4 outselling Halo 3 in total sales, with combined weekly sales almost four times that of Halo 3.

The effect is seen just as easily on the Wii. Both No More Heroes and Zack & Wiki have performed moderately well, in spite of little direct hyping of the games. This is because both games are high quality, and get the word-of-mouth sales bonus. Similarly, in spite of reviewers being critical of Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games, the game continues to stay on top of the charts, at least in part due to word-of-mouth - it may not have been the best game, but it was a lot of fun.  Similarly, Trauma Center: Second Opinion, a critically acclaimed game that received little hype, has still managed a respectable 530,000 copies sold, no doubt due mostly to word-of-mouth hype, driven by its high quality.

So there you have it - four keys, each of which is… well, key… to success on the Wii. All of the top-selling titles share these four keys, whether they are casual or core, Nintendo first-party or third-party, colourful or realistic, mature or kiddy. Games in the lower ranges of success are found to have most of these keys, but not all of them, thus showing that each key contributes in part to success on the Wii, with all four coming together to produce huge sales. This can be seen in Super Smash Bros Brawl – the game was given a huge budget, it had a decent timeframe to be created in, it was hyped as much as it could be reasonably hyped, and the game was delayed until the developer was truly satisfied that it was high quality.

The game is now at 3.7 million copies sold in the United States alone, and over 1.7 million in Japan. The game has yet to be released in Europe or Australia, but it is expected to sell just as well, if not better. Discounting Wii Sports (bundled with the Wii system) and Wii Play (bundled with a Wii remote, which is the main reason for purchasing it), the only game that has outsold Brawl is Super Mario Galaxy, which is a game that has been out significantly longer, was released prior to christmas (thus getting a sales boost), and released in all regions… and even then, Brawl has outsold Galaxy in both regions that it has been released in. This, in spite of Galaxy being a more “accessible” game, being released in time for the christmas rush, and well before Brawl, and being critically acclaimed. Galaxy, also, had all four keys, but Brawl had two things up on Galaxy – it was more core, and it had more content. These are minor keyrings that help boost the effect of the keys.

So remember, all of you Wii game developers – budget, timeframe, hype, and quality assurance are the essentials for making a successful Wii game, and these keys work as well for other developers as they do for Nintendo – the difference is, Nintendo uses all four keys most of the time, and thus have far greater success. You want to make huge profit from the Wii? Wield all four keys. It’s the only way. And please, don’t do as Ubisoft has done, and ignore all four keys in a drive to make more “casual” retard games – such an approach may give you slightly more profits over the very short term, but in the long term, a shovelware image is hard to shake, and will inevitably harm the chances of making decent profits off future titles.

As I was saying, people talk extensively on what Nintendo is doing, and yet, very few actually understand what Nintendo is doing, to the extent that they make outrageous claims and demands. And it is this that I will be talking about in this post.

I will start with the very point which inspired me to write this post – Wii channels. Go to just about any gaming site that has forums for Wii, and you’ll hear people complaining that there aren’t enough interesting channels on the Wii, that Nintendo are wasting a huge opportunity, that their channels are uninspired and weak offerings, and that Nintendo needs to bring more interesting channels more frequently.

There’s no nice way to say this – they’re all wrong. Every one of them. Nintendo’s channel system is moving exactly the way that it was designed to (although there are certain additions I think would make sense based on their strategy – more about that later). It’s not a selling point of the Wii – people aren’t going to buy the Wii just so that they can get access to the “DVD playback channel” or the “Music download channel”. The Wii isn’t a multimedia system, it’s designed for one thing – games. The channels that they provide serve three purposes – either getting people to use the system, or advertising their games, or providing low-level games for entertainment purposes.

And in this, each of the channels can be categorised into these three purposes – News Channel, Forecast Channel, Internet Channel, and Photo Channel, for instance are all designed to get people using the system. They’re non-games designed to get people comfortable with the wiimote, while providing an experience sufficient to get people using it more than once in a blue moon. Similarly, Nintendo Channel and Wii Shop Channel are all about advertising and sales. The third category, the “low-level games”, have the Mii channel, Mii Contest Channel (known as Check Mii Out in America), and the channels that are installed by games (such as the Wii Fit Channel).

Even where there is overlap (Internet Channel is also set up to allow flash games designed around the Wiimote, for instance), the channels fit within these categories. Any channel that doesn’t fall into one of these categories, you shouldn’t expect on the Wii. If the channel doesn’t fall into one of these categories, then the channel will not be advantageous for Nintendo to release onto the system. As such, the only way to expect anything with such non-advantageous functionality is to expect it to be non-free purchases. A DVD-playing channel, for instance, would only be useful for Nintendo if they charged a reasonable fee for people to get it. Indeed, I expect something like this to happen, some time down the line, when system sales start to taper off, as a way to increase revenue.

