"The Arsenal That Will Save Nintendo" [Archive]

pseudopseudo

07-26-2006, 07:32 PM

Chris Martin (an editor for GamesFirst Internet Magazine and an experienced game journalist based out of Seattle) supplies us with a top 10 list of "weapons (http://nintendo.about.com/library/ninweapons/blweapons1.htm)" that Nintendo has going into the upcoming release wars.

Every one of the three big game companies have guns. Weapons. Things that go boom. Microsoft has Xbox Live and Halo 3 coming down the road, and Sony has the PS3 and a lot of bad publicity. But what about Nintendo? What arsenal does Nintendo have that will keep them ahead of the curve?

Nothing in here that's too surprising. I am kind of surprised that no mention of Wii/DS connectivity has been mentioned anywhere.

IRONGUSTAV

07-27-2006, 05:07 AM

Add in the fact that the Wii is going to be closer to last generation prices as opposed to the Xbox 360's $300/$400 price tag and the PS3's $500/$600 price tag and you have one amazing deal from one of the industry's lifelong pioneers.

yup,also the wii will be closer to the last generation consoles on some other things
the article is a bit of fan service

Spigot

07-27-2006, 05:14 AM

the article is a bit of fan service
Lies. I saw no gratuitous panty shots.

As for the remark about the price, that is definately the reason I'll be getting a Wii this season (hopefully) and neither of the other 'next-gen' systems. I've been saving for a few months and as long as the Wii price doesn't suddenly spike dramatically from the current estimate, I'll be fine for launch.

I'm also just really excited about a new interface. That, moreso than improved graphics or online play, has really sold the system to me.

Kamalot

07-27-2006, 05:37 AM

I am kind of surprised that no mention of Wii/DS connectivity has been mentioned anywhere.
While connectivity is cool, other than Pokémon, it is hardly a system seller.

Sony fans should know this from bashing GBA - GameCube connectivity for years.

Salesmunn

07-27-2006, 05:38 AM

I'm amazed how many people are setting themselves up for disappointment with the Wii. It can't live up to these expectations.

Kamalot

07-27-2006, 05:40 AM

I'm amazed how many people are setting themselves up for disappointment with the Wii. It can't live up to these expectations.
You are right! There is no way that Super Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Brothers Brawl, Metroid Prime: Corruption, Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess and Wario Ware can be fun.

Thanks for opening my eyes!

Serapth

07-27-2006, 05:55 AM

To all the "graphics dont matter people" tomorrow, the Wii wont look to bad, but 5 years down the road, my god games are going to look like ass.

This does seem a bit fan servicing.

Oh... and I love the "Sony has the PS3 and alot of bad publicity" jab. Gotta know your getting an unbiased argument after reading that.... :sigh:

Stormwatcher

07-27-2006, 05:59 AM

I hate that layout. They give you one paragraph, click NEXT to read the rest... Fuck that noise, I don't care for THEIR sponsors.

I do like EvAv's sponsors though :)

Serapth

07-27-2006, 06:02 AM

IRONGUSTAV

07-27-2006, 06:25 AM

Oh... and the "Save Nintendo" comment is pretty farkin stupid given that they are profitable and doing quite well, thank you very much. Even if the Wii sucks complete ass and sells a whole 15 units, Nintendo can still be profitable.

This company does not need "saving". Wankers.

thats a thing that surprises me,saving from what? nintendo is laughing all the way to the banks since the 80,if not on home consoles,on portable systems or on games ( remember nintendo games make profit in nintendo systems) as u say even if the wii is a disaster,nintendo is selling ds like there is no tomorrow

DjinniMan

07-27-2006, 06:25 AM

IRONGUSTAV

07-27-2006, 06:27 AM

You are right! There is no way that Super Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Brothers Brawl, Metroid Prime: Corruption, Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess and Wario Ware can be fun.

Thanks for opening my eyes!

yup,let me see,another mario,another super smash,another metroid,another zelda,another wario

innovation its the word here dude xD

IRONGUSTAV

07-27-2006, 06:31 AM

I get irritated by the "bad graphics" potshots at the Wii. It's been stated before, but it bears repeating. Graphics do not make a system.

If they did, the popularity and success of current gen systems would be Xbox > Gamecube > PS2. Also, PSP > DS. It usre didn't turn out that way though, did it?

The Wii will be on the low end of raw graphic power, but give me some innovation and 1st party killer apps (Mario, Zelda, Metroid) over Halo 8 or Call of Duty 12 with a zillion pixels anyday.

yep u want innovation and bash halo or call of duty and the wii catalog is full of franchises or sequels XD

i love how nintendo fans can bash/praise a system with the same argument :)

innovation its not only changing a pad for a revmote,its changing the GAMES

bean19

07-27-2006, 06:38 AM

1. The writer's credentials don't impress me.

2. Maybe they didn't impress me after I read the article as much as before. He never lists the < $250 (but not yet certain) price point as a key weapon.

3. He just lists cool titles that look good. Everyone that I spoke to that stood in line for the Wiimote at E3 said great things about Warioware and the Wiimote, but then said that playing Zelda while interesting didn't give as much control to the player as playing with default settings and that Red Steel simply controlled like ass with the Wiimote.

I'm honestly extremely interested in the Wii, but I'm getting tired of "journalists" and EvAv posters throwing little press parties for the system when there are some very big questions still left unanswered: how the Wiimote plays and how difficult it is to hook up and/or how obnoxious does it look in your living room after it's hooked up, AND how many of these system-selling titles are launch titles. Zelda will definitely sell consoles and that's confirmed, but hopefully, there will be more, as well as a large library to follow. I don't want another dust-collecting Nintendo console.

It's like all of us Nintendo kids have grown up and are working in the industry now, and no one is staying objective about them. OMG METROID! OMG ZELDA!!!

IRONGUSTAV

07-27-2006, 06:48 AM

Serapth

07-27-2006, 06:50 AM

thats the problem,i dont have any doubt,zelda will be a superb game,but its the wiimote necesary for that game? even the guys at 1up dont like the use of wiimote on that game,i dont want normal games with the use of wiimote,i want NEW games developed for the control,thats why im not very impressed with the wiigames on E3,sure i will buy on day one,but i cant see the revolution who will change the face of videogames,i have a lot of serious issues and questions about the wii

Man, capital letters, are your friend, and comma's, are, the, devil! :D

Kamalot

07-27-2006, 06:59 AM

thats the problem,i dont have any doubt,zelda will be a superb game,but its the wiimote necesary for that game?If the game is a "superb game" then why complain? I'm all about playing superb games, funky controller or not.

Zaro

07-27-2006, 07:01 AM

innovation its not only changing a pad for a revmote,its changing the GAMES

That's true, but people like sequel.
There's three prince of persia in the last gen and people take it. Three in the same generation.

It's the same thing for Halo, Mario, Zelda, GTA, etc..., people buy it.

But, it's not because it's a sequels that they don't innovate. Sure that sequel look and feel like their predecessor, but it's never the same.

And I believe changing a pad can bring new good idea to innovate games, but i don't think everything will be better.

About the arsenal, it's just ten thing that can interrest people. If there's nothing in these that interrest you, the Wii is probably not for you that's all.

thenefariousone

07-27-2006, 07:46 AM

The article is a joke, and warrants no serious discusion. We get better quality writing in the average post here than that. "The arsenal that will save Nintendo?" Nintendo doesn't need "saving" anymore than MSFT does.

But what interests me is the age old "Nintendo games = Innovation" myth. Notice how all the talk about the wii is about the controll, and very little is about games? Generally - that's not a good sign.
"Innovative" controll alone does not a great game make.

It doesn't matter if you controlled the game Enter the Matrix by literally jacking into the Matrix - the game still sucked.

Madden's going to be magically better because now you get to "flick" the controll to throw and "move it down then up" to kick?

Wii's launch games are numerous, but aren't exactly innovative. Aside from a few exceptions, the majority are sequels, multiplatform, and party games.

Anyone else expecting any real innovation out of SpongeBob SquarePants or "Yet Another FPS" aka Red Steel? Oh - but Red Steel has swords!
Yes it does, but so did Daikatana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daikatana) . So did Die by the Sword (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/diebythesword/review.html).

Sequels
The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
Metroid Prime 3: Corruption
Tony Hawk’s Downhill Jam
Wii Sports
Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz
Blitz: The League

Multiplatform
Madden NFL 2007
Marvel: Ultimate Alliance - multiplatform

Party Games
Trauma Center: Second Opinion
Elebits

Other
Red Steel
SpongeBob SquarePants: Creature from the Krusty Krab
Dragon Quest Swords: The Masked Queen and the Tower of Mirrors

bapenguin

07-27-2006, 08:02 AM

You are right! There is no way that Super Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Brothers Brawl, Metroid Prime: Corruption, Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess and Wario Ware can be fun.

Thanks for opening my eyes!

He does have a point. Everyone is hyping up the system to know end and putting it on a pedastool that I think as great as the system is going to be there's no way it will live up to people's expectations.

An example: in the past week I've talked to 3 separate people that have gotten to play with the system (1 person even playtesting for a company that is releasing a game for the system) and all of them said how inaccurate the controller is. A lot of people think it's going to have the accuracy of a mouse, when in reality it's still pretty much just an analog stick.

Zaro

07-27-2006, 08:12 AM

Wii's launch games are numerous, but aren't exactly innovative. Aside from a few exceptions, the majority are sequels, multiplatform, and party games.

It's the same thing about any console. Anyway it's rare a game is completly innovative, just some new thing in a sequel or an existing genre is enough to be consider a better game.

I expect better thing in Metroid. Just the way you shoot the grapple and rip off the shield of your enemies is very innovative, i think.

An example: in the past week I've talked to 3 separate people that have gotten to play with the system (1 person even playtesting for a company that is releasing a game for the system) and all of them said how inaccurate the controller is. A lot of people think it's going to have the accuracy of a mouse, when in reality it's still pretty much just an analog stick.

What i've read is not that it's innacurate but that you need practice. We i look at some Metroid movie it seem very tough to aim in the game. But when i look at thoses from gameinformer it seem more easier, probably the one who play have more practice.
But it sure it'll not be like a mouse.

But there's people who like it too, since e3 i've read many good experience, and since i'm positive toward the Wii i tend to remember those :)

Kamalot

07-27-2006, 08:27 AM

He does have a point. Everyone is hyping up the system to know end and putting it on a pedastool that I think as great as the system is going to be there's no way it will live up to people's expectations.

