Epic: Not Big Wii Fans

[Gorvi]

In an interview with IGN (http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/868/868001p1.html) at the NY Comic Con, Epic's President Mike Capps had some not too kind things to say about Nintendo's very successful console. It doesn't look like we'll be seeing any Wii games from Epic..... ever.
IGN: Exactly. For a real gaming experience…

Capps: Right, Zelda I really didn't enjoy on it. They back-fitted the control scheme on it, it was better on the GameCube. Mario, I wish there had been a button instead of wiggle and all that kind of ****. So I haven't played anything that I really wished hadn't been on another platform sadly enough. It's a virus where you buy it and you play it with your friends and they're like, "Oh my God that's so cool, I'm gonna go buy it." So you stop playing it after two months, but they buy it and they stop playing it after two months but they've showed it to someone else who then go out and buy it and so on. Everyone I know bought one and nobody turns it on. Obviously there's a class of people who really love it and enjoy it and are getting into the games but I'm still waiting for that one game that makes me play it. Who knows, maybe Wii Fit will be it.

IGN: Is there any chance that Epic will ever, is there going to be a point where there are too many Wiis on the market for you guys to not make a game for it?

Capps: No, we go forward, not back. It makes more sense for us to invest in the next-generation tech. There have been shops that have done it. Red Steel was a launch title and that was on Unreal Engine. So it's been done. How you take an engine that's all based on shaders and materials and run it on hardware that doesn't support shaders is just impossible. It's about as easy as PSP for us. Maybe it would make sense, but it makes more sense to invest going forward.
Something tells me he's not too hot on the Wii.

[Zaro]

Epic fail!

[CaptStu]

I like people who speak their mind. No PR spin. I think it's true in some respect. I have a number of friends who bought the Wii for Wii Sports. Never heard a word about the console since, but now that Wii Fit is coming up, they have begun to talk about it again.

[Roc Ingersol]

Re: Waggle, He's got a good point. One that I've held for a while - but you're not allowed to criticize without being shouted down as a hater anymore.

Simply: there are a tiny handful of games that deliver on the promise that Wii Sports made. The rest just swap arbitrary button presses with arbitrary waggle and that's not the same thing at all.

[Ancalagon]

Ouch. Scathing criticism there.

Nonetheless, if I were to write a rebuttal to his statements, it would probably state something along the lines of "This illustrates Epic's commitment to graphical quality rather than original and innovative gameplay."

I think you need to be very careful when you start to say, "We would make game X but we need better technology."

I suppose it forms part of the games vs art debate. Are they expressions of what can be done with current technology, or are they more timeless pieces?

[Itchyeyes]

Epic fail!
Perhaps you can elaborate?

While he could have phrased his thoughts a bit better, he's not far off the mark with any of those comments. Twilight Princess is a port. Shaking the Wii remote to make Mario spin is probably one of the least inspired uses of it yet. And his virus analogy is pretty spot on in terms of how just about everyone I know plays the Wii.

[Morratut]

I think he has a point.

All my friends have bought a Wii and now don't play it anymore.

I'm glad RE5 isn't coming out on the Wii. :D

[Zaro]

I think they fail to see they can make some money with the Wii.
For the rest they can think what they want.

[Baron Samedi]

Yeah, TP was a GC game delayed for Wii. Galaxy benefited from the waggle.

Gotta say Gorvi, I'm kinda surprised you posted this in this fashion. The greater part of the interview concerns Gears 2.

[CaptStu]

Yeah, TP was a GC game delayed for Wii. Galaxy benefited from the waggle.

Gotta say Gorvi, I'm kinda surprised you posted this in this fashion. The greater part of the interview concerns Gears 2.

Gorvi doesn't care about Gears 2. :D

[KSmitty]

Some people just get stuck on the 'waggle'. Oh well, different strokes and all that jazz...*shrugs*

[Baron Samedi]

Gorvi doesn't care about Gears 2. :D

So what, we're ignoring his infamous "levelheadedness" now? I'd call this flamebait.