There are, however, channels which Nintendo should consider introducing. One such channel that I have thought of is a “Funny section” channel. This would provide a number of daily comics as well as a few daily puzzles, in emulation of the funny section of the newspaper, as something for people to use on a morning as light entertainment, much as that section is normally used. Such a channel would pair well with the News and Forecast channels, which provide other services within this “newspaper-esque” field. This channel, by the way, falls somewhere between “light entertainment” and “getting people to use the Wiimote”.

But this reasoning must be extended to more than just the Wii’s channels. Nintendo is a company – their aim is to make money. Companies care about their consumers insofar as it is profitable. This is why Nintendo does not sell their system for less than cost-price (Sony and Microsoft do so because their systems would otherwise be too expensive, and they would not make profit from it). It is why Nintendo make games with Mario more often than necessary – Mario sells games. It is why Nintendo strive to make their games high quality and fun – if they’re fun, people will buy and play them. Everything Nintendo does must be interpreted under this context.

When people notice Nintendo’s choices regarding their online system,  they complain – Nintendo’s online system is “a joke”, and only serves to alienate consumers. People rail against Nintendo’s online system… but do they understand it? Why did Nintendo choose that system, and not another one? What is it about Nintendo’s online system that made Nintendo choose to use it? It can’t just be that it was simple, and it worked on the DS – Nintendo has never been a company to just re-use things without thought. Indeed, this is emphasised by the additional features that have been gradually introduced. Mario Kart Wii provides a number of great features, including the ability to join a room that contains a friend who is in a worldwide match (and thus join the worldwide match), the ability to send friend invites to people on your Wii List (avoiding the need to know your Friend Code for those people), the ability to add friends-of-friends to your friend list with a button-click, and so on.

“But,” the people complain, “where’s our voice chat?” Nintendo has plans for voice chat, that can be seen by the fact that voice chat is a potential selling point, and that Nintendo added it to a number of DS titles. However, what is the point of adding voice chat if you can’t make a little money out of it in the process? Nintendo has openly stated that all that needs to happen for voice chat to become part of the Wii is for a peripheral to be finalised. Anyone who thinks that Nintendo wouldn’t want to make money from a voice chat peripheral is kidding themselves – this is going to be a proprietary peripheral, and it’s most likely going to make an appearance at E3. If it doesn’t, people can look back at this part of my post and laugh all they want.

Anything else you want Nintendo to implement into their system, you need to stop and ask yourself: what’s in it for Nintendo? They’re not going to add anything that isn’t profitable for them, so answer this question, and you’ll know whether or not Nintendo are likely to add it. For instance, as much as people are annoyed at friend codes, what does Nintendo gain from switching to a “gamertag” style system? They don’t need to encourage further sales – they still can’t keep Wiis on the shelves as it is. They won’t sell more of those games, because people aren’t going to decide to play a game solely on the existence of a codename replacing their friend code. It’ll be extra work for Nintendo, for essentially no gain. And before anyone says anything about “PR”, I’ll repeat the point that, with Wiis constantly out of stock, there’s no need for additional PR boosts such as the one involved in introducing codenames.

This same reasoning applies to anything related to Nintendo, or to either of the other console makers… but you must always keep in mind, these companies are not infallible. Nintendo, as the market-leader, has no need to add more features, or anything like that. The others do, and thus are under greater stress to add things to try to boost sales. This is why, although it would be a bad business decision from Microsoft if they do it, it is entirely plausible that Microsoft will, indeed, release a motion-sensitive controller for the 360.  Similarly, Sony may indeed drop the price of their system even further in an attempt to attract more consumers, even though a price drop would have little effect on sales – it takes system-sellers to sell systems, not price drops. Why buy the system now, when there aren’t enough games to justify buying it, is the argument the consumer makes.

So remember, everyone - don’t just assume that, because you’d like it, it’s something Nintendo should do. Their job isn’t to satisfy you completely, but to make money.

And bringing that back to the original point, which is where I start to overlap with my last post, Nintendo aren’t ignoring the core gamer. The core gamer is the source of a [i]huge[/i] amount of profit for Nintendo. Nintendo simply wouldn’t make that mistake, since they’re the ones who basically [i]established[/i] the core gamer in the first place. If Nintendo were only caring about casual gamers, they wouldn’t be releasing games like Mario Kart Wii, Super Smash Bros Brawl, Disaster: Day of Crisis, Metroid Prime 3: Corruption, etc. These are games that sell predominantly to core gamers, and Nintendo haven’t been ignoring them. Indeed, we can expect the number of these games to start to ramp up over the life of the Wii, as more and more casual gamers are brought “upstream” into the core.