An example: in the past week I've talked to 3 separate people that have gotten to play with the system (1 person even playtesting for a company that is releasing a game for the system) and all of them said how inaccurate the controller is. A lot of people think it's going to have the accuracy of a mouse, when in reality it's still pretty much just an analog stick.
Accuracy of a mouse or not, ar eyou telling me that Super Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Brothers Brawl, Metroid Prime: Corruption, Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess and Wario Ware are not going to be fun?

I don't know about you, but I can think of a Mario, Metroid, Zelda or Wario game that isn't a shitload of fun. Maybe that damned CDI Zelda game, but I don't know if that counts since it wasn't made by Nintendo.

I play excellent games for fun. Nintendo is poised to deliver that.

bapenguin

07-27-2006, 08:36 AM

Accuracy of a mouse or not, ar eyou telling me that Super Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Brothers Brawl, Metroid Prime: Corruption, Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess and Wario Ware are not going to be fun?

I don't know about you, but I can think of a Mario, Metroid, Zelda or Wario game that isn't a shitload of fun. Maybe that damned CDI Zelda game, but I don't know if that counts since it wasn't made by Nintendo.

I play excellent games for fun. Nintendo is poised to deliver that.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying a lot of people are hyping this system up so high that it's going to be very tough to live up to it. That's all.

Kamalot

07-27-2006, 08:42 AM

I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying a lot of people are hyping this system up so high that it's going to be very tough to live up to it. That's all.That may be, but in my mind, it is all about the games. I know that I'll get great games at or near the system's launch for a fraction of what it will cost to buy the competition. I'll have a huge catalog of older games to play through GameCube support and the Virtual Console.

When I got the 360, it was with the HOPE that I would get awesome games. With the PS3, the future of gaming is even more bleak.

With Wii, I KNOW that I will be having fun, at a very reasonable price. Innovation be damned, I'm in it for the fun. I think a lot of gamers forget that.

Serapth

07-27-2006, 08:55 AM

That may be, but in my mind, it is all about the games. I know that I'll get great games at or near the system's launch for a fraction of what it will cost to buy the competition.

A fraction? Do you have a source for this? As frankly all i have ever read is that Nintendo wants to have cheaper games... thats all. Given MS first party games are 50$, how much cheaper are Nintendo first party going to be?

Saying a fraction is some serious overkill. Not to mention a number of Nintendo-esque games should actually be priced more at the live arcade pricing level, not full retail. Brain Age is neat for example, but its not a full retail priced game... or shouldnt be. If it was a Xbox game, it would probrably be about 15$ on live. Be sure to compare apples to apples when talking about game prices.

EternalGamer

07-27-2006, 08:56 AM

This article had absolutely no substance, but because these titles excite me, I enjoy reading just about anything connected with them.

And I'm definitely with Kamalot on this one. I mean, it is possible we will be wrong but given the history of these franchises--Mario, Metriod, Wario, and Zelda--the odds are incredibly against them being not a ton of fun. Those four games at or near launch is by far, BY FAR, the most exciting launch line up for any system I have ever been around to see launch. The worst game in any of those series has been at least "very good." The best are fucking amazing. And that is completely ignoring the fresh new take on game control.

Khash

07-27-2006, 09:08 AM

As hard as I try, I can't be as excited about the Wii as much as I want to be.

Kamalot

07-27-2006, 09:08 AM

A fraction? Do you have a source for this? As frankly all i have ever read is that Nintendo wants to have cheaper games... thats all. Given MS first party games are 50$, how much cheaper are Nintendo first party going to be?

Saying a fraction is some serious overkill. Not to mention a number of Nintendo-esque games should actually be priced more at the live arcade pricing level, not full retail. Brain Age is neat for example, but its not a full retail priced game... or shouldnt be. If it was a Xbox game, it would probrably be about 15$ on live. Be sure to compare apples to apples when talking about game prices.
A fraction of the cost of the system.

DUH! :rolleyes:

Kamalot

07-27-2006, 09:10 AM

As hard as I try, I can't be as excited about the Wii as much as I want to be.
That's fine. You don't have to be. It isn't my fault if you miss out on the fun.

I've read studies about people that don't seem to understand what is fun. I feel for them.

Serapth

07-27-2006, 09:11 AM

A fraction of the cost of the system.

DUH! :rolleyes:

Even that makes no sense... say the Wii is the rumoured 250$ per console... that means you can a Wii and almost single game for the same price as a 360.

Still overkill. Now, change competition to PS3, and well... yeah, thats more accurate.

Serapth

07-27-2006, 09:14 AM

That's fine. You don't have to be. It isn't my fault if you miss out on the fun.

I've read studies about people that don't seem to understand what is fun. I feel for them.

Wow! A study defining what is fun.... sheesh. I know people that find collecting stamps fun... I put that inbetween root canals and being constipated on my fun meter. Just because someone doesnt find something fun... (Like say... the Wii, or video games in general) doesnt mean they dont know how to have fun.

But, if you feel like projecting your interests on others... well, thats your choice.

IRONGUSTAV

07-27-2006, 09:26 AM

That's fine. You don't have to be. It isn't my fault if you miss out on the fun.

I've read studies about people that don't seem to understand what is fun. I feel for them.

sorry dude,but u dont have the universal truth about what fun is :)

want a clue? games on other systems are a hell of fun too

Kamalot

07-27-2006, 09:27 AM

Wow! A study defining what is fun.... sheesh. I know people that find collecting stamps fun...I don't know of many stamp collectors on Evil Avatar, but collecting things in general can be considered fun. Lots of people collect memoriabilia...and Pokémon. Fun is fairly universal otherwise there wouldn't be a market for comedy movies or entertainment in general.

Kamalot

07-27-2006, 09:28 AM

sorry dude,but u dont have the universal truth about what fun is :)

want a clue? games on other systems are a hell of fun too
I never said that games on other platforms aren't fun, did I?

With the launch of Wii, Nintendo is putting forward a long list of games that have a history of being fun, to a large number of people. How anyone can argue with that is boggling.

IRONGUSTAV

07-27-2006, 09:38 AM

I never said that games on other platforms aren't fun, did I?

.

unless the game is on a sony machine,no u havent :P

Kamalot

07-27-2006, 09:39 AM

unless the game is on a sony machine,no u havent :P
Great games are great games, no matter what platform(s) on which they reside.

Serapth

07-27-2006, 09:43 AM

I don't know of many stamp collectors on Evil Avatar, but collecting things in general can be considered fun. Lots of people collect memoriabilia...and Pokémon. Fun is fairly universal otherwise there wouldn't be a market for comedy movies or entertainment in general.

...yeah, explain Chris Farly then!

Kamalot

07-27-2006, 09:45 AM

...yeah, explain Chris Farly then!
LMAO!

That is why I used the term 'fairly universal'. I have no explanation for Chris Farly. :)

bean19

07-27-2006, 09:51 AM

Great games are great games, no matter what platform(s) on which they reside.

And that has nothing to do with the questions that you are ignoring. I think everyone is willing to conced that it is likely that Metroid, Zelda, and Wariorware will probably be fun.

However, instead of simply oozing hysterical love for the system (that I'm honestly extremely interested in buying too) I'd like for people to try to be objective and ask some questions like:

1. Will the Wiimote deliver? Reports are honestly very mixed based on the game that they demoed. Warioware seems to be awesome with it. Zelda seems to be not as good while using it as default controls are, and Red Steel is suppossed to control like ass.

2. Will they support the system with titles and get more 3rd parties this time or will we ONLY be playing the 3 or 4 good titles that come out each year like we did with the Gamecube?

3. While someone said that Iwata has stated it will be less than $250, and this is less of a concern because of this, the price still remains unknown. People should be skeptical of this as well as the game prices, especially for games that are honestly not nearly as involved as next-gen AAA titles. I'm not going to spend $50 on a party game that looks like a pretty current-gen title unless it is absurdly awesome.

4. Will it look ridiculous when it is set up? Will it be difficult to set up the bar in our homes and/or to customize it? Will there be sweet spots that play better and thus cause friction in multiplayer?

5. Will their online model cost money? Will it handle direct downloads or will it require p2p to operate (thus lowering my upload rates from other devices on the network)? How much will old games cost?

There are a LOT of stories to do on the Wii and a lot of unanswered questions. Journalists shouldn't be throwing little Nintendo parties like this with so few facts available. It is more forgivable in posters on EvAv, and lord knows that I'm terribly interested in getting a Wii, but I don't like how all of these legitimate questions are being ignored in the post-E3 love-in for Nintendo.

Benanovich Jaminovski

07-27-2006, 10:11 AM

See my problem is and always has been the wii-mote, as bean said i'm happy to except that these first party games will most likely be great fun, but what i have to wonder is will they be more fun using a standard controller rather than the wii-mote?

I honestly dont see myself wanting to wave a controller around infront of the tv for up to a few hours at a time, i mean just try sitting with your tv remote around infront of you for 20 minutes and see how you feel or more to the point your arms feel about it (granted theres no game to play). I mean i'm taking this from only lightgun experience but my arms get tired after playing for an hour or so. Then theres the potential accuracy problems, my worry is that the wii-mote itself will become an obstacle to my enjoyment of the games.

Evil Avnovice

07-27-2006, 10:17 AM

I'm surprised Mr. Martin didn't touch on the price of the system or the low development costs of developing for the Revolution. As someone also mentioned, nothing about DS - Wii connectivity was mentioned.

My only question from the article is how WiiConnect24 will work in comparison to 360 Live and what the advantages/disadvantages will be.

Massive hype or not, I still think the Revolution is poised for great things.

torrefaction

07-27-2006, 10:23 AM

Chameleo

07-27-2006, 10:27 AM

To know end?

pedastool?

;)

hahahahah

yeah but i agree w/ bap. hahaha

though i'm still laughing at his typos.

the Wii is being touted as a Revolution. fun over gfx, etc etc, bla bla

i dunno if it can live up to all the expectations/hopes of the fans. honestly i dont think it will.

i'll buy it expecting a fancy gimmick in the beginning. hopefully it'll improve from there. (thats how i saw the DS at the start).

from launch its all up to the devs to make the best of the system.

PatrickRes9

07-27-2006, 10:47 AM

Kamalot

07-27-2006, 10:53 AM

Theres enough there to buy the system for its price. Simply put. Im excited about this system because what it offers justifies the price.I completely agree.

Kamalot

07-27-2006, 10:53 AM

I don't know what expectations you people are setting for yourself.

My expectations are that the system will be affordable and the games will be fun.

Frankly, that's all I need.

Serapth

07-27-2006, 10:53 AM

However... if your not big into the cartoony art style... wherer does that leave you with the Wii? On the gamecube, there were just a few games that existed that werent cartoony and also not cross platform ( Rogue Squadron and RE4(sorta) come to mind ).

