Epic Games President Explains Wii's Success

Mike Capps, the president of Epic Games, stated in an interview with IGN yesterday not only that Epic will NEVER make a game for Wii due to their policy of "we go forward, not back", but also compared the Wii's success to the spread of a virus.

It’s a virus where you buy it and you play it with your friends and they’re like, “Oh my God that’s so cool, I’m gonna go buy it.” So you stop playing it after two months, but they buy it and they stop playing it after two months but they’ve showed it to someone else who then go out and buy it and so on. Everyone I know bought one and nobody turns it on. Obviously there’s a class of people who really love it and enjoy it and are getting into the games but I’m still waiting for that one game that makes me play it.

Source: MEGATONik Mike Capps says Epic Games won’t ever make a game for the Wii: “we go forward, not back”

?
hahahahahaha!!!

so is that Nintendo's secret to success?

Power Shot is very confused about this. Does this man not know that viruses always mutate and evolve to beat out mankind's finest vaccines?

"Obviously there’s a class of people who really love it and enjoy it and are getting into the games but I’m still waiting for that one game that makes me play it."

So, shouldn't he be making one? He's the game developer.

Originally Posted by Jodd

"Obviously there’s a class of people who really love it and enjoy it and are getting into the games but I’m still waiting for that one game that makes me play it."

So, shouldn't he be making one? He's the game developer.

*chuckles*
so true...

That's where the "fowards, not backward" line comes in.

lol

Epic wasn't all that great anyways. I'd rather enjoy Super Mario Galaxy on the Wii than play "Generic Shooter with too much Gaussian Blur and Bloom. Now with more bloom!" on the Xbox 360. I'm not saying that All 360 games are dumb shooters, but for every game that isn't a shooter and is actually unique and fun, I see 4 more Army of Twos and Vampire Rains. :/

I kinda both disagree and agree with him.

For one there's quite a few games on the Wii worth playing really so he's honestly wrong with that and shouldn't be complaining.

However at the same time it is true that the Wii didn't really step forward in the game industry in software power...maybe in terms of control yeah, but it is no X-box 360 or PS3 in terms of how the games can look and hold. He's right about that.

Originally Posted by Luke Groundwalker

I kinda both disagree and agree with him.

For one there's quite a few games on the Wii worth playing really so he's honestly wrong with that and shouldn't be complaining.

However at the same time it is true that the Wii didn't really step forward in the game industry in software power...maybe in terms of control yeah, but it is no X-box 360 or PS3 in terms of how the games can look and hold. He's right about that.

you're right, which is why i even made a thread about the Wii not living up to it's potential.

Looking at it from his perspective, wading through decade-old cpu technology when you can work with the newest stuff with very little to limit you isn't very encouraging.
Still, the situation is this: A vast market pie is just waiting to be eaten, but he decides to hold back his company's appetite in the name of artistic integrity. Good for him and the developers. Not exactly healthy for his company, but hey, that's 2-3 Wii games I don't have to worry about buying. Right?

(my wallet is happy, yet my inner Wiiself is crushed. But my inner 360 can look forward to more dual analog shooters. Talk about melancholic inner termoil.)

Isn't this how a good majority of games are sold -- socially, through peer-to-peer "showing-off"?

The only thing that truly makes sense in his statement is the fact that his companies "we go forward, not back" policy would prevent them from making a game for the Wii. It is true that the Wii is a huge step back compared to the 360 or PS3. It's pitiful how underpowered the Wii is to be honest.

Other than that, most decent systems are sold due to word of mouth. Maybe some people go on advertisements alone, but those people aren't worth the oxygen they use to start off with. On top of that, the reason for the almost complete lack of great third party titles on the Wii is due to people just like himself. Too stubborn for their companies own good. With an install base that large you'd think they'd be crapping themselves over the possibility of releasing a game that costs less to develop yet will potentially yield higher sales.

Aw boohoo. Epic's not going to make a game for Wii? So? Their games have been crap lately. They've been going downhill GOW.

But he has a point. Kinda. Most Wii games suck ass. I haven't touched my Wii since January because there hasn't been a decent game out in ages.

Epic Games is about pushing the boundaries of graphics on a system and the Wii has the equivalent graphics to an XBox. Which is pretty sad. I know it's all about gameplay but why can't we have both innovative gameplay and great garphics?