[Lutheran]

The dudes entitled to his opinion. There are plenty of devs who are happy to make games for the Wii..hell I bought the Wii for Nintendo games so anything else that comes out that is fun ( a lot of games already ) is fugggin gravy.

[Gorvi]

Gorvi doesn't care about Gears 2. :D
Actually, I sorta do. Kinda. I would have the first already if the art style weren't so off-putting. :)
So what, we're ignoring his infamous "levelheadedness" now? I'd call this flamebait.
I just think it's interesting to see someone in the industry take such a strong position in a negative way. You really don't see it all that often, especially in regards to something that's very successful.

[CaptStu]

I just think it's interesting to see someone in the industry take such a strong position in a negative way. You really don't see it all that often, especially in regards to something that's very successful.

I think Baron was calling my post flamebait.

No, Baron. I just like to pick at Gorvi.

[Khash]

We all know he's right.

[EternalGamer]

He's got the phraseology right. Wii is not a "fad." A fad is something that is temporary. It is more of a cultural virus, like American Idol.

I'm open minded towards all systems and the Wii is the first one that I think is conceptually flawed. I would actually put it far behind systems like the Jaguar and Virtual Boy (which I actually loved) simply because the limitaitons of the system and its gimmicks lead to worse products. Jaguar might have had a lot of shitty games, but at least it was the games' fault, not the console.

That, of course, is not a popular view. The popular view is to say everything has its merits and place. But I can't bring myself to say that because it isn't true. I don't care if Soccer mom's do love it. I don't care if it helps lonely and socially inept gamers playing games with "non gaming friends." (Hey, you want to have fun with your "non-gaming friends? How about trying to do something other than play videogames?) I also don't care if it allows manchildren to relive their childhood nostalgia for the same damn Nintendo games over and over. The Wii sucks. It just plain sucks.

[CaptStu]

He's got the phraseology right. Wii is not a "fad." A fad is something that is temporary. It is more of a cultural virus, like American Idol.

I'm open minded towards all systems and the Wii is the first one that I think is conceptually flawed. I would actually put it far behind systems like the Jaguar and Virtual Boy (which I actually loved) simply because the limitaitons of the system and its gimmicks lead to worse products. Jaguar might have had a lot of shitty games, but at least it was the games' fault, not the console.

That, of course, is not a popular view. The popular view is to say everything has its merits and place. But I can't bring myself to say that because it isn't true. I don't care if Soccer mom's do love it. I don't care if it helps lonely and socially inept gamers playing games with "non gaming friends." (Hey, you want to have fun with your "non-gaming friends? How about trying to do something other than play videogames?) The Wii sucks. It just plain sucks.

Prepare to deploy your Halo bubble-shield in 3, 2, 1...

[Gorvi]

I think Baron was calling my post flamebait.

No, Baron. I just like to pick at Gorvi.
Eh, you're a troll, admit it! :p

[Adam Blue]

Well, Baron is a Nintendo fan. I posted a thread where another dev was speaking down at Nintendo...and yeah, he came in there and started arguing with me. I mean shit, we just post the news.

[Baron Samedi]

That, of course, is not a popular view. The popular view is to say everything has its merits and place. But I can't bring myself to say that because it isn't true. I don't care if Soccer mom's do love it. I don't care if it helps lonely and socially inept gamers playing games with "non gaming friends." (Hey, you want to have fun with your "non-gaming friends? How about trying to do something other than play videogames?) I also don't care if it allows manchildren to relive their childhood nostalgia for the same damn Nintendo games over and over. The Wii sucks. It just plain sucks.

No, your view is a popular view here on EvAv. Those who like Wii on here are in the minority.

[CaptStu]

Eh, you're a troll, admit it! :p

Only to you, Gorvi. Only to you. :)

[EternalGamer]

Prepare to deploy your Halo bubble-shield in 3, 2, 1...

While we are at it, Halo 3 kind of sucked too. It was an uninspired retread that took no chances and had no imagination. It was as soulless as it was polished.

[CaptStu]

While we are at it, Halo 3 kind of sucked too. It was an uninspired retread that took no chances and had no imagination.