So, if your not big into the cartoonish kid like graphic style Nintendo prefers, what does that leave you? For most people, it leaves them buying an XBox 360 or PS3.

To me, as one of these people, Red Steel is what had me most interested in the Wii. Hearing such bad things about it though, havent made me feel that much better.

You know, just because Mario/MarioParty/SSB/Zelda appeals to you, doesnt mean that it has to appeal to everyone. The lack of diversity outside those "core" style of games on the Gamecube was seriously lacking. I hope they rectify that with the Wii, but the launch lineup suggests otherwise, minus Red Steel

Kamalot

07-27-2006, 10:56 AM

Cartoony?
Is the new Zelda game cartoony?
How 'bout that Mertoid, cell-shaded, right?
I remember playing a fair number of 3rd party games on my Cube, like Prince of Persia too.

EternalGamer

07-27-2006, 10:57 AM

I'm reading the entire thread, and it seems like a bunch of skeptics vs one guy excited about the system. (Kamelot). The only thing I have to say is: Put the "inovation" aside. Put the hype and everything else aside. You have a Zelda game, a mario game, a metroid game, a smash brothers game, some new games coming, great 3rd party support thus far, and what should be an amazing online arcade. Why are you shitting your pants? Wheres the problem? What in there is NOT worth plunking down $200-$250 for. Some of you are going to sink $600 to play the new MGS game, and Ridge Racerrrrrrrr. Theres enough there to buy the system for its price. Simply put. Im excited about this system because what it offers justifies the price.

That's what I"m talking about. If there was enough reason to get excited about any past system launch (including the 360) then there sure as hell is enough justification for getting excited about this one. It would be like if the 360 launched with a new Halo, Fable, and Resident Evil all the same day. Or the PS2 launched with Metal Gear, Final Fantasy and Ratchet and Clank. We have two sequels to stellar series on launch day (Metriod and Zelda) along side of a handfull of promising new IP (Wii Sports, Excite Truck, Red Steel, etc.) and several other sequels to high quality games (Rayman, Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles, Warioware). The official lineup hasn't be announced in its entirety yet, but even going on what is currently scheduled for launch, it's an amazing lineup. If you're a fan of quality videogames there is no reason not to be excited about getting sequels a half dozen quality titles all on a brand new system with a brand new control mechanism all on the same day.

xcalibur

07-27-2006, 10:57 AM

A lot of people think it's going to have the accuracy of a mouse, when in reality it's still pretty much just an analog stick.

Your sources are mistaken.

-X

RMan

07-27-2006, 10:58 AM

To all the "graphics dont matter people" tomorrow, the Wii wont look to bad, but 5 years down the road, my god games are going to look like ass.
You mean like PS2 games look now?
He does have a point. Everyone is hyping up the system to know end and putting it on a pedastool that I think as great as the system is going to be there's no way it will live up to people's expectations.
While often true, there’s no way the 360 or PS3 will live up to the hype, that’s kinda the nature of hype. If the control’s innovation doesn’t live up to the hype, I think it’ll come a whole lot closer than the other system’s graphics capabilities will.
See my problem is and always has been the wii-mote, as bean said i'm happy to except that these first party games will most likely be great fun, but what i have to wonder is will they be more fun using a standard controller rather than the wii-mote?
This implies to me that you are imagining the same games you’ve played on traditional controllers modified to work with the Wii controller. I think this will not be the case for the better games. The controller doesn’t generally make games more fun, but rather allows the creation of experiences you can’t get otherwise, and those experiences promise to be more fun.

EternalGamer

07-27-2006, 11:00 AM

You know, just because Mario/MarioParty/SSB/Zelda appeals to you, doesnt mean that it has to appeal to everyone. The lack of diversity outside those "core" style of games on the Gamecube was seriously lacking. I hope they rectify that with the Wii, but the launch lineup suggests otherwise, minus Red Steel

You are right. But Mario and Zelda certainly appeal to a hell of a lot larger demographic than First Person Shooters and Racing simulators, which was the launch lineup of the 360's launch (and looks to be the predominant makeup of the PS3's as well). The Mario series is THE top selling game series of all time, statistically speaking. And Zelda is in the top ten as well. None of the launch titles for either of the other consoles can claim that type of mass appeal.

Serapth

07-27-2006, 11:01 AM

Cartoony?
Is the new Zelda game cartoony?

Dunno, I havent seen much of it. I was talking about the GC lineup mostly. Of all the Nintendo styled games out there though, Zelda is perhaps the most appealing to me, as I was a huge Zelda 2 fan back in the day.

How 'bout that Mertoid, cell-shaded, right?
I remember playing a fair number of 3rd party games on my Cube, like Prince of Persia too.
Yes, thats specifically why I said "that werent cross platform. Plus, so far as 3rd party support went, GC was by far the LEAST supported. Hell, many games were PS2 and Xbox and not GC, which makes zero sense considering the PS2 was the weakest system by far.

As to Metroid, I played it for about 1/2 hour a while back. WoW, and people say Halo is over rated...

Im not anti-Wii, but im not an instant fan either based on the cult of Nintendo. Hell, if they come out with a good golf game ( realistic golf game that is, not Mario golf... so im probrably shit outta luck ), ill drop the money in a heartbeat. Im excited by the motion controller... I just hope , Links or Tiger Woods style games get made for it aswell as there cartoony counterparts.

Serapth

07-27-2006, 11:04 AM

You mean like PS2 games look now?

Yes, but your not following... compare those PS2 games available now... to the last generation ( Ps1, N64, etc... ) and tell me how well they hold up.

That was exactly my point, your just comparing the wrong the direction.

Kamalot

07-27-2006, 11:04 AM

EternalGamer

07-27-2006, 11:05 AM

This implies to me that you are imagining the same games you’ve played on traditional controllers modified to work with the Wii controller. I think this will not be the case for the better games. The controller doesn’t generally make games more fun, but rather allows the creation of experiences you can’t get otherwise, and those experiences promise to be more fun.

Or if not "more fun" at least a different type of fun. There is a lot of stagnation in the gaming market. Even if something is just a new gimmick, at least it is a gimmick that can actually offer something new as opposed to just claiming it is new. Is running around my room swinging a controller going to be more fun than using an analogu stick and pressing the "B" button to swing a racket? Well, maybe not. But it is at least something truly different and interesting. And that alone is enough. I don't see the other next gen consoles doing anything to change any type of gaming paradigm. Are High Definition graphics going to make games more fun? If you put those two options in front of me, I would say the Wii's control mechanism has a lot better shot of making games more interesting/fun than just upping resolution will.

Kamalot

07-27-2006, 11:05 AM

Kamalot

07-27-2006, 11:06 AM

Kamalot

07-27-2006, 11:08 AM

Hell, if they come out with a good golf game ( realistic golf game that is, not Mario golf... so im probrably shit outta luck ), ill drop the money in a heartbeat.You should try True Swing Golf (http://www.nintendo.com/gamemini?gameid=1fcbd7dd-a277-4134-b38e-b7e542999ac8) for the DS. It has an innovative and fun mechanic to playing golf games. It is different, and yet manages to be a great golf game.

Serapth

07-27-2006, 11:09 AM

You are right. But Mario and Zelda certainly appeal to a hell of a lot larger demographic than First Person Shooters and Racing simulators, which was the launch lineup of the 360's launch (and looks to be the predominant makeup of the PS3's as well). The Mario series is THE top selling game series of all time, statistically speaking. And Zelda is in the top ten as well. None of the launch titles for either of the other consoles can claim that type of mass appeal.

Oh, dont get me wrong, that style appeals to alot of people... or it may be argued, appealed. Each generation, Nintendo sold less ( I think, not positive about the n64 ). Sales of super mario brothers 3 were probrably higher by a factor of 3 to any of the marios since.

Im not bashing on Mario, trust me, I really am not. I loved the hell out of Super Mario brothers, but the move to 3d really didnt hold up well to me. When I get my DS lite, ill grab mario for sure. What I am saying is, these days, if Nintendo wants to appeal to more gamers, they need to diversify their art style or atleast encourage 3rd parties to make exlusives that are diverse enough. Outside of a certain artstyle, if people dont like that style, there are almost no good reasons to buy a gamecube.

*Disclaimer, yes, the xbox needs more platformers and jRpgs aswell to appeal to a broader class of people. I admit this, and strangely, so did Microsoft.

Benanovich Jaminovski

07-27-2006, 11:10 AM

This implies to me that you are imagining the same games you’ve played on traditional controllers modified to work with the Wii controller. I think this will not be the case for the better games. The controller doesn’t generally make games more fun, but rather allows the creation of experiences you can’t get otherwise, and those experiences promise to be more fun.

That may be true, but i mean what other use does it have other than being waved around in the air, or pointed and clicked. It seems to me to boil down to a load of gimmicky peripherals in one unit. Still i may be pleasantly suprised.

See the way i see it, if im really optimistic about it and by into the hype and it turns out sucking i'll be really dissapointed, where as being critical of it and not overly excited means if it sucks you can say "i knew it would" and if its great you get a pleasant suprise.

torrefaction

07-27-2006, 11:10 AM

Are High Definition graphics going to make games more fun? If you put those two options in front of me, I would say the Wii's control mechanism has a lot better shot of making games more interesting/fun than just upping resolution will.

The answer is a resounding yes. A lot of us care about immersion in gaming, and those with 360's are more likely to understand this. GRAW was more fun because of the better graphics, because it gave you a better sense of really playing that role. Immersive sound is yet another factor. Those things DO make games for fun, more intense, more spooky, more exhilirating, or whatever the developer's going for. Of course, without solid gameplay mechanics, it still won't matter. But yet, it does make it more fun.

And you're also completely neglecting the ability to have a single core focus purely on AI or physics. That could mean a lot for intelligent enemies, massive worlds, physics based gameplay. The possibilities when you have more horsepower are staggering.

It amazes me how the Wii crowd seems to just brush this stuff off. Don't get me wrong, I'll probably get a Wii. But it probably won't be what I play games on most often, and I'll be pissed if it ends up collecting dust like my gamecube.

Serapth

07-27-2006, 11:10 AM

You should try Tru-Swing Golf for the DS. It has an innovative and fun mechanic to playing golf games. It is different, and yet manages to be a great golf game.

I just bought Real World Golf for my PS2. That game absolutely kicks ass, but switching gloves between players is such a pain in the ass, its not even funny. If your a golf fan, you really should check it out.

I am going to be picking up a DS Lite in the next few weeks, ill have to check that game out.

