Failure of Mechanics: The Hype machine and The Difference Between a Solid Game and a Broken Game

Phew...been a crazy week.  Still, I am doing my damndest to keep up with my promise and update at least once a week.  I have a full article written from a few weeks ago, polished, and ready for your perusal.  Next week, probably another Creator Spotlight.  Enjoy.

 

           Let's talk a bit about the games media hype machine and the general misconceptions of the gaming public.  Now, I know this sounds a bit bland, but...just follow me on this for a second.  I mentioned in my earlier reflections on the previous console generation that the hype machine is a big problem.  It creates unrealistic expectations of a game that will almost always be disappointing to gamers because the reality cannot live up to the hype.  The big problem with this, however, is that it creates misconceptions.  You see, too often gamers don't understand the difference between a solid title that, whether you like it or not, is at least a game that works, as opposed to a title that is broken on a fundamental level but which is still looked upon fondly because of the hype machine.

Yeah, the game's media hype machine promised us this broken pile of excrement would be awesome right up until release...no wonder people were pissed off when it failed so hare.

            Let me start this discussion by talking about Final Fantasy 4: After Years, for the Wii.  This game is REVILED by the gaming public.  Partially, I think, because of the hype machine.  The game was advertised on Kotaku and other gaming media outlets as the next great Final Fantasy game, the sequel to the landmarked Final Fantasy 4.  So...was the game great?  Well, no, not really.  However, that didn't make it an unplayable, unsaveable, or even a bad game.  What was Final Fantasy 4: After Years?  It was a decent little RPG that was originally developed as a cell phone title.  It used the same basic battle system as Final Fantasy 4, the active time battle system, however it added a few new features to the mix.  There was a combo system that allowed different characters to work together to create new attacks that were both unique and allowed for a bit of graphical flair in what was ostensibly a 16-bit throwback, there was a system with phases of the moon which affected combat, and there were extra dungeons unique for each character to play through that relied on their unique abilities to survive.  New characters were added to the roster from the Final Fantasy 4 cast and there was a new take on the story that had begun in Final Fantasy 4.  The game was, by and large, fully functional and had several interesting features.  The story featured the return of Golbez, the son of Cecil and Rosa, expanded on the mythos of the crystals, and added a few easter eggs from previous Final Fantasy games.  However, this game is hated by the Final Fantasy community, by and large.  Declared the worst in the series by many.  Worse than FF13.  Worse than Final Fantasy Mystic Quest.  Worse than Final Fantasy 14 at it's broken launch.  But was it?

The irony is that for all the shit FF4: After Years gets, if it had been released in 1995, it would have been a mega smash hit and remembered as a classic.

             No.  I stand firm and declare that while Final Fantasy 4: After years did have several flaws, namely that it was a bit too nostalgic and loved revisiting locations from Final Fantasy 4, it was originally a cell phone game so was sold piecemeal when first released, and that the story deviated from the basic tone of the original Final Fantasy 4, it was not a bad game.  The game was, from a mechanical standpoint, relatively sound.  There were some issues with the delivery of the game, as it was sold in individual episodes before being collected, but the battle system, the music, the graphics, everything that made the game "a game" worked and it worked well.  So, argue for whether or not this is a good game all you want, but don't decry it as the worst game ever, because like it or not, it is playable.  It certainly isn't Final Fantasy: All the Bravest, which is not only broken on a mechanical level for the purpose of squeezing money out of gamers or Final Fantasy 14 at it's initial launch which was nigh on unplayable.

At least Final Fantasy 4: After Years wasn't THIS.

            This is my problem with the hype machine.  It often overlooks the nuts and bolts of a game and creates misconceptions in the gaming community on what is really important.  No matter how much you hype a game, no matter how great it looks, no matter how awesome it may seem to play, it needs to be solid on a mechanical level.  The hype machine billed Final Fantasy 4: After Years as the return of one of the greatest Final Fantasy games of all time.  Was that unfair?  I'd say so.  However, the game was not ultimately broken or unplayable.  Or even all that bad.  Now, I'd like to examine another game which does not receive nearly as much crap as Final Fantasy 4: After Years, but which I personally was unable to finish specifically because of these mechanical issues.

This screenshot doesn't do it justice, but imagine the text about 3 times smaller for me when I was playing Darksiders 2 and you'll understand my anger with broken game mechanics.