Okay. Whatever "shield"-like thing you deem appropriate, use. Baron seems to be angry.

[Baron Samedi]

Okay. Whatever "shield"-like thing you deem appropriate, use. Baron seems to be angry.

Angry? I'm a perfectly happy little camper. I swear it! :p

[Telefrog]

Eh, what's that? A next-gen focused studio (especially one that has firmly planted their flag in the hardcore gamer territory) doesn't care to develop stuff for the Wii? Color me surprised.

Actually, this ties in well with this thread (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48815). Hardcore gamers don't "get" the Wii and casual gamers don't "get" regular games.

[EternalGamer]

So what, we're ignoring his infamous "levelheadedness" now? I'd call this flamebait.

He is being level headed. A level headed person would realize that the Wii sucks. Being open minded and objective doesn't mean never coming to any conclusions.

[EternalGamer]

Eh, what's that? A next-gen focused studio (especially one that has firmly planted their flag in the hardcore gamer territory) doesn't care to develop stuff for the Wii? Color me surprised.

Actually, this ties in well with this thread (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48815). Hardcore gamers don't "get" the Wii and casual gamers don't "get" regular games.

You are right, people who don't play a lot of games think the Wii is awesome.

People who don't read a lot also think Daniel Steel and Dan Brown are great authors.

[dark_inchworm]

Who cares? The Unreal franchise (not the engine itself) is basically dead and buried. Fire up UT3 and look at how many people are playing. Gears will lose steam after the third one. Epic's shtick is worn. They'll be obscure again in 5 years or so.

/imho

[TrackZero]

"Capps: No, we go forward, not back."

Oh snap. I sort-of agree with Epic on this and sort of not. I think the controls are a nice change, however I would have preferred system hardware that could have stacked up against PS360.

[Grifter]

He's got the phraseology right. Wii is not a "fad." A fad is something that is temporary. It is more of a cultural virus, like American Idol.

I'm open minded towards all systems and the Wii is the first one that I think is conceptually flawed. I would actually put it far behind systems like the Jaguar and Virtual Boy (which I actually loved) simply because the limitaitons of the system and its gimmicks lead to worse products. Jaguar might have had a lot of shitty games, but at least it was the games' fault, not the console.

That, of course, is not a popular view. The popular view is to say everything has its merits and place. But I can't bring myself to say that because it isn't true. I don't care if Soccer mom's do love it. I don't care if it helps lonely and socially inept gamers playing games with "non gaming friends." (Hey, you want to have fun with your "non-gaming friends? How about trying to do something other than play videogames?) I also don't care if it allows manchildren to relive their childhood nostalgia for the same damn Nintendo games over and over. The Wii sucks. It just plain sucks.

I wouldn't go as far as to say it sucks but I agree with the Epic guy for the most part. Even though the Wii has it's limitations the few things it does well it does VERY well. The more stories I hear from family and friends who don't game yet are having lots of fun with the Wii the more I think of the Wii as a viable gaming console, just not in the way we are used to.

Will I ever own one? Probably not but I don't think it's a shitty platform, I think it does exactly what it intended to do and it does it well, if the games on it suck thats the developers fault just like on any other system. If a dev cant think of a good play mechanic to use with the Wiimote and just shoe horns something in there that's their fault not the Wiis.

While we are at it, Halo 3 kind of sucked too. It was an uninspired retread that took no chances and had no imagination. It was as soulless as it was polished.

Wow! It's been a while since I have agreed with someone as much as I agree with you on the above statement.

[Zaro]

You are right, people who don't play a lot of games think the Wii is awesome.

People who don't read a lot also think Daniel Steel and Dan Brown are great authors.

Are you serious?

Do you think that people who play a lot of game don't like the Wii?

[Baron Samedi]

He is being level headed. A level headed person would realize that the Wii sucks. Being open minded and objective doesn't mean never coming to any conclusions.

Still with the EvAv herd, eh? I think I see what you did there.