Originally Posted by Raccoon Mario

Aw boohoo. Epic's not going to make a game for Wii? So? Their games have been crap lately. They've been going downhill GOW.

But he has a point. Kinda. Most Wii games suck ass. I haven't touched my Wii since January because there hasn't been a decent game out in ages.

Epic Games is about pushing the boundaries of graphics on a system and the Wii has the equivalent graphics to an XBox. Which is pretty sad. I know it's all about gameplay but why can't we have both innovative gameplay and great garphics?

1.) Because there are no such thing as "garphics".
2.) Because games are for gameplay. Your playing the game because you want to play it. If you want awsome cinimatics, go watch a movie.
3.) Because if Nintendo included the hardware needed for great graphics, the Wii's price would sky-rocket. High prices don't go down well with the casual market.

Originally Posted by HelmarocKing

1.) Because there are no such thing as "garphics".
2.) Because games are for gameplay. Your playing the game because you want to play it. If you want awsome cinimatics, go watch a movie.
3.) Because if Nintendo included the hardware needed for great graphics, the Wii's price would sky-rocket. High prices don't go down well with the casual market.

1) Because there's no such thing as "awsome cinimatics" either. LOL!
2) Gameplay isn't the only importance. Look at a review for a Nintendo game in a magazine/on a site and chances are they will have a sub-score for graphics. Graphics does have some significance.
3.) FYI, the majority of the 360's user base is casual.

Personally, to me, his complete stubbornness of "I'm not ever gonna even try to create something different that utilizes the Wii" completely discounts everything he said. Good riddance. If you're not going to try something new, then don't; Wii don't need you.

I understand that the Wii can't produce graphics as powerful as others, and it can't hold as much (though I think Brawl kinda discounts that), but is that honestly the only thing that matters in a video game? That's why his supposed "forward, not back" policy makes me laugh.

Originally Posted by Raccoon Mario

I know it's all about gameplay but why can't we have both innovative gameplay and great garphics?

Because then the Wii would be as big, heavy, and expensve as a tank. And then it's so long, multiple gaming markets.

If you guys want to judge the wii so harshly, at least take it as a system. True, I think it's pathetic as well, but if you're rating or comparing game systems, every part is important: the graphics, the gameplay, the story, all of it. You can prefer one part but to judge fairly, you need to view everything as a whole, and even then, the Wii still can't compete with 360 or ps3. But all of this raises the question: how did the Wii get so popular in the first place. My guess: The whole get up and play advertisement. That makes the most sense to me, especially here in America where the obesity percentage is so great.

As far as the quote goes, I agree. Just about the only thing moving forward with the Wii is the way you hold the controller.

Originally Posted by Raccoon Mario

2) Gameplay isn't the only importance. Look at a review for a Nintendo game in a magazine/on a site and chances are they will have a sub-score for graphics. Graphics does have some significance.

Hmm? Like I said, if you want good graphics, go watch a movie. Games are for gameplay, that's where the term 'Gameplay' came from.
The only time graphics are needed are when they are vital to the gameplay; for example, it would be impossible to fully experiance the gameplay of TP with the graphics of LoZ. But then, LoZ is still really awsome, and it had god-awfull graphics. Tell me that LoZ, SMB and Kid Ikarus were bad games, and I'll believe that graphics are really important.

3.) FYI, the majority of the 360's user base is casual.

Source or it didn't happen.

Originally Posted by HelmarocKing

Hmm? Like I said, if you want good graphics, go watch a movie. Games are for gameplay, that's where the term 'Gameplay' came from.
The only time graphics are needed are when they are vital to the gameplay; for example, it would be impossible to fully experiance the gameplay of TP with the graphics of LoZ.

There I'd have to disagree with you. I thought Twilight Princess (I assume that's what you're referring to) graphics weren't all that great really. But the game was pretty good anyway. Again, I say, you should look at the full game--it's graphics, it's gameplay, it's story, etc.

I'm all torn. I want to buy a Wii because I'm expecting a true Wii Zelda. I also want to play FF: Crystal Bearers, Metroid Corruption, Pokemon Battle Revolution, and SSBB. But most of the stuff I'm hearing about the Wii is negative.

I'm hoping a lot of this is people that care too much about graphics, complain that the online gaming is poor, and have higher standards about what a game system should do than I do. That's stuff I really don't care much about.

There is only one tried and true method of judging something that is indisputable: I'll just have to buy one myself.