            Darksiders 2.  Darksiders 2 had a lot to prove at launch as the original Darksiders, while fun in my opinion, was a bit derivative of the Legend of Zelda.  Darksiders 2 set out to change that.  There was less brawling and more acrobatics, more free roaming, loot based drops...not all of this set well with me, however the mechanics in place still worked.  The game wasn't unplayable or broken or even all that unfun.  However, there is a problem with Darksiders 2.  Namely, that there was a problem with the text size on the screen.  On a decent sized television of say 20-30 inches, the text in the game, from the flavor text on weapons or items, to descriptions of abilities, to text spoken by characters, was so tiny that it was nigh unreadable.  Now, Darksiders 2 received positive hype, after all you are playing as one of the four horsemen, Death, however this aspect was completely overlooked by the games media and by gamers alike.  This is a problem on a fundamental mechanical level.  It makes games for someone like me, who has decent eye sight but a small TV, almost unplayable...I had to fight the game every step of the way to try and enjoy it.  And for a while, I did enjoy it.  However, after about ten hours, I was just fed up with the broken visual mechanics of the game.  I put Darksiders 2 down and never looked back.  In my opinion, while solid for the most part, the game has some broken mechanics.  Apparently, this is only true of the console version, as the PC port works fine.  Nevertheless, it is a flaw for the PS3 version I played and shouldn't have been ignored by the gaming press.  Dead Rising had similarly tiny text and even Dark Souls to an extent has small text, though Dark Souls's text is nowhere near as cripplingly bad as Dead Rising or Darksiders 2.  This is a flaw in the game's mechanics, because it prevents players from actually...well...playing the game.  It is a small flaw, mind, but for me it stuck out in Darksiders 2.  For the most part it is a very fun, mechanically solid game.  However, even fun games, even games we love, need to be recognized for their flaws.  A game's flaws need to be mentioned and held up by the gaming media rather than being brushed under the rug, either intentionally or just because of an innocent mistake.  Let the individual decide whether or not it's something they will enjoy, rather than convincing them the game will be awesome, when it turns out that it might well be unplayable for them.

Dead Rising and Dead Rising 2.  Other fun games with writing two sizes too small.

            This is something I think gets overlooked too often.  In games that are blatantly flawed on a mechanical level, like Guise of the Wolf or Ride to Hell, the flaws will be held up for full scrutiny.  However, in more popular games, like Saint's row 4 or Xcom: Enemy Unknown, they tend to get overlooked.  Even if the issue is small, that doesn't make it any less of a flaw.  People will clamber against Ride to Hell's clunky, broken gameplay, but will not say a thing against Skyrims occasional glitch or bug.

It's easy to dump on Ride to Hell...

 

But no one wants to point their finger at Skyrim for it's broken mechanics.

            This is especially true of high profile games, like Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword.  I freely admit that I have issues with this game.  It has some very fun moments, impressive graphics, sound design, and some new takes on the classic Zelda fair.  However, it is what I would call a broken game.  Why?  Because the controls fail on a basic level.  The wiimote waggling works for the most part...however when flying on your bird in the sky sections, the motion controls are nigh on unplayable...and they're all you've got.  On the whole, the motion controls are a major chore.  And in combat, when you are fighting enemies with a shield, the delay in the controls hurt enjoyment immensely.  You see, while the idea of being able to strike from different angles to get around the shield is cool, because of the delay in the motion controls, 99% of the time, you will just hit the shield and waste your time.  This is especially frustrating when dealing with enemies who have shields, which, if you hit them, you take damage.  I have issues with the game, even though it does have a lot of fun moments.  Is it a good game?  Yeah, it is.  However it is also a broken game.  Mechanically, it isn't solid.  It's flawed.

Get used to this image, because with the broken motion controls, you'll be seeing it alot