I enjoy my Wii just fine, thank you very much. It that makes me fanboy, so be it. I've never been anything else. And yes, I call Gorvi's news post flamebait. That interview was about Gears 2, not Wii.

[Chris_D]

Shaking the Wii remote to make Mario spin is probably one of the least inspired uses of it yet. And his virus analogy is pretty spot on in terms of how just about everyone I know plays the Wii.

The news post was a fun read, reminds me of the 2 GCs duct taped together comment.

Anyway, I haven't played Galaxy yet, but I propose waggling the Wiimote to roll the dice in Mario Party (and failing to detect it about a third of the time) as being my personal least inspired implementation of waggle! What is so bad about the 'A' button I wonder, that it must sometimes be shunned like a contagious disease.

And I agree with Epic, as someone who already does a bit of yoga, Wii Fit does look kind of cool.

[EternalGamer]

Who cares? The Unreal franchise (not the engine itself) is basically dead and buried. Fire up UT3 and look at how many people are playing. Gears will lose steam after the third one. Epic's shtick is worn. They'll be obscure again in 5 years or so.

/imho

You are certainly right about the Unreal series. But Gears was a real surprise and it did a good job introducing new mechanics and gameplay into a tired genre. It is clear they still have a lot of talent in the studio. They just need to reinvent themselves with new IP every view years rather than getting bogged down in sequel-itis.

[Gorvi]

Hardcore gamers don't "get" the Wii and casual gamers don't "get" regular games.
I take issue with that. I have no problem enjoying the Wii, graphics be damned. Is that all I want? Hell no. But there's still fun to be had on the system.

[Flatpicker]

He's more right than wrong in regards to the waggle replacing the button presses.
Also, he is correct in stating that his Unreal Engine is not a good fit for the Wii due to technical limitations.

The rest is mostly opinion that, although I agree with, will be refuted vigorously by Wii fans.

[EternalGamer]

I wouldn't go as far as to say it sucks but I agree with the Epic guy for the most part. Even though the Wii has it's limitations the few things it does well it does VERY well. The more stories I hear from family and friends who don't game yet are having lots of fun with the Wii the more I think of the Wii as a viable gaming console, just not in the way we are used to.

Will I ever own one? Probably not but I don't think it's a shitty platform, I think it does exactly what it intended to do and it does it well, if the games on it suck thats the developers fault just like on any other system. If a dev cant think of a good play mechanic to use with the Wiimote and just shoe horns something in there that's their fault not the Wiis.



Wow! It's been a while since I have agreed with someone as much as I agree with you on the above statement.

Are there good games for the system? Yes. But I'm judging the system as a system. Someone could develop a pretty awesome game for my cellphone, that still doesn't make my cellphone a good gaming machine.

[TrackZero]

While we are at it, Halo 3 kind of sucked too. It was an uninspired retread that took no chances and had no imagination. It was as soulless as it was polished.

It didn't have to. It needed to ramp up the graphics, physics, clean up the gameplay issues, slap on a good storyline and do a complete revamp on the multiplayer. Which it did, and the fans were happy. Only people who didn't like Halo in the first place complained.

[Grifter]

Who cares? The Unreal franchise (not the engine itself) is basically dead and buried. Fire up UT3 and look at how many people are playing. Gears will lose steam after the third one. Epic's shtick is worn. They'll be obscure again in 5 years or so.

/imho

So Epic gets 3 good games out of a franchise with only one existing right now and they are already worn? I think you need to re-evaluate your definition of worn. For any PC gamer who actually follows PC gaming Epic has never been "obscure".

Are there good games for the system? Yes. But I'm judging the system as a system. Someone could develop a pretty awesome game for my cellphone, that still doesn't make my cellphone a good gaming machine.

True but there is a huge difference between your cell phone and the Will and a good cell phone game is rated very differently than a good Wii or 360 game. Rather you like it or not the Wii does what it was intended to do and has just as much potential of having a great game on it as the 360 or the PS3. Cellphones...not so much.

[EternalGamer]

It didn't have to. It needed to ramp up the graphics, physics, clean up the gameplay issues, slap on a good storyline and do a complete revamp on the multiplayer. Which it did, and the fans were happy. Only people who didn't like Halo in the first place complained.