Now, if only third-parties would understand this, and help bring the gamers upstream into the core, they’d profit from the Wii just as Nintendo themselves are. But, as per a new Malstrom article (which I can’t find a way to link to), the big third-parties are lacking an understanding of Nintendo’s strategy, and as a result, it’s the small developers, like LostWinds’ “Frontier Developments” and Trauma Centre’s “Atlus” that will be the big winners other than Nintendo. These are the developers that will profit from the Wii, and may very well end up being much bigger by the end of the generation. And before anyone laughs at the idea, I’d like to point out that all the big companies right now started off as much smaller companies. Take Ubisoft, for instance – established in 1986, it wasn’t until Rayman’s release 10 years later that Ubisoft truly started to thrive. Now, just 12 years after that, they’re considered one of the biggest developers and publishers.

Sadly, those same 12 years that Ubisoft thrived in has left them weak and resistant to change, meaning that the time is ripe for them, and other huge developers, to be overthrown in preference for smaller, more dynamic ones. Fortunately, Nintendo, in its long time in the industry, has managed to remain nimble enough to actually stay relevant, perhaps in no small part due to Miyamoto’s genius. And it’s this agility that allows Nintendo to drive this revolution, not in games, but in developers. Slowly, the big developers (other than Ubisoft) are starting to ca

In simple terms, Nintendo’s plan is to first get non-gamers, infrequent gamers, and lapsed gamers playing their systems, then gradually moving these new gamers up from the simpler, ‘casual’ games towards the complex, ‘hardcore’ games. Meanwhile, other developers are failing to understand Nintendo’s strategy, and instead think that Nintendo’s success has come from some casual ‘fad’ that those developers want a piece of. When these other developers then fail with their casual titles, they blame it on Nintendo’s dominance on their platforms, claiming that third-party games don’t sell on Nintendo’s platforms.

The problem with this perspective is that Nintendo’s success hasn’t come from making casual games – any company can make a casual game. Nintendo’s success comes from their dedication to their games; when they want to have a game sell well, they put their best teams onto the development (notice how it was Miyamoto who made Wii Sports and Wii Fit, as well as Nintendogs). Third parties, on the other hand, put their third- or fourth-line teams on making casual games, thinking that they’re cheaper and easier, so there’s no need to actually put quality teams on them. As a result, these lower-quality ’casual’ titles flop.

Mr Malstrom even explains this in a concise manner: the industry thinks that ‘casual’ is a synonym for ‘retarded’, and thus consider casual titles to be titles designed for idiots. And so, rather than making games that are simple on the surface but deep underneath (as Nintendo does with their casual titles), these developers instead make shallow titles, and are subsequently surprised when these titles fail (which again, they blame on Nintendo dominance). One only needs to look at cases where developers have actually had higher-level teams working on their casual titles to see games that are successful; Rayman Raving Rabbids and Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games are both games that are deceptively simple on the surface, but provide much more when you dig deeper, and they’re both made by higher-level teams.

And yet, when reviewers rate games, they only ever consider it from the perspective of the established gamer. As a result, Rayman Raving Rabbids has only been rated an average of 76.9% (according to GameRankings), and Mario & Sonic only 67.7% – not ratings you would expect for million-seller titles (in the case of Mario & Sonic, 3.5 million, making it the best-selling third-party title so far). The other casual third-party title to sell over 1 million on the Wii is Carnival Games, which managed a paltry 58.4%… so why did it sell so well?

Well, perhaps IGN’s review will be a bit revealing. Here’s the explanation for their ‘Presentation’ score: “It feels like the carnival, except for the smell and constant feeling you’re going to get scammed. Unless you count the purchase price, of course…” So the only thing that isn’t good about the ‘presentation’ is the price… and that’s enough to make it only a 7.5. Their ‘Graphics’ score was explained: “Textures and animations leave an element to be desired, but the art direction succeeds in its own right. The Wii can do much better.” So here again, they judge things unfairly – the art direction is good, but because it isn’t technically great, it gets a miserly 6.0. And their ‘Gameplay’ score: “Some control schemes work better than others, some games are far more fun than others, but there are still a few gems that keep the game from falling too far into the abyss.” And how does this become only a 6.5? And their ‘Lasting Appeal’ rating: “It can be fun, but the novelty will wear off. “Over 25 games” may sound like a lot, but the quality games are only a fraction of that number. No online play?” which gives it a 6.0, strangely enough. The game wasn’t designed to be played for hours at a time, as it gets played during a standard review, it was designed for the short-burst play that is more common amongst the newer gamers.

The problem, you see, is that IGN, and all of the other reviewers, rate these games on the wrong measures. Where they should be rating games according to who it’s targetted at, they instead rate it for the ‘hardcore’ gamer. Meanwhile, the new gamers see these games as the quality games they are, and thus are buying them in great numbers. Some older gamers, such as myself, also attest to the quality of these games, and typically get shouted down by the more stuck-in-the-mud gamer – the same gamer that denounces Nintendo’s so-called ‘casual aim’, even though Nintendo has never had a ‘casual aim’.