            Anyway, let me conclude with what I believe to be one of the most unfairly maligned game of the previous console generation.  Bioshock 2.  This game has been held as one of the most disappointing sequels of this generation, if not of all console generations.  And really, that's quite unfair.  Looking at Bioshock 2 from a strictly mechanical perspective, everything works perfectly.  The visual style is similar to, but improved from the previous game.  There are no glitches with it or hang ups that make the mechanics broken or flawed.  The music and sound design likewise works very well, with solid voice acting, a lack of errors on the music or sound effects, and a consistent tone throughout.  The gameplay is easily the best part of the game, as it is greatly improved from the original Bioshock, allowing players to wield weapons and their plasmid powers at the same time, for smoother controls and an overall improved experience.  The game is solid.  It works on a mechanical level and...generally...it didn't have anything about the gameplay that might lessen its value other than it was already done once before.  The hype machine, however, billed this as the return to Bioshock as a big daddy.  And there were some interesting design choices, like the option to turn off Vita chambers for a harder game or an overlay on the screen to make it seem like you are literally in a diver's helmet as big daddies often are.  But what people were expecting, I believe, was to go into Bioshock 2 as a walking tank, like the big daddies they fought, and feel powerful, strong, nigh on unstoppable, etc.  That wasn't what happened.  The gameplay was very similar to Bioshock.  It was improved, to be sure, but it wasn't what the audience was expecting.  In my opinion, this is why the game is so often heralded as a disappointment.  Bioshock 2 is not a bad game by any means.  I'd even go so far as to say it's one of the best shooters of the last generation.  However the audience was expecting something different from Bioshock.  They wanted to be a tank...but instead, they were a man and a father...thus, the disappointment set in.  And no matter how mechanically sound, people still bash it because of that.

In spite of how good Bioshock 2 is, both on a mechanical and a storytelling level, people lob hate it at constantly.  This is NOT a broken game...it's actually pretty damn awesome.  But the hype machine promised something that this game isn't, so...

            While I heartily disagree with this idea, I too am guilty of it.  I hate Legend of Grimrock.  I started playing it, enjoyed it, but at some point, around level 5 or 6, I began to despise the game.  Everything from the mechanics to the weak story bugged me.  Now...I don't necessarily think that's a problem.  If a game is not to your taste, it is fine to dislike it and be verbal about it.  I do believe there is too much vitriol in the world, but others may share your view and want to be warned off a game they may not like.  However, using blanket statements like "Biggest disappointment of 2012" or what have you is unfair.  Saying "This disappointed me the most in 2012" is perfectly acceptable, because that just says it's your disappointment.  You own it.  It isn't a blanket statement on the quality of the game, but on your experience of the game.  That's something I can get behind.

I don't like Legend of Grimrock...at all.  However, the mechanics work perfectly.  It is NOT a broken game.  I may not like the mechanics, but for what it is, they work flawlessly.  There's a difference between not liking the mechanics and the mechanics just not working.

            Now, I started this discussion to both hold up games that are mechanically sound, even if I or others don't like them, while bashing games which are heralded as great but which are mechanically broken.  A failure of mechanics is the biggest indicator of a flawed or terrible game and I would like people to recognize it as an issue.  For starters, don't be lured in by the hype machine.  Don't overlook mechanical issues just because you like a game and by that same token, recognize that even if you hate a game, it can still be mechanically sound.  I freely admit to hating Legend of Grimrock.  However, I'm not the desired audience.  While I think the mechanics are clunky at times, they aren't broken.  They still work on all levels.  It is a solid game.  I don't like it, but I recognize that I'm not necessarily the audience.  Skyward Sword, however, I really wanted to enjoy...but I don't feel bad bashing it because it fought me every step of the way with it's broken motion controls

I may not like Xenoblade Chronicles, but I can't say it's a broken game.  The mechanics work as intended, even if I hate them.

            The best thing that gamers can do is be aware of the hype machine and not buy into it.  Not be taken in by all the supposed features or ways the game is supposed to be and instead see it for what it is and whether they like it or not rather than whether it is arbitrarily good or bad, a disappointment or a classic, etc. then I think the game industry and media as a whole will be better for it.  Recognize the game for its mechanics.  Or failure thereof.  A solid game may not necessarily be a good game, but it is still playable, at least.  A broken game, however, no matter how great the graphics, how strong the license, or how nostalgic the subject matter, is going to fight you and hinder your enjoyment every step of the way.  Recognize that.  If you can get over it, great, but still recognize that the problem is there.

            Functional does not make it good, however being good does not excuse a lack of functionality. 