I loved the first Halo and played it to death. Then I got to play it two more times, with progressively worse narratives. The narrative worked better when it was more ambigious. It just got silly when they tried to flesh it out. But my biggest problem was not the narrative, it was the gameplay. All three games use the same type of gameplay and level design. Shamelessly so. There is more variety in Half Life 2's game play than there is in the entire Halo trilogy.

[MosBen]

Though I'm sure plenty o' folks love their Wii's, I have to say this accurately reflects my experience. A roommate had a Wii and Wii Sports was awesome, so I got one. I played most of Zelda and have gotten probably half way through Mario, but I have to force myself to play either. I bought some downloaded games for nostalgia, but when I sit down for what little time I have to game these days I find myself wanting to play my 360 instead. There were, and are, plenty of good times to be had pulling out Wii Sports every once in a while when some non-gamer is over and wants to give it a whirl, and I definitely feel I've gotten my money's worth out of the machine. Still, it goes weeks on end without ever being turned on. If my 360 ever went more than a couple days without being turned on it'd be very strange indeed.

[Telefrog]

Who cares? The Unreal franchise (not the engine itself) is basically dead and buried. Fire up UT3 and look at how many people are playing. Gears will lose steam after the third one. Epic's shtick is worn. They'll be obscure again in 5 years or so.

/imho

Hmmm. I'm betting that UT3 will do really well on the 360. I think the userbase of the console is more suited to its gameplay over the PC which has moved on to team-based objective multiplayer, and the PS3 which seemed to be a lot of hobbyists more interested in the great modding experiment. The 360 version also has splitscreen play which is damn cool.

As for Gears burning out by the third one, we'll see. :rolleyes:

[Lutheran]

He is being level headed. A level headed person would realize that the Wii sucks. Being open minded and objective doesn't mean never coming to any conclusions.


Speak for yourself ok? Your not any more/less levelheaded then the next gamer. The Wii doesn't suck , in your opinion it does...fine. Alot of good stuff is happening in the Wii universe. Mario Galaxy is one of the best platform games ever made. Metroid is a great FPS and I can go on and on but it doesn't matter. Enjoy the 360 , its a great system but so is the Wii. Thats my opinion and I own all 3 of the next gen consoles. My head is not stuck oh so far up microsofts ass that I can't think on my own about others systems and whether other games on those systems are fun or not. To say level headed people would see that the wii sucks is a ridiculous comment at best.

[Itchyeyes]

Are you serious?

Do you think that people who play a lot of game don't like the Wii?
The distinction is that they don't like the Wii just because it's the Wii. They like it because of quality titles like Metroid Prime Corruption and Mario Galaxy. An avid reader might enjoy one of Tom Clancy's better books, but once they've read them they don't resort to reading every crappy paperback that he "co-authored", they look elsewhere. An avid gamer can enjoy games on the Wii and still acknowledge that a handful of decent games do not make a great system.

[MosBen]

Oh, and I'll also add in my agreement that most of the waggle controls I've experienced outside of Wii Sports and Wario Ware seemed completely tacked on for the sake of having waggle.

[Variable Gear]

No, your view is a popular view here on EvAv. Those who like Wii on here are in the minority.

I can confirm (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1402027#post1402027) this report.

The distinction is that they don't like the Wii just because it's the Wii. They like it because of quality titles like Metroid Prime Corruption and Mario Galaxy. An avid reader might enjoy one of Tom Clancy's better books, but once they've read them they don't resort to reading every crappy paperback that he "co-authored", they look elsewhere. An avid gamer can enjoy games on the Wii and still acknowledge that a handful of decent games do not make a great system.

Umm... what (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1401974#post1401974)?

[Flatpicker]

Who cares? The Unreal franchise (not the engine itself) is basically dead and buried. Fire up UT3 and look at how many people are playing. Gears will lose steam after the third one. Epic's shtick is worn. They'll be obscure again in 5 years or so.

/imho


Wow.
It's painful to see that much wrong in one paragraph.