Kamalot

07-27-2006, 11:13 AM

I just bought Real World Golf for my PS2. That game absolutely kicks ass, but switching gloves between players is such a pain in the ass, its not even funny. If your a golf fan, you really should check it out.

I am going to be picking up a DS Lite in the next few weeks, ill have to check that game out.
I'd be willing to bet that you will see quite a few very good golf games for Wii. That seems like a very safe wager.

Serapth

07-27-2006, 11:14 AM

I'm not following either (seriously). Cn you take it from the top and explain your thoughts?

What im saying is, without the big jump in power the Xbox 360 and PS3 are getting, today the Wii wont look so bad, but in 5 or 6 years times, it will really show poorly. The Wii from what I have seen is mostly a beefed up Gamecube. I think by the end of this next-gen, the gamecube will look comprable to what the last games of the PS1 looks like today, speaking relatively of course.

This assumes of course that graphics continue to improve, which some people think they wont. Thing is, ive been hearing that for a decade now, and always they get better.

I think the decision not to support HD, is going to make games look seriously shitty in 5 or 6 years time, when HD will be far more popular then SD in the home.

Serapth

07-27-2006, 11:16 AM

I'd be willing to bet that you will see quite a few very good golf games for Wii. That seems like a very safe wager.

Like I said, im seriously excited about the potential for the Wii. I am most likely getting one. I seriously hope to see wicked Golf Games, Pool games, etc... and one kickass sword fighting game.

I JUST HOPE TO HELL THEY DONT HAVE CARTOONY GRAPHICS!!!!!
:D

Sorry for yelling.

EternalGamer

07-27-2006, 11:18 AM

Yes, but your not following... compare those PS2 games available now... to the last generation ( Ps1, N64, etc... ) and tell me how well they hold up.

That was exactly my point, your just comparing the wrong the direction.

The problem is you can't directly compare the two generations. Games this generation have reached a definite point where, for certain types of games, the graphic capabilities are no longer what is limiting artistic style. Wind Waker looks like Wind Waker should look. Ico looks like Ico should look. Rez looks like Rez should look. There are tons of game types and artistic style that will not benefit from technological increase. Yeah photorealistic type games will benefit, but there are alot of games (and not just "cartoony ones") that don't fall in that category. 1st gen 2D games (NES games) all look dated. But many second gen 2D games (SNES and Genesis games) still look great. It's the same paradigm shift--primitive 3D to more advanced 3D. I don't think God of War or Resident Evil 4 will ever look "bad."

Certainly you will be able to tell the difference between the other next gen console's graphics and the Wii's, but that doesn't make the Wii's unenjoyable. People don't enjoy Back to the Future or E. T. less just because special effects technology in films like King Kong look better.

Serapth

07-27-2006, 11:22 AM

The problem is you can't directly compare the two generations. Games this generation have reached a definite point where, for certain types of games, the graphic capabilities are no longer what is limiting artistic style. Wind Waker looks like Wind Waker should look. Ico looks like Ico should look. Rez looks like Rez should look. There are tons of game types and artistic style that will not benefit from technological increase. Yeah photorealistic type games will benefit, but there are alot of games (and not just "cartoony ones") that don't fall in that category. 1st gen 2D games (NES games) all look dated. But many second gen 2D games (SNES and Genesis games) still look great. It's the same paradigm shift--primitive 3D to more advanced 3D. I don't think God of War or Resident Evil 4 will ever look "bad."

Certainly you will be able to tell the difference between the other next gen console's graphics and the Wii's, but that doesn't make the Wii's unenjoyable. People don't enjoy Back to the Future or E. T. less just because special effects technology in films like King Kong look better.

I agree that certain artistic styles of games will age better then others. That said, I remember saying "3D isnt going to get much better then this!!!" when playing Tie Fighter back in 1994! Going back and replaying these games is brutally hard, even though they are still great games.

I also used to think Terminator had some of the best fx ever, and it would never be topped! Now, frankly, it all seems a bit cheesy. Its still a good movie, but from a FX perspective, its been left in the dust. Also, comparing film and games is never fair, as you dont interact with a film, and its an experience that is over in an hour or two, so you are more forgiving of flaws. Spending 40 hours playing a zelda game, small things are going to piss you off even more!

Kamalot

07-27-2006, 11:24 AM

What im saying is, without the big jump in power the Xbox 360 and PS3 are getting, today the Wii wont look so bad, but in 5 or 6 years times, it will really show poorly. The Wii from what I have seen is mostly a beefed up Gamecube. I think by the end of this next-gen, the gamecube will look comprable to what the last games of the PS1 looks like today, speaking relatively of course.

This assumes of course that graphics continue to improve, which some people think they wont. Thing is, ive been hearing that for a decade now, and always they get better.

I think the decision not to support HD, is going to make games look seriously shitty in 5 or 6 years time, when HD will be far more popular then SD in the home.
Interesting theory, but people still believe that the PS2 can put out seriously good graphics, and the GameCube is much more powerful than the PS2. Wii is more powerful than the original Xbox if reports are to be believed.

Regardless, Wii will have the capability to spit out prettier graphics than were ever able to be done on the PS2, GameCube or Xbox, and that's not a bad thing. Most people in the world already can't tell the difference between PS2 and Xbox games visually.

I'd wager that the decision to not go HD is actually a GOOD thing for Nintendo since it will allow the visual processing to go much farther. Running at 1080i takes several times the processing power than running at 480p. This power is, in essence, wasted on rendering more pixels and not on more geometry. Therefore, if Wii is 3x as powerful as the Cube, you'll find that it can render worlds and geometry 3x as detailed as the Cube, at the same resolution. To render a world 3x as detailed in HD, you need closer to 6x the processing power.

Yes, Wii games won't look as good as 360 or PS3 games, but Dreamcast still holds its own. In 5 years, when close to 50% of the population has HDTVs, there will be another generation of consoles. I can guarantee you that all consoles coming out in 2011 will be HD.

torrefaction

07-27-2006, 11:26 AM

I'd wager that the decision to not go HD is actually a GOOD thing for Nintendo since it will allow the visual processing to go much farther. Running at 1080i takes several times the processing power than running at 480p. This power is, in essence, wasted on rendering more pixels and not on more geometry. Therefore, if Wii is 3x as powerful as the Cube, you'll find that it can render worlds and geometry 3x as detailed as the Cube, at the same resolution. To render a world 3x as detailed in HD, you need closer to 6x the processing power.

What you're forgetting is that for those of us who DO own an HDTV, that resolution fucking sucks.

EternalGamer

07-27-2006, 11:27 AM

The answer is a resounding yes. A lot of us care about immersion in gaming, and those with 360's are more likely to understand this. GRAW was more fun because of the better graphics, because it gave you a better sense of really playing that role. Immersive sound is yet another factor. Those things DO make games for fun, more intense, more spooky, more exhilirating, or whatever the developer's going for. Of course, without solid gameplay mechanics, it still won't matter. But yet, it does make it more fun.

And you're also completely neglecting the ability to have a single core focus purely on AI or physics. That could mean a lot for intelligent enemies, massive worlds, physics based gameplay. The possibilities when you have more horsepower are staggering.

It amazes me how the Wii crowd seems to just brush this stuff off. Don't get me wrong, I'll probably get a Wii. But it probably won't be what I play games on most often, and I'll be pissed if it ends up collecting dust like my gamecube.

You act as if immersion in games is directly correlated to the titles polygon count or resolution. Is GRAW more immersive than Resident Evil 4? No way in hell. I'll definitely give you the point about intelligent enemies, but I'm not exactly sure I or others really want to play games with intelligent AI. It would be pain in the ass if every enemy you fought was a struggle to defeat. It would kill momentum. Similarly, I'm not sure games that have a coherant physics system are inherantly more fun to play than ones that "fake" it. Technically more impressive yes, but more fun? I'm not so sure. I absolutely agree that there are fun experiences that can be complimented by improved graphical capabilities, but I'm not sure those improvements are ever more than just that--a minor compliment. I think we have reached the peak in regards to the benefits of technology on the gaming medium. There are still improvments to be made, but they fall under the law of "diminishing returns" at this point.

Kamalot

07-27-2006, 11:30 AM

What you're forgetting is that for those of us who DO own an HDTV, that resolution fucking sucks.
I have an HDTV (a projector no less), and I don't mind it one bit.

EternalGamer

07-27-2006, 11:32 AM

What you're forgetting is that for those of us who DO own an HDTV, that resolution fucking sucks.

You've obviously bought into the HD hype way too much. I own two HDTVs and a Enchanced Definition projector that only does 480p (the same resolution the Wii broadcasts in). I used the projector way more for gaming, including with my 360. Why? Because the difference between 480p and 720p isn't really all that mind blowing. But the difference in picture size between my 34" Wega and my 84" projector screen is. 480P on a huge screen looks damn good and unless you sit extremely close, you can't see pixelation. Art design along with improved textures and polygon counts matter a lot more than resolution outputs.

Kamalot

07-27-2006, 11:32 AM

You act as if immersion in games is directly correlated to the titles polygon count or resolution. Is GRAW more immersive than Resident Evil 4? No way in hell. I'll definitely give you the point about intelligent enemies, but I'm not exactly sure I or others really want to play games with intelligent AI. It would be pain in the ass if every enemy you fought was a struggle to defeat. It would kill momentum. Similarly, I'm not sure games that have a coherant physics system are inherantly more fun to play than ones that "fake" it. Technically more impressive yes, but more fun? I'm not so sure. I absolutely agree that there are fun experiences that can be complimented by improved graphical capabilities, but I'm not sure those improvements are ever more than a minor compliment. I think we have reached the peak in regards to the benefits of technology on the gaming medium. There are still improvments to be made, but they fall under the law of "diminishing returns" at this point.How about a type of immersion that allows you to reach into your game to pull the shield off of the enemie's arm, or to swing the fishing pole? That type of immersion can't be counted in polygons or button presses. How about the type of immersion where you 'feel' the surface of the road or the kickback from gunfire? That type of immersion can't be recreated with polygons either and will be missing from the PS3.

Serapth

07-27-2006, 11:33 AM

Interesting theory, but people still believe that the PS2 can put out seriously good graphics, and the GameCube is much more powerful than the PS2. Wii is more powerful than the original Xbox if reports are to be believed.

Yeah, but as time goes on, the results get worse. Lets say the Wii is slightly higher in power then the Xbox, which from the specs ive read looks about accurate. How good will Xbox games look in 2 years time, compared to 360/ps3 games? What about 3 years times... 4? 5? Kotor has perfectly playable graphics, but compare it to Mass Effect ( from what ive seen ). After playing or seeing next generation games on the other consoles, current gen graphics are going to look worse and worse, and worse.