The Right Tool for the Right Job: The Wii and Wii-U

Okay, the Wii and the Wii-U have gotten a lot of hate.  The Wii from the hardcore crowd over the course of it's lifetime and the Wii-U for a lackluster launch lineup which has yet to improve.  However, what I think people often forget is that while both consoles have used gimmicks and tricks to sell games, their hardware do have specific strengths.  You can scoff all you want at the shoe-horned in bits of gameplay which rely on waggling the Wiimote or meddling with the Wii-U game pad.  I have no issue with that, as gameplay needs to be organic.  However, try and remember that hardware is created with specific things in mind.  Remember that while you shouldn't use a hammer to fix a shattered dinner plate, you should use a hammer to nail down a board.  The right tool for the right job.  Are the Wiimote and Wii-U controller often used for gimmicky gameplay?  Sure.  But the fact is, they do have practical uses that are both fun and engaging.  And I intend to discuss this with the gaming public because, while I think it's fine to demand developers stop using gimmicky controls, that doesn't mean we should declare a new piece of hardware a failure just because it does something different from what we're used to.  We need to encourage developers to use the right tool for the right job.

It's different certainly, but different isn't necessarily bad.  Both the Wii and the Wii-U have their strengths.  The important thing is recognizing the potential of their hardware and using the right tool for the right job.

            First, I want to look at the Wiimote.  This was the defining feature of the Wii.  Motion controls.  It was a way to attract the casual gaming crowd, but also a new way to experience old classics.  However, what many games did was try to FIND a use for the Wii-mote rather than build a game AROUND it.  Herein lies the problem.  If you have to find a use for a new piece of tech, chances are you're better off making a game in the traditional style.  Sure, it won't be as gimmicky and might not be as memorable...but it will be a lot more fun and will probably sell more.  So, what can the Wiimote's motion sensors do?  Well, the basic actions it seems to be good at are slashing, pointing, dragging, detection of distance and force based on position, and shaking.  Now, if a game is setup properly, it can make use of these features and actually create an engaging product.

One thing no one can deny is that the Wiimote offered a style of gameplay unlike anything we'd ever seen in the past.

            Slashing is pretty self explanatory.  Games like Dragon Quest Swords and Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword focus on using the slashing action to determine speed, angle, and to mimic certain sword motions.  These work well for your typical action game, provided it's set up to recognize the slashes and to have a reason to do more than flail about, like an enemy who can block in one direction, so you need to slash in a different one.  And these two games do that well.

There's something inherently cathartic about slashing something to bits and this is one thing the Wiimote can do very well.

            Pointing actually has a lot of implications.  You can use it for an adventure game or a hidden object game, like Zak and Wiki, where it mimics the movement of a mouse on a PC.  However, they can also be used for light gun games, where if you point at an enemy, you will shoot it.  When done properly and either put on rails or integrated with competent movement controls, this makes shooters much faster, more intense, and more personal.  Games like Sin and Punishment: Star Successor or Metroid Prime 3: Corruption have proven this much.  It can also be used to simply set objective markers or to touch icons, like in Battalion Wars 2 where you can switch units by clicking on their icon or in Overlord: Dark Legend where if you click on something, your minions will either attack it or grab it.

Pointing and clicking isn't just for adventure games.  In terms of how the Wiimote is used, it can also greatly change how a console shooter is played.  That reticle on the screen?  That's where your Wiimote is pointing.  It offers a whole new level of control.

            Dragging was made very useful in the Trauma Center games on the Wii.  If you click on a specific tool, like a scalpel, or antibiotic gel, or sutures, then you can drag them across a surface to perform a specific action.  The brilliance of this type of game is that if done properly it can mimic something that is normally very difficult in real life and make players feel accomplished.  If you can break something down to dragging, you could easily make a slew of popular and fun Wii games out of many mobile titles and frankly, I'm shocked there was never an Angry Birds or a stand alone construction game, like Sim City, focused around dragging something a certain way.

Dragging sutures over a wound may not be how it's done in real life, but it makes for a fast paced and engaging play session in Trauma Center on the Wii.

            Detecting distance and force based on position sounds complicated but it boils down to this.  Sports games.  The Wii-mote detects the movement of your swing and the power based on it's position and how rapidly that changes.  A swing of a golf club, rolling a bowling ball, hitting a tennis racket, etc.  Boxing was also popular using this system and that has been proven to be adaptable.  The game Rage of the Gladiator used this system to take what amounted to a boxing game into a first person fantasy fighter game against mystic monsters.

Rage of the Gladiators showed that sports games weren't the only kind of game you can play with the ability to detect distance and force.  With a little inventiveness, you could do anything.  This game uses controls popularized in boxing to fight monsters in an arena with weapons, magic, and wits.