And thus, we come back to the article, which explains quite clearly – Nintendo isn’t targetting casual gamers, because there’s no such thing as a casual gamer. Nintendo have made casual games, because such games introduce people to gaming, and Nintendo then bring them gradually up to the ‘better’ games. It’s a business strategy that is incredibly effective, and the result is that Microsoft and Sony get driven into niches as they fail to compete against Nintendo with their amassed following, and Nintendo moves gradually up further, pushing MS and Sony further and further into their niches.

And it seems that some of the developers are finally catching on; Ubisoft have scaled back their FPS development, and are redirecting that effort into, it seems, casual games. What Ubisoft are doing, you see, is taking a leaf from Nintendo’s book, and actually building up new loyal gamers, who will be buying more Ubisoft titles. If Ubisoft really get Nintendo’s strategy, their next step, once their current batch of ‘casual’ titles has come out and run its course, is to move up to the next ‘tier’, to the games like Super Mario Galaxy, Mario Kart Wii, or Guitar Hero – games that appeal to newer gamers, but are somewhat more difficult, more immersive; a new Rayman adventure title would fit the bill, for instance. They should also ensure that they put their best developers into these games, both when they’re working on the ‘casual’ and what Nintendo have dubbed the ‘bridge’ titles.

But Ubisoft also have to take care to avoid the pitfall of running in Nintendo’s shadow, the worst of which being that what was a ‘Blue Ocean’ for Nintendo is now being targetted by other developers who think that the blue ocean is casual gamers and casual games. The Blue Ocean is the new gamer, the one that Nintendo has reintroduced to games, and the Blue Ocean moves with them – meaning, the Blue Ocean goes where Nintendo takes it. If Ubisoft wants to target the Blue Ocean, they need to keep up with Nintendo, rather than falling into their shadow; this means that Ubisoft need to start right now on making not only the basic bridge games (comparable to Galaxy, Brawl or Mario Kart), but on the next tier of games, which include the more complex action-adventure (such as Legend of Zelda), seemingly-simple RPGs (like Pokemon), and creative little titles with a lot of personality (for instance, Chibi-Robo).

These are the titles that will be coming from Nintendo in bulk through 2008 and 2009 – there will be other titles, like Disaster, aimed at the hardcore gamer, but such games will continue to be sparse until at least 2010, when the newer gamers will be ready for those sorts of titles, and Nintendo will be there with them, feeding them just what they’re ready for. If Ubisoft see this, the best thing they can do is start working to keep pace with them, and in the meantime provide a few other titles to keep the more ‘hardcore’ amongst us happy – with games like Red Steel 2, for instance, they can do this easily.

The same basic tactic is actually in use by a few other companies, too; Blizzard has been using it within their World of Warcraft series, Will Wright plays by these rules with the games he makes, and there have been others. Not only is the ‘Blue Ocean’ strategy about targetting people who haven’t been gaming much recently, it’s also about giving the gamer not what they say they want, but what they don’t realise they want. It’s about creating the demand for games where the demand didn’t exist. To extend the ‘Blue Ocean’ metaphor, if you keep fishing in the same place, a blue ocean will turn red. The only way to keep fishing in the blue ocean is to keep changing, keep moving, don’t fish in one place for too long.

No doubt those who didn’t read Malstrom’s article are confused as to why I titled this entry as I did – it’s because of Malstrom’s analogy, which he lifted from Professor Christensen of Innovator’s Dilemma fame – those who try to mimic the actions of an innovator are like the birdmen of centuries past, those men who, wanting to fly like a bird, created wings of various forms, thinking to emulate a bird by emulating the wings of a bird. These ‘birdmen’ made the mistake of paying too much attention to the wings and feathers of the bird, and not enough to the way they moved, the physics behind them. Those who wish to be successful need to emulate not Nintendo’s actions, but their strategy – the ‘Blue Ocean’ disruptive strategy. Nintendo aren’t playing at fads, they’re working at becoming the dominant force in gaming by the most effective method available.

And yet, all of these developers who are just now hopping on board the ‘casual’ train have already missed the time to do it, and are doing it in entirely the wrong way. The only ‘casual’ titles that Nintendo have on their way now (that we know of) are Wii Fit and Wii Music – not the great ‘casual focus’ that people seem to think Nintendo has. They’ve hit the casual target, the water is no longer blue, it’s time to start moving to the nearest blue area – bridge games. Other developers need to decide either to emulate Nintendo’s strategy directly, by starting their own blue oceans (as I suspect Ubisoft are doing), or they need to keep abreast of Nintendo’s movements, and predict Nintendo’s next move. Yet so far, most developers seem to instead be trying to outfit themselves with feathers for flying, and as a result are tarring and feathering themselves.