Most people in the world already can't tell the difference between PS2 and Xbox games visually.

If thats the case... most people need an eye exam... seriously. Most people may not care... but if they can tell the difference between say... Splinter Cell on Xbox and PS2, their vision sucks... harsh. However, thats comparing consoles from the same generation. The difference internally between a Wii and a 360 are MASSIVE compared to the difference between the Xbox and PS2.

I'd wager that the decision to not go HD is actually a GOOD thing for Nintendo since it will allow the visual processing to go much farther. Running at 1080i takes several times the processing power than running at 480p. This power is, in essence, wasted on rendering more pixels and not on more geometry. Therefore, if Wii is 3x as powerful as the Cube, you'll find that it can render worlds and geometry 3x as detailed as the Cube, at the same resolution. To render a world 3x as detailed in HD, you need closer to 6x the processing power.

Thats nuts... if that was the case... why arent games on our PCs still running at 320x200 or 640x480, so they can have all that extra processing power for making the game more fun.

Also, there is a massive law of diminishing returns on adding detail to geometry vs pixel resolution of the display its on. Frankly, we have pretty much hit a point where you arent going to make SD look that much better, because frankly you only have X number of pixels to work with. ( The reverse is true to however, a high resolution display will make low resolution textures more glaringly obvious ).
Yes, Wii games won't look as good as 360 or PS3 games, but Dreamcast still holds its own. In 5 years, when close to 50% of the population has HDTVs, there will be another generation of consoles. I can guarantee you that all consoles coming out in 2011 will be HD.[/QUOTE]

Kamalot

07-27-2006, 11:33 AM

bean19

07-27-2006, 11:35 AM

Kamalot

07-27-2006, 11:35 AM

Frankly, we have pretty much hit a point where you arent going to make SD look that much better, because frankly you only have X number of pixels to work with.
Sorry. I have to call this total bullshit.

When games look as good as DVDs in standard definition, then you can tell me we have standard definition graphics maxed out. Until then, this argument is total balderdash.

Serapth

07-27-2006, 11:37 AM

rainbowblack

07-27-2006, 11:37 AM

like a previous poster said, "fanservice" EA is not going to help sell this system unless they start shipping exclusives. i dont think that words is in EA's vocabulary

but yeah this article is full of stuff we knew months ago

EternalGamer

07-27-2006, 11:37 AM

Yeah, it's the one you suggested. Cost me about $500 after rebate. And it makes me sick that I spent $2000 on a Sony HDTV a year ago. This projector kicks its ass and that's because resolution doesn't matter nearly as much as it's been hyped to matter, especially on smaller (sub 50 inch) screens. I wish someone had told me that before.

Kamalot

07-27-2006, 11:38 AM

Kamalot - You aren't getting my point. I'm EXCITED about the Wii too. The games look good and I think the wiimote will probably have a standard control option as well that will make gaming even more fun.

THE POINT IS THAT TOO MANY JOURNALISTS AND POSTERS ARE NOT ASKING IMPORTANT QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SYSTEM OR BEING CRITICAL AND OBJECTIVE BECAUSE ALL THEY CAN DO IS GUSH ABOUT THE SYSTEM.

We can't ever discuss the things that Nintendo SHOULD be revealing because every time someone raises the questions, they are drowned out by OMG ZELDA and OMG MARIO GALAXY! (I'm thinking that too - don't get me wrong, but I want journalists to ask these questions and I want EvAv posters to discuss the real issues the console faces objectively.)

Why not post your questions to IGN or 1Up to have journalists respond to them? Phrase it as a serious series of questions and encourage them to be answered. I could see IGN doing a full-blown article on your list of questions.

Frankly, I can't respond to them. All I know is that I have yet to play a shitty Zelda / Mario / Metroid game. Nintendo has shown me that they create great games and that the Wii will be home to many of these types of games upon launch. According to history, this is something to be very excited about.

Unless Wii turns out to be Virtual Boy...

IRONGUSTAV

07-27-2006, 11:39 AM

Are High Definition graphics going to make games more fun? If you put those two options in front of me, I would say the Wii's control mechanism has a lot better shot of making games more interesting/fun than just upping resolution will.

the problem here is,next gen its not just HD graphics,more power is advanced AI,advanced physhics,better and bigger worlds,more interaction,more posibilities,more realistic beaviour,etc etc

and that make games more interesting/fun

becasue nintendo tells you next gen power its not necessary or hd graphix are superflous dont meant its true,nintendo changes is discurse each generatio,when the n64 the power was the big thing,with gc the innovation,and now? fun? dont get me wrong but when 360 or ps3 show his bi guns on 2008,wiii gfx will look horrible( well u can see the cod3 wii version it looks horrible now in 2006)

RMan

07-27-2006, 11:40 AM

Yes, but your not following... compare those PS2 games available now... to the last generation ( Ps1, N64, etc... ) and tell me how well they hold up.
Wait, are you saying that in 5 years Wii games will be compared to late generation PS4/Xbox3 games? Yea, I’m definitely not getting your point, but in the end games will be compared to what they’re stacked up against. In 5 years, at worst, they’ll be stacked up against late generation 360/PS3 games or early XBox3 games.
The controller is making all kinds of new game play possibilities happen, right at the launch.
Yes, I know, I'm promoting it’s abilities, not attacking them. I just think many are looking at is as “how is it going to make the exact games I play now more fun” and I think that’s totally missing the point.
That may be true, but i mean what other use does it have other than being waved around in the air, or pointed and clicked. It seems to me to boil down to a load of gimmicky peripherals in one unit. Still i may be pleasantly suprised.
Well, let me put it another way. How many games of today could be played on an Atari joystick (digital stick with one button). Virtually none of the games we play now could be done with that controller, but you start singing the praises of what we’d call a traditional controller to someone who’s only played first generation games and he often wouldn’t understand how much more could be done with it. This is very similar, except it offers a more dynamic form of control than we’ve seen yet, many of the games we play now use multiple buttons and analog sticks to simulate what would be far more natural, immersive, and dynamic if we could just do the action (like tennis or sword fighting). IMO, this is nearly as significant a jump as going from, say, a NES controller to a current controller.
What im saying is, without the big jump in power the Xbox 360 and PS3 are getting, today the Wii wont look so bad, but in 5 or 6 years times, it will really show poorly.
Ehh, I think you’re greatly overestimating what faster and higher resolution graphics can do, and ignoring the fact that, besides resolution, the gap between the PS2 and Xbox is pretty close to what the Wii and 360 will be. Time will tell, but clearly you believe the “your buying potential” hype, personally, I know what graphics hardware can do and what it can’t, and while it’d be nice if the Wii was beefier, to suggest it’s no better than the previous generation is pretty silly (not to mention, your premise suggests that the artwork and other non-hardware related elements won’t improve).

torrefaction

07-27-2006, 11:40 AM

You've obviously bought into the HD hype way too much. I own two HDTVs and a Enchanced Definition projector that only does 480p (the same resolution the Wii broadcasts in). I used the projector way more for gaming, including with my 360. Why? Because the difference between 480p and 720p isn't really all that mind blowing. But the difference in picture size between my 34" Wega and my 84" projector screen is. 480P on a huge screen looks damn good and unless you sit extremely close, you can't see pixelation. Art design along with improved textures and polygon counts matter a lot more than resolution outputs.

So I should be happy that my investment isn't being fully utilized? Yeah, I know it's not mind-blowing, but there is a visible difference. I'm not saying it's going to look like shit, but since I have the capability to display HD resolutions, I'd really like to see them.

And you must've missed the rest of my arguments earlier.

Art Design...well, it's not like there's no art design on games outside of the Wii.
Textures and polygon counts...The 360 or the PS3 aren't exactly going to be lacking in these areas.

But what I'm personally concerned about is immersion. That means physics, sound, AI, and visual fidelity. I want to forget I'm on my couch entirely. GRAW almost did that for me. The Wii is NOT going to be able to compete in the area of physics or AI, and I think that's where a lot of key advances in gameplay and immersion are going to be.

Like I said above, I'm probably going to own a Wii, but I just have a feeling it's not going to get a lot of use. I hope I'm wrong. But I'm probably not.

Kamalot

07-27-2006, 11:44 AM

I gotta disagree with you on this one. HD really does make a profound effect on image quality.

I'm not going to argue with you on image quality. Yes, HDTV will look much better than Standard Definition. Lets look at an example...

I can watch a great movie in standard definition and love it. Why? Because the movie itself is great. Once I get swept into the story, action, characters, etc, then the picture quality melts away.

I can watch an average movie in High Definition. Guess what! It is still an average movie! It may look better, but the story, characters, action, etc don't get any better.

I'd rather have games that are fantastic, fun and affordable in standard definition instead of games that are middle (http://ps3.ign.com/objects/749/749967.html)-of (http://ps3.ign.com/objects/814/814614.html)-the-road (http://ps3.ign.com/objects/700/700186.html) but available with more polygons.

Serapth

07-27-2006, 11:44 AM

I know what graphics hardware can do and what it can’t, and while it’d be nice if the Wii was beefier, to suggest it’s no better than the previous generation is pretty silly (not to mention, your premise suggests that the artwork and other non-hardware related elements won’t improve).

Im going of media quotes that say the Wii graphically is slightly more powerful then an Xbox. Until its actually released, we only have speculation based on what people have said.

Well, that and the fact it doesnt support HD is a pretty big hindrence, especially in 5 years when HD is much more common.

EternalGamer

07-27-2006, 11:46 AM

I gotta disagree with you on this one. HD really does make a profound effect on image quality. Myself, going from my 360 back to my PS2 or Xbox is almost painful ( ignoring the fact the 360 controller kicks serious ass! ). Im the same way with TV. I get about 35 stations in HD and about 200 others in SD. Going from a HD signal to watching an SD signal is brutal. SD images just start looking grainy and washed out once you get used to HD.

I almost wonder if it comes down to how good peoples eye sight is?

Definitely nothing wrong with my eyesight. And I can notice a difference but it is not mindblowing. Comparing Standard Definition TV to HD TV isn't very fair either since Standard Definition is sent over a low quality signal, so it looks much worse than it is actually capable of. But also we aren't just talking about standard def versus high def. We are essentially talking about Enchanced Def (480p--which is twice standard def) versus High Def (780p and 1080i). Also how do you have your old systems hooked up? Do you have them hooked up with component cables and set up to display 480p? Because I have found that Gamecube games look fantastic at 480p (I had to order the cable directly from Nintendo). I have been playing Final Fantasy Chrystal Chronicles on my projector at night with a friend and it looks fantastic. And this is after spending an afternoon playing Oblivion on my computer monitor all afternoon (since the projector doesn't look so hot during the day).