            Shaking is pretty minor, all things considered, but if you lack buttons or want to use a cathartic action, then it can be useful.  Wario Land: Shake it made you feel good about shaking the Wii-mote because you got money for it, making it very cathartic, or the Kirby: Return to Dreamland title allowed you to shake the controller to suck in things with greater force, eliminating the need for an additional button.  It's minor, but it does have it's uses.

Pretty minor as far as the Wiimote's capabilities, but still enjoyable.  Shaking does have its uses, after all.

            And of course, any of these different skills can be integrated to create a relatively unique and enjoyable game.  Red Steel 2 managed to including pointing and slashing in the same game by making you a gun slinging samurai.  Trauma Team combined dragging and pointing for doctor sessions and adventure game like triage and post-mortem analyses.  Wario Ware on the Wii combined all these actions in various forms in different mini games.  If you use your brain, you can actually get quite a lot out of these simple actions.

By combining what the Wiimote was good at, crafty game developers could create unique and interesting experiences, rather than trying to do what other controllers already did better.

            The problem with many developers was they either were trying to re-invent the wheel in terms of game design or they did not accept the system's limitations.  The Wii-mote's motion sensing should not be used in a platform game or an action-adventure or fighting game where a d-pad controller and standard jump controls would work better.  A Metal Slug game where you need to waggle the remote to throw a grenade is the opposite of intuitive.  A Wii-mote does not need to be used for games that already have decent control schemes and I think this is what scared off many hard core gamers.  They saw Mario Galaxy having the shoe-horned in star bit collecting when just replacing coins with star bits would have been more fun and accessible and grew fed up.  That aside, you also have to accept the limitations of the Wii-mote.  It can have trouble with path finding or is loopy for a little bit when it goes from off screen to on screen.  Some games allow you to recalibrate it's position and this can help, but...don't try and do something the Wiimote can't do.  If you want it to spin, don't, because more often than not, the motion sensors will just get confused.  Don't try and make it detect movements like reeling back, because if the sensor goes off screen, it will go all loopy.  And if you're making a long game, like an RPG, and want to use motion sensors, then either offer an option for an alternate control scheme through mundane parts so player's arms don't get tired, or make the game best suited for small spurts over a long period, so gamers don't get fed up with all the motion controls.

Collect 50 coins and get a life.  Collect 100 star bits and get a life.  To collect star bits, you have to use a shoe horned in Wiimote control scheme...why not just take out the coins and the motion gimmick and make the game more fluid?  Sometimes you need to know your limits, Wii.

            Now, this information is kind of useless posthumously aside from just making people try to appreciate the Wii when it does it's job right.  However, while the Wii may be done and games aren't really being made for it anymore, you can take these conventions of game design and use them for the Wii-U.  What does the Wii-U have?  It has a big tablet controller with a touch screen.  So, build a game around that.  A game that works intuitively.  In fact, mobile games might be a good place to look.  Get HD ports of games like Fruit Ninja, Angry Birds, or Infinite Blade which require touch screen controls and have them work with the Wii-U tablet.  More than that, look to the DS and 3DS for inspiration.  You have a touch screen, so touch things.  Don't try and make the tablet give you information that you could have just as easily gotten off a TV screen, like with ZombiU.  Allow someone to go cooking or crafting on the Wii-U like with Cooking Mama on the DS.  Use the touch screen for path finding, like in the DS Zelda games, like Phantom Hour Glass.  Draw on the screen, like with Okamiden.  And don't forget what was learned with the Wii controls.  You can drag, slash, point, etc. on a touch screen just as easily as you can with a Wii-mote.  Make use of that.

Imagine how fun and intuitive this game would be on a Wii-U game pad in HD.  Mind.  Blown.

            Nintendo land is actually really amazing in this aspect, as, like Wario Ware, it shows a bunch of mini games showcasing the possibility of the game pad, from flicking on it to throw shurikens, to using it to guide a character with path finding, to touching the screen to alter certain parts of a level to keep a character from dying.  However, one thing I adore is that in some games, like the Yoshi mini game, is that they use the tablet in conjunction with the television.  This will be your big seller.  Don't use the tablet to replace information on the TV, but use it in CONJUNCTION with it.  Yoshi's game shows you a path on the TV, then you can look down at the tablet to drag out the path you want Yoshi to take.  Then, he will do it on the TV.  This is a great way to use the touch screen and it allows you to force cooperation with the tablet and the TV because your goals are only visible on the TV, but your path is only visible on the tablet...so you have to work together.

This is how you use the game pad right.  Make it work with the TV rather than fighting against it.