Does Crystal Chronicles look as good as Oblvion? Well, hell no. But it is really two very different art styles. Crystal Chronicles still looks damn good for the style of game it is, even after playing Oblivion in HD all day long.

Serapth

07-27-2006, 11:48 AM

I'm not going to argue with you on image quality. Yes, HDTV will look much better than Standard Definition. Lets look at an example...

I can watch a great movie in standard definition and love it. Why? Because the movie itself is great. Once I get swept into the story, action, characters, etc, then the picture quality melts away.

I can watch an average movie in High Definition. Guess what! It is still an average movie! It may look better, but the story, characters, action, etc don't get any better.

Ah... but your missing something.

See, I can enjoy a movie in SD, just as I can hate a movie in HD. To use a real world example... I own the Star Wars trilogy on both VHS and DVD. They are the same movie, one just looks alot better then the other. Can I still enjoy watching Star Wars on VHS? Yes, put I enjoy it alot more on DVD.

Now... say I have an HDDVD version of Star Wars... plus still own my DVD and VHS copies aswell. I will enjoy the HD version far more then the other two ( as im getting closer and closer to the cinema experience, etc... ). It doesnt make the other two bad, just inferior.

The same applies to gaming.

Kamalot

07-27-2006, 11:51 AM

Ah... but your missing something.

See, I can enjoy a movie in SD, just as I can hate a movie in HD. To use a real world example... I own the Star Wars trilogy on both VHS and DVD. They are the same movie, one just looks alot better then the other. Can I still enjoy watching Star Wars on VHS? Yes, put I enjoy it alot more on DVD.

Now... say I have an HDDVD version of Star Wars... plus still own my DVD and VHS copies aswell. I will enjoy the HD version far more then the other two ( as im getting closer and closer to the cinema experience, etc... ). It doesnt make the other two bad, just inferior.

The same applies to gaming.
Right! Ports will be better on the 360 or maybe the PS3.

What if you could do something on the DVD versions of Star Wars that you couldn't do in the HDTV versions, like have a lightsaber battle with Darth?

With Wii, and a new control scheme, we aren't comparing apples to apples any more. We have new ways of playing that you simply won't be able to do on other consoles. There is room for both, either Wii60 or PSWii.

EternalGamer

07-27-2006, 11:52 AM

One other point Serapth. Have you ever watched a DVD on a regular TV. It looks way, way better than standard TV cable does. That right there shows you how it is unfair to compair HD signals to the standard TV as if standard TV is the best a non-HD signal can get.

And torrent, I don't think we entirely disagree. All I"m saying is that I think we've reached a point where improved hardware capabilities are no longer obligatory to improved gameplay experiences. Not that they aren't nice or noticable, but that they aren't going to lead to huge alterations or shifts in gaming paradigms. I think the onus is much more in the individual developer now. Even in current gen hardware, I think the developer's talents and budgets matter a lot more in terms of how a game ends up looking and playing than the hardware limitations do.

Serapth

07-27-2006, 11:52 AM

Definitely nothing wrong with my eyesight. And I can notice a difference but it is not mindblowing. Comparing Standard Definition TV to HD TV isn't very fair either since Standard Definition is sent over a low quality signal, so it looks much worse than it is actually capable of. But also we aren't just talking about standard def versus high def. We are essentially talking about Enchanced Def (480p--which is twice standard def) versus High Def (780p and 1080i). Also how do you have your old systems hooked up? Do you have them hooked up with component cables and set up to display 480p? Because I have found that Gamecube games look fantastic at 480p (I had to order the cable directly from Nintendo). I have been playing Final Fantasy Chrystal Chronicles on my projector at night with a friend and it looks fantastic. And this is after spending an afternoon playing Oblivion on my computer monitor all afternoon (since the projector doesn't look so hot during the day).

Does Crystal Chronicles look as good as Oblvion? Well, hell no. But it is really two very different art styles. Crystal Chronicles still looks damn good for the style of game it is, even after playing Oblivion in HD all day long.

Actually I skipped the Gamecube, as there were no killer must have games ( Resident Evil almost got me, but PS2 for the save! ) that are my style.

That said, my Xbox was using the HD pack, and even between 480p and 720p I notice a huge difference. My PS2 however was just sVideo ( do I really need HD jaggies? ), and between 480i and 720p the difference is staggering.

So yes, the impact between 480p and 720p isnt as massive as the difference between 480i and 720p, but its still huge to me.

Serapth

07-27-2006, 11:55 AM

RMan

07-27-2006, 12:00 PM

HD really does make a profound effect on image quality.
To you, and that’s the important part. Not to suggest you’re the only one, but quality and it’s impact on the viewer’s experience is entirely personal. Perhaps a lower resolution is enough for you to not buy a product, but for the vast majority of people, I do not think it is.

For instance, I can play FEAR or Prey, jump out and play WoW, and although it clearly doesn’t look as technologically impressive, I do not feel my experience is suffering. Would I like WoW to be more technologically impressive? Sure, why not, my machine can handle it. Would I pay for WoW to be more technologically impressive? No, likely not. Would I play a drop dead gorgeous game from another company that was slightly worse otherwise? Almost assuredly not. So, better graphics tech is good, yet not overly significant, and I think most people see it the same way (at least evidence seems to point that way right now).

Eran Hawke

07-27-2006, 12:06 PM

The whole resolution argumentis stupid.

If you only buy games that run in High-Definition, you will miss out on a lot of awesome games.

End of story.

If resolution makes better games, why is the DS doing better than the PSP? If image quality is so much more important, why did PS2 mop up the Xbox?

KSmitty

07-27-2006, 12:07 PM

Didn't we already have the Wii will suck because it has no HD argument?
As long as the control is decent and default standard controls are offered there will be no problems with the Wii. Graphics?? Aren't the biggest things on 360 Live mostly Arcade games? As others have said with strong 1st party titles and moderate 3rd party support I will be happy to buy a Wii. That is pretty much what we had for GC and I never regretted buying the system, but then again I wouldn't let 'cartoony' grapics stop me from playing a good game. I think that goes to your preference, if you want photorealism and HD shit man go buy yourself a 360, or sell some major organs and buy a PS3 ;) If you like Nintendo first party titles and don't mind 'lesser' visual quality and 'cartoony' games buy a Wii. Nintendo has proven that they can handle a 'gimmick' well (NDS) if they can do just as well, not even better, with the Wii I will be just as happy with my Wii as with my GC.

Sidenote: Nintendo is the King of Party Games, which I play alot with my friends and family.

-K

Eran Hawke

07-27-2006, 12:12 PM

TheBrainKills

07-27-2006, 12:15 PM

After playing Burnout Revenge on my 50" dlp at 720p I decided to check out Zelda Wind waker and see if it looked real ugly. Well it certainly did for about 2 minutes, one hour later I had to force myself to stop playing.

Serapth you have to try this experiment, get a big hall and put 2 video game machines in it. One with HD resolution graphics and one with SD graphics but a unique controller that offers a different style of play. Open the doors and see which one garners more interest.

Plus your assuming that Nintendo is in the same cycle of releasing their console as MS and Sony, but by having a cheaper one that probably turns a profit on day one they can release a new one at the time of their choosing; say at 4 years, with all that HD eye candy you need.

RMan

07-27-2006, 12:17 PM

Im going of media quotes that say the Wii graphically is slightly more powerful then an Xbox. Until its actually released, we only have speculation based on what people have said.
Initial reports did say that, but in terms of graphics, all I’ve ever seen is people making direct MHZ comparisons, which isn’t remotely indicative of comparative performance (if it was, CPU makers wouldn’t have opted for a performance rating). You can choose to believe that ATI produced a newer GPU core than the 360 but decided to base it on at least 4 year old sub SM2 tech if you like, but I’m going with the FAR more reasonable assumption that it’s an SM3 part (which would put it’s graphics capabilities far beyond Xbox, and since it’s newer, it has a better chance of featuring ATI’s PPU architecture). I think you have to accept a very negative slant on the scant info we have to evaluate the Wii as you have.

Serapth

07-27-2006, 12:38 PM

"Actually I skipped the Gamecube, as there were no killer must have games"

Fire Emblem, Custom Robo and Metroid, Eternal Darkness, Sega Soccer Slam, beach Spikers, Mario Kart, pokemon are all must-haves for me. Put Phantasy Star Online on the list too.

You missed the full quote... "that are my style."

Completely changes the sentence. None of those games really jump out and say BUY ME! to me. Does it bother you so much people may have different tastes then you???

Kamalot

07-27-2006, 12:40 PM

Serapth

07-27-2006, 12:45 PM

Serapth you have to try this experiment, get a big hall and put 2 video game machines in it. One with HD resolution graphics and one with SD graphics but a unique controller that offers a different style of play. Open the doors and see which one garners more interest.

That wouldnt prove anything relevant to this conversation. It just proves people like the gee-wiz wow factor of something new. On the same hand, you could put a Porsche 911 and a brand new concept car in the same room, and people will flock to the concept car. It just proves people are interested in new stuff. As them which they would prefer to have as a gift, and you are going to need a lot of Porsches.

Dont get me wrong, im not anti-Wii, im just sick of all the "Graphics dont matter" stupid BS comments that make it sound like games EITHER have good graphics or good gameplay... like the concept of having both is totally alien.

Zaro

07-27-2006, 12:46 PM

Probably people don't need the same level of graphics to be immerse in a game.
If the game's is well done, i can play games on any platform and like it. I'm not less immerse in a gamecube game than a Pc game. Probably it's about what your imagination can do for you. Where the graphic lack you brain patch, i don't know.
I can understand people need more graphics to like a game.

It depend of what you like in a game too, for me FEAR is too linear, i don't need to remember anything about this world, it's just room after room killing thing. At least the fear factor is good and the AI too. But it's not my thing.

I just begin Beyond Good and Evil i really think it look good and the control is perfect, i really feel the world they create.

Anyway, have fun.

shnastybiznastic

07-27-2006, 01:01 PM

yup,let me see,another mario,another super smash,another metroid,another zelda,another wario
And in every new iteration the gameplay changes. That's what makes Nintendo's franchise sequels different from other sequels.

Kamalot

07-27-2006, 01:45 PM

That wouldnt prove anything relevant to this conversation. It just proves people like the gee-wiz wow factor of something new. On the same hand, you could put a Porsche 911 and a brand new concept car in the same room, and people will flock to the concept car. It just proves people are interested in new stuff. As them which they would prefer to have as a gift, and you are going to need a lot of Porsches.

Dont get me wrong, im not anti-Wii, im just sick of all the "Graphics dont matter" stupid BS comments that make it sound like games EITHER have good graphics or good gameplay... like the concept of having both is totally alien.
Your analogy would work if one car let you drive on all the roads people currently drive on and the other car takes you to new places. Wii's new control scheme is like going off-road. You aren't limited by the same streets and avenues that a traditional controller has. You are free to explore new ways of playing that haven't ever been done before.

That is very different than comparing two cars...unless one can fly.

Mr.Condescension

07-27-2006, 04:19 PM

I'm going to have to side with Serapth on this one. I think resolution and horsepower do matter to alot of people, myself included. Consider me a graphics whore if you like, but I want my games to look and sound as good as possible.

Let's just assume that the Wii is twice as powerful as the Xbox. That's still a fraction of the power of the other next-gen consoles. In MGS4 Snake's mustache alone has more polys than his entire body in MGS3. The horsepower doesn't just contribute to resolution, but also polys, effects, AI, physics, draw distance, etc.

My main misgiving for the Wii, despite liking Zelda and Metroid, is that to my eyes the graphics of the 360 and PS3 are already making the Wii's graphics look very dated. I truly cannot imagine playing games on the system in 2 years if it has that much less power. That's my personal point of view on the issue, but I think it's a perfectly valid one, and I think Serapth's is too, considering he's speaking from his own experiences.

Kamalot

07-27-2006, 04:29 PM

Consider me a graphics whore if you like..I do.
That's my personal point of view on the issue, but I think it's a perfectly valid one.I bet you are unanimout in your own point of view too. Well, my point of view is just as valid, and that is Gameplay is more important than Graphics.

Mr.Condescension

07-27-2006, 05:09 PM

Gameplay is more important than Graphics.

I agree 100% with that statement. The problem is that Nintendo fans seem to believe that good gameplay and good graphics cannot coexist. I don't share that belief. I believe you can have amazingly good gameplay and amazingly good graphics at the same time. Unfortunately, Nintendo's decision to go with a lower spec machine means to me that in a year's time it won't be possible to have both current graphics and great gameplay on their machine. On the other hand I do believe it will be possible to have both great graphics and great gameplay on both the 360 and the PS3.

laggerific

07-27-2006, 07:00 PM

DS to Wii connectivity is a huge deal...I'm sure they will have the ability to load classic games to the DS and then back to the Wii for greater flexibility.

Spigot

07-27-2006, 08:35 PM

And in every new iteration the gameplay changes. That's what makes Nintendo's franchise sequels different from other sequels.
Thanks Shnasty. You beat me to it this time.

Yeah, if every Mario game, Zelda game or Metroid game was basically the same thing with a few graphical tweaks, I'd be bored to tears with them too. The fact that they actually rework many of the gameplay facets from game to game (while still keeping a lot of the traditional elements) is why people still buy them.

It does help to have a recognizable character or name behind the game, but these various iterations don't score insanely high review scores every time just based on the familiarity factor.

PS. I'm still compiling that list of Hard Fantasy books for you. Gonna dig through my collection a bit more and find the stuff that really fits that description :)

rival81

07-27-2006, 09:28 PM

"classic games to the DS and then back to the Wii for greater flexibility."

Where did you hear that? Would be good if it were true, but i have my doubts..

Kamalot

07-28-2006, 04:38 AM

I agree 100% with that statement. The problem is that Nintendo fans seem to believe that good gameplay and good graphics cannot coexist. I don't share that belief. I believe you can have amazingly good gameplay and amazingly good graphics at the same time. Unfortunately, Nintendo's decision to go with a lower spec machine means to me that in a year's time it won't be possible to have both current graphics and great gameplay on their machine. On the other hand I do believe it will be possible to have both great graphics and great gameplay on both the 360 and the PS3.
In a year's time, you still won't be able to play games with Wii's gameplay mechanics on any other console. In a year's time, Wii will still be more powerful than the original Xbox.

If you want the new gameplay mechanics and immersiveness of being able to reach into the game, Wii is the only console this generation offering that. Graphics, while not bad, won't be the best.

Until someone comes out with a Wiimote for the 360 or the PS3, then you can't have the gameplay the Wiimote offers anywhere else.

Mr.Condescension

07-28-2006, 08:22 AM

Until someone comes out with a Wiimote for the 360 or the PS3, then you can't have the gameplay the Wiimote offers anywhere else.

That's quite true. The only question is if that controller will actually make the games more fun, or just fun in a different way. I personally am not tired of the current controllers and control schemes in video games and think they too will allow fun gameplay. You could be right, and the Wiimote will offer leaps and bounds more options for fun and exciting gameplay in the next 5 years, or you could be wrong, and the games are no better than the other consoles' games. Then you're left with a different but equal control scheme and lesser graphics.

RMan

07-28-2006, 08:56 AM

The problem is that Nintendo fans seem to believe that good gameplay and good graphics cannot coexist.
I think the vast majority of time that is not true (the assumption that even some of the fans think that). The problem is that the PS3 and 360 are almost entirely about improving graphics, and the Wii is almost entirely about improving gameplay, and has not put anything near the focus on graphics as the other two. So, when you ‘choose’ the Wii, you are choosing something that promises a focus on gameplay rather than a focus on graphics, which is what spawns the ‘I want gameplay, not graphics’ comments. To assume that the fans think they can’t coexist is a very negative assumption (I can’t recall one person that seemed to believe that, much less grouping all fans that way).

Zaro

07-28-2006, 10:32 AM

I think like you Rman on this.
And nobody say about a game, it's ugly then the gameplay will rock. Everybody like good graphics. I read much more "This graphic sucks" when graphics is good enough.

Kamalot

07-28-2006, 12:13 PM

To assume that the fans think they can’t coexist is a very negative assumption (I can’t recall one person that seemed to believe that, much less grouping all fans that way).I've never met a single person that thinks graphics can't coexist with gameplay.

Some companies put more of their attention on graphics first, gameplay second. Nintendo seems to be focusing on gameplay first, graphics second. That is more in line with my philosophy toward games; that gameplay is most important, graphics comes later and should be good enough to support said gameplay.

Focusing on graphics first is putting the cart before the horse.

MaxDuo

07-28-2006, 03:11 PM

Wow, I was never aware the the two most important things in games were graphics and definition. I must be an idiot to still derive joy from playing some NES and SNES games.

While I may feel a little unhappy that the Wii won't have the anywhere near the same graphic potential, and might not be able to put 1000000000 things on the screen at once... I'll be fine with it if it's fun. Also what I'm fine with... The fact that it probably won't be over $250 to buy. The decent Xbox is $400.... If the system were over $300 I'd wait for a price drop before I got it. But if it's $250 or lower I'm going for it. I'm excited about a number of games for it.

As for the worry about 3rd party support... That always was sad with the Gamecube. I had an N64 and enjoyed the games I had for it. And I felt sad about when I saw tons of PS games I wanted but couldn't play. When the next gen came up I got a PS2 about a year or so later due to having more games. I wanted a GC but I didn't want to spend the money on it.

I'd think that the Wii would get much better 3rd party support... I mean they had a pretty good showing at E3. Lots of excitement. I remember a few weeks ago most of the people I saw in the news articles on here seemed excited about the Wii. If I were a game maker and I saw tons and tons of people so interested in the Wii... I'd want to try to take advantage of that. So I'd like to hope that they took special notice of the Wii and will be putting out more games for it this time around. Especially since the Wii is the most easily affordable system.

bean19

07-28-2006, 04:25 PM

Focusing on graphics first is putting the cart before the horse.

Saying the Wii is going to have better gameplay but worse graphics is sort of like saying that the fat girl in a beauty contest is going to win the talent portion but not the beauty portion.

Your assuming that a deficiency in graphics (beauty) implies strength in gameplay (talent). . . but really that is going to be different for EVERY game, and while I have no doubt that there will be a number of excellent first-party games, I'm not convinced that the wiimote will usher in a new era of amazing gameplay.

The truth is that the games won't look nearly as good as what will be on the 360 and the PS3. They still may be fun to play, and you are correct that gameplay is more important than graphics, but the judges are still out.

You aren't obnoxious like some fanboys Kamalot, but the Wii is still unproven and I'd like it if people were more skeptical. Nintendo will need to answer a large number of questions for me and let me demo the wiimote before I'll be picking up my pom-poms for the system. Right now I'm just terribly interested. . . and fairly annoyed at all the posters and journalists who've abandoned all sense in anticipation of a new Nintendo console.

I'm praying it will do better than it did in the last console battle and that this will result in more titles for them. . . OR that it will flop completely and Nintendo will become a publisher/developer. It would be nice to not have to buy a system that is almost exclusively used on the small number of excellent first-party titles they put out.

Serapth

07-28-2006, 04:27 PM

I think the vast majority of time that is not true (the assumption that even some of the fans think that). The problem is that the PS3 and 360 are almost entirely about improving graphics, and the Wii is almost entirely about improving gameplay, and has not put anything near the focus on graphics as the other two.

What a crock of shit. If anything, Xbox 360 is all about connectivity and selling Live. Shit, their biggest announcement at E3 was Live Anywhere. Live Arcade, Marketplace and Microtransactions ( for good or evil ), are some of the biggest features of the 360.

The fact they dont have a gimmicky controller doesnt make the 360 entirely about graphics :rolleyes:

The PS3 however, has a serious lack of focus. It does seem to be about "uber power" and me-too features, like "live killer" and "motion sensitive controllers". I hate shitting on the PS3 like this, as its way to common lately, but their marketing department has sucked some serious ass lately.

bean19

07-28-2006, 04:41 PM

Serapth -

Wii = We can't afford a new graphics console, so we will focus on new types of gameplay.

360 = Xbox Live is really cool. Also, this generation we are going to actually have more killer apps besides Halo. (They seem to have extended their focus to getting more games and BETTER games for the system).

PS3 = All about getting Blu-Ray players in people's homes. I think what happened with this is that Sony mothership probably bent over Sony the console maker and shoved the Blu-Ray right up their ass. The system reaks of having had too many cooks in the kitchen.