            What else can you use the tablet for?  Well, just some ideas, but...how about using the touch screen without forcing people to look at it.  Create item shortcuts on the tablet that you can just touch without having to look down to make an action game more intuitive.  This would take control and accessibility to a new level for games like Dark Souls.  Or have the screen as a blank canvas that you need to draw on, so you don't need to look at it, you can just draw and what you draw affects the world on the TV.  There are lots of possibilities, however you cannot shoe-horn things in.  Making the Wii-U a scanner seems like a good idea in ZombiU, as it allows you to use it as a sniper scope or scan for threats or see what containers have what items...however, because of the size and the effort involved, it feels really unintuitive and cumbersome, especially since you don't NEED the game pad to do these things...they can be done easier on the TV.  The Wii-U needs to find things that it can do, then build games around it's capabilities.  That's how you'll get hit titles.

Explain to me again why this couldn't be done on the TV instead of the game pad?

            Rayman Legends actually offers an interesting compromise between looking at the TV and looking at the tablet.  You can do either and still play the game, however in many sections, you can alter the environment with a quick swipe or touch on the tablet, opening up new paths for your character, however, often, you're timed or being chased, so you'll want to see all the action on the big screen.  This creates a choice.  You can sacrifice control for a short cut or a power up and risk taking a hit or miss the secret to survive.  It creates a dilemma where either path can finish the level, but where one may be more fun or more challenging than the other, opening up venues for replayability.  And it does this by mimicking a concept from DS games and their touch screen controls.  And that kind of experience will be unique to the Wii-U.  It's not necessarily a gimmick, but a different kind of choice.

Go for a straight run through, or use the game pad to speed things up and open up short cuts?  In Rayman Legends, the choice is yours.

            The Wii-U's biggest benefit is that it is not shackled to the TV, because the tablet does not require the TV to function...so, you could synchronize the Nintendo E-shop from the DSi or the 3DS with the Wii-U to play those games on the tablet in HD.  Or you could release games in a similar style to mobile or DS games, relying on a touch screen, that can only be played on the tablet.  The biggest problem, however, is that no one wants to invest in the Wii-U unless it has a proven concept which works, like the Wii did with some of it's early titles, like Punch Out or Dragon Quest Swords.  No one seems to know what to do and in the bloated AAA industry, few want to risk anything on the Wii-U's novelty and unique capabilities.

            The trick is to use the right tool for the right job.  Look at the Wii-U and what it can do...and build a game around that.  It doesn't matter how simple or ugly it is, so long as it uses the tablet and is fun.  If you create a game that uses it but looks like crap, release it as an E-shop game and take what you've learned to make a more complete game.  Just don't try and re-invent the wheel or mistake the Wii-U's novelty for limitless potential.  Embrace the limits of the tablet alongside it's strengths and work in conjunction with them.  And this goes for all new tech.  You don't need to create a survival horror game or a shooter for the Kinect.  What can the Kinect do?  Recognize movements.  Where would this be useful?  Dance games.  If Microsoft or it's partners don't realize the Kinect's strengths and instead keep trying to use the wrong tool for the wrong job, then...it'll flop with the Xbox One just like it did for the Xbox 360.  Same for the Playstation 3's sixaxis...it had a set of strengths to be exploited, but like the Kinect, it wasn't used to it's fullest.  A few good ideas were thrown out there, but...it was just too limited and the demand to use it died down.

Last I checked, no one was clambering for another Kinect horror game.  Why?  Wrong tool for the wrong job.  Use your hardware for what it's good at and you'll have better luck.

            Now, this little lecture on capabilities has two purposes.  The first is, of course, to defend the Wii and Wii-U.  Were they perfect?  No.  Could they be annoying?  Most definitely.  However, did they have some experiences that were almost completely unique?  I'd say so.  Trauma Team, Sin and Punishment, Dragon Quest Swords, and Metroid Prime 3 all used unorthodox control systems that actually worked and were more memorable and unique because of it.  And the Wii-U has the potential to do the same.  If people will give it a chance.  Secondly, whenever new tech comes out, be it a physics engine, a level designer, or a new motion control scheme, I have to encourage a developer to remember what the tool was designed for an to use it accordingly.  Does your game really need physics?  No?  Then don't build it around Havok.  Does your game make good use of the Unreal engine or would it be better with a made from scratch engine?  Remember.  Right tool for the right job.