RMan

07-28-2006, 05:12 PM

If anything, Xbox 360 is all about connectivity and selling Live. Shit, their biggest announcement at E3 was Live Anywhere. Live Arcade, Marketplace and Microtransactions ( for good or evil ), are some of the biggest features of the 360.
Uhh, the 360 was out, you expect a big announcement to be “Hey, we're still about graphics”. Of course the focus at E3 will be on new things, that’s what E3’s for, but before the 360 was out it was all about graphics, and graphics being it’s strongest selling point has not changed just because they aren’t mentioning it every 5 minutes like they were before the product’s release.
The fact they dont have a gimmicky controller doesnt make the 360 entirely about graphics :rolleyes:
Yea, but the fact that it’s the significant improvement over the previous system and it’s primary selling point makes it almost entirely about graphics (BTW, you forgot the 'almost').
The PS3 however, has a serious lack of focus. It does seem to be about "uber power" and me-too features, like "live killer" and "motion sensitive controllers". I hate shitting on the PS3 like this, as its way to common lately, but their marketing department has sucked some serious ass lately.
So the system having more features is a detriment now? Working hard to keep that MS super-fan badge now, aren’t you? Look, they’ve definitely screwed up as of late with their PR, and if any of their significant features fall short then I say rail into them for it (or bitch about the price), but being more than just a game machine in itself is not a detriment. And stop pretending that everyone didn’t already have plans for micro transactions and online support, nobody’s copying the live service.
Saying the Wii is going to have better gameplay but worse graphics is sort of like saying that the fat girl in a beauty contest is going to win the talent portion but not the beauty portion.
I’d say if the fat girl is has worked on her talent while the others have worked on their hair and makeup that she’d be the safest bet.
Your assuming that a deficiency in graphics (beauty) implies strength in gameplay (talent). .
What you focus on does matter. The simple and undeniable truth is that if you spend resources on one thing, then you have less for another, and there is absolutely no way in the universe we live in that this is not true. Personally, I think the controller will allow some great experiences, just like the DS’s extra features, and that is being factored into why I think it’ll have better gameplay (this is a far bigger indicator to me than just the difference in focus).

Zeal

07-28-2006, 06:07 PM

Yeah.....yeah.........

Serapth

07-28-2006, 06:47 PM

So the system having more features is a detriment now? Working hard to keep that MS super-fan badge now, aren’t you? Look, they’ve definitely screwed up as of late with their PR, and if any of their significant features fall short then I say rail into them for it (or bitch about the price), but being more than just a game machine in itself is not a detriment. And stop pretending that everyone didn’t already have plans for micro transactions and online support, nobody’s copying the live service.

Oh give me a break. You know what, if Sony was actually shipping a product right now, I might have a different mindset. Remember, the sony that said it was WAAAYYYY more powerful then the dreamcast, that it was so powerful it was a controlled device lest terrorists use it to guide nukes to our shores? Sony has always over promised, but only the blind wouldnt see that at this point. The difference is, this generation, they are even being more pathetic about it. Yeah yeah yeah, our online service is going to be like Live, but better, oh and free.... yeah.... we saw how good Sonys online plan was last generation. Until they ship a product, i believe fuckall that they say.

As to your micro transactions comment, well shit, everybody had plans for a motion sensative controller in the works to... so should that detract from Nintendo being the first? There is a big difference between planning and being the first one to do so.

RMan

07-28-2006, 07:24 PM

Until they ship a product, i believe fuckall that they say.
Being skeptical of a company’s ability to reach their lofty goals is one thing, but faulting them for having them, that’s just rude. I’d agree Sony over promises, and it’s a safe bet they have again. Know what, so does MS, when it comes to how much their system promises to change your life, they’re both spreading it on thick.
As to your micro transactions comment, well shit, everybody had plans for a motion sensative controller in the works to... so should that detract from Nintendo being the first? There is a big difference between planning and being the first one to do so.
Of course, we all know MS got their system out first, I wasn’t talking about who got there first, just the idea that Sony was copying Live just because MS released their system early. If you actually think that every software company in the world hasn’t been considering online distribution for the last decade, or that console makers just hadn’t considered online gaming until Live they you are seriously deranged. Online has been viable for several years, and everyone has known it, with or without Live Sony and Nintendo's systems would have these online capabilities.

Siraris

07-28-2006, 07:44 PM

I think that the Dual shock and the X-Box controller are just fine for playing games. I do enjoy playing FPS's more with a keyboard and mouse, but that's just personal preference. I have no frame of reference to know that the Wii will make any game any more fun to play. I think it may be fun for a few months, but then it will get old and gimicky.

Take the DS for example, I thought the touch screen was pretty gimicky, and I still do. It was cool for a bit playing Trauma center, but then it just got old. I love the games for my DS, but I haven't played a game that really uses the touch screen for anything worthwhile in a long time. Castlevania Dawn of Sorrow was AMAZING, but it had nothing to do with the touch screen, it had to do with the game itself.

I personally feel that the same thing will happen with the Wii. It will be cool for a few months, and then really gimicky and people will kind of put it to the side.

I think what Sony and Microsoft are doing, which everyone associates with BETTAR GRAPHICS!!!!111 as giving developers more power to make great all around games through hardware, as well as bringing them new tools to improve and make development easier. When PS2 launched, you couldn't even compile most of the code in C++. With the PS3, you have tons of API's and developer tools that are making peoples lives easier. Not as much so as with the 360, as Microsoft has been dedicated to making developer tools for a long time now. I mean I can speak from being a software developer that VS.Net 2005 and most of their SDK's and API's are a DREAM to work with. Anyways, for me personally, I think that better physics, better AI, better graphics, better sound and a great integrated online component is going to be a lot more worthwhile than a slight graphical upgrade and a beefed up lightgun controller.

I have no clue what the Wii will actually bring, but I don't think it's going to sell 100 million units and crush the competition. I also think that Nintendo has a LOT to live up to with the Wii, and there could be a lot of dissapointed people out there (aside from the blind Nintendo fanbois). People are expecting the Wii to be the next coming of gaming, and I feel like if it's anything less than that, people are going to be dissapointed.

RMan

07-28-2006, 08:40 PM

Take the DS for example, I thought the touch screen was pretty gimicky, and I still do. It was cool for a bit playing Trauma center, but then it just got old. I love the games for my DS, but I haven't played a game that really uses the touch screen for anything worthwhile in a long time. Castlevania Dawn of Sorrow was AMAZING, but it had nothing to do with the touch screen, it had to do with the game itself.
Well, I’m very happy with the DS touch screen, even stuff like Sudoku would be much more tedious without it. It’s not a magical thing, but there are definitely games that suffer significantly without it (it is more significant than the difference between a keyboard and mouse). Maybe you think a mouse is gimmicky (doubtful, since you’re likely using one on an MS product now :)), but for many it’s natural and makes using a computer easier and more approachable than just using a keyboard. A controller can have a massive impact on any interactive experience.
I personally feel that the same thing will happen with the Wii. It will be cool for a few months, and then really gimicky and people will kind of put it to the side.
Well, if they put it aside just like the gimmicky DS as you suggest, I’m sure Nintendo will be quite satisfied.
Anyways, for me personally, I think that better physics, better AI, better graphics, better sound and a great integrated online component is going to be a lot more worthwhile than a slight graphical upgrade and a beefed up lightgun controller.
See, and that’s the kind of statement that makes me think you don’t understand it, or are just a MS super fan (I mean, ‘beefed up lightgun’, that’s just crazy). If I wanted to attack the 360, I could just say it’s nothing more than a typical PC upgrade. You feel that the increased horsepower will bring you all these wonderful things, and I suppose in turn you feel that it will make games better. I believe the controller will allow experiences who’s benefit greatly outweigh the horsepower difference between the systems. Neither of us can really support our opinions yet.

I agree on MS’s dev tools though, they are generally very good, and well documented. It’s definitely a generally unsung benefit of theirs.
I have no clue what the Wii will actually bring, but I don't think it's going to sell 100 million units and crush the competition.
Ehh, I actually think it’s going to be tough for any of them to hit 100M this time.

Chameleo

07-28-2006, 09:46 PM

Siraris

07-28-2006, 10:49 PM

See, and that’s the kind of statement that makes me think you don’t understand it, or are just a MS super fan (I mean, ‘beefed up lightgun’, that’s just crazy). If I wanted to attack the 360, I could just say it’s nothing more than a typical PC upgrade. You feel that the increased horsepower will bring you all these wonderful things, and I suppose in turn you feel that it will make games better. I believe the controller will allow experiences who’s benefit greatly outweigh the horsepower difference between the systems. Neither of us can really support our opinions yet.

haha RMAN, I know you have read other threads I've oposted in... I like MS a lot, but I don't like the direction the X-Box is going. I'm more of a Sony fan with Nintendo a close second.

I am not saying that a controller can't add a lot, but I don't think the Wii is going to bring about some sort of "Revolution". I agree that the mouse is a great instrument, but it's been a tried and tested input device for decades, the Wii is not.

I'm curious what games you use the stylus for on DS outside of Brain Age. I own 6 DS games, and only Wario Ware really uses it a lot for gameplay, but Wario Ware got old after I finished all the levels.

As for Sudoku, I prefer pencil and paper. I can do it much quicker and not worry about mistakes in entry.

RMan

07-29-2006, 12:16 AM

haha RMAN, I know you have read other threads I've oposted in... I like MS a lot, but I don't like the direction the X-Box is going. I'm more of a Sony fan with Nintendo a close second.
Oh, sorry for the super fan comment, I thought I was talking to Serapth. That’s what I get for just glancing at the name :).
I am not saying that a controller can't add a lot, but I don't think the Wii is going to bring about some sort of "Revolution". I agree that the mouse is a great instrument, but it's been a tried and tested input device for decades, the Wii is not.
Of course, I just use something like that because it makes it clear how much of a difference a control device can make. Although I do not expect it to be as big as the mouse, I think it can have a similar effect on game design and interaction (if it works as advertised). It’s just useful because there was a time when the mouse was a gimmick, and nobody used it, and it’s potential wasn’t even remotely recognized.
I'm curious what games you use the stylus for on DS outside of Brain Age. I own 6 DS games, and only Wario Ware really uses it a lot for gameplay, but Wario Ware got old after I finished all the levels.
Pretty much BA, Wario Ware, just bought that big brain academy (kinda cute), played Nintendogs a bit, not my cup of tea but seemed very well done. I just picked up the DS, so I haven’t really gotten much for it (was holding out for a lite). Except for the new SMB, all the games I’ve played for it have used the stylus, and used it fairly well. I bought it for the more unique games, really wasn’t as interested in the action titles, I’d rather play those on a console. Might get that Mario action RPG, don’t recall the name, but it looked fun.
As for Sudoku, I prefer pencil and paper. I can do it much quicker and not worry about mistakes in entry.
I actually much prefer the DS one. The character recognition is ok (better than on other BA ‘games’, which is horrible at times, really wish they gave you an option for the keyboard on some of them), and I like trying to do the puzzles fast and be timed on them (although the penalty for mistakes is harsh).