Let's map it out.
1. The Unreal Engine is much more important than the franchise, how can a company become quickly obscure selling one of the most used engine for 2 generations?

2. You will probably see a rising of users once UT3 comes to the 360.

3. 2 more games for Gears before it loses steam? That's not too much of a stretch really seeing as how most franchises become stale after game 3. But you really don't think Epic has something else in the works? That would be poor planning.

D_I, I'm glad you have an opinion, but the track record for Epic strongly suggests you may be in error.

[Telefrog]

I can confirm (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1402027#post1402027) this report.

Of course, that brings up the argument that reviewers are more traditional gamers and so they are biased against the Wii experience.

The Wii requires a paradigm shift! It must be reviewed on it's own non-traditional basis! Gamers don't get the Wii, so they don't give the games a fair shake! Even worse, they don't even know how to properly enjoy them!

[EternalGamer]

To say level headed people would see that the wii sucks is a ridiculous comment at best.

Ok, maybe I was a little too hard. I suppose you can be level headed and like the Wii. Liking the Wii doesn't necessarily imply you are mentally unstable. It just means you have bad taste.

[Flatpicker]

Of course, that brings up the argument that reviewers are more traditional gamers and so they are biased against the Wii experience.

The Wii requires a paradigm shift! It must be reviewed on it's own non-traditional basis! Gamers don't get the Wii, so they don't give the games a fair shake! Even worse, they don't even know how to properly enjoy them!


Please tell me that entire post was sarcasm..:confused:

[Zaro]

Ok, maybe I was a little too hard. I suppose you can be level headed and like the Wii. Liking the Wii doesn't necessarily imply you are mentally unstable. It just means you have bad taste.

I prefer mentally unstable. :)

[Variable Gear]

The Wii requires a paradigm shift! It must be reviewed on it's own non-traditional basis! Gamers don't get the Wii, so they don't give the games a fair shake! Even worse, they don't even know how to properly enjoy them!

That's really not that far from being true.Obvious sarcasm/Spoiled Again!

It just means you have bad taste.

Yes, I do have a kind of quirky palate. :p

[digitalErich]

He does make some good points, but it's hard to take anyone from Epic seriously when it comes to game play innovation given the last 5 years. Epic pushes graphics first and game play a long second, so this isn't really surprising.

I'm not saying this is entirely a bad thing, either. Someone has to play the role of graphic whores.

[Lutheran]

Ok, maybe I was a little too hard. I suppose you can be level headed and like the Wii. Liking the Wii doesn't necessarily imply you are mentally unstable. It just means you have bad taste.


Then I have bad taste , at least im not sucking on Bill Gates cock on a regular basis..thats something I never have to taste :D

[Khash]

While we are at it, Halo 3 kind of sucked too. It was an uninspired retread that took no chances and had no imagination. It was as soulless as it was polished.
Just like Halo 1 and 2!

Also, there is no bias against the Wii. There is, however, a bias against shitty games.

[Mr.Green]

I'm not sure the type of games Epic make would be very successful on the Wii anyway so his stance on the console is pretty damn convenient, but from a business standpoint I think it would be a mistake not to maintain their engine on it. Like it or not, the thing is pwning this generation.

[sflufan]

"No, we go forward, not back."

If that's the case, how does he explain that UT3 is actually a step backwards from UT2K4?

[mod_boy]

This dude from Epic pretty much nailed it with his "virus" analogy.

I believe the attach rate for the Wii pretty much speak for that theory. For a hell of a lot of people, the Wii is a Wii Sports device. Actually, it's going to be a Wii Sports and a Wii Fit device.

There's a ton of "casuals" that I know personally that are buying a Wii now just for Wii Fit. These people will NEVER play Zelda, Metroid, or Res. Evil 4. They look at those games as frivolous or time wasters.

[Telefrog]

Please tell me that entire post was sarcasm..:confused:

It was sarcasm against people who espouse that sentiment.

Yes, I have seen this argument brought up against the general low scores of many Wii games. Carnival Games, in fact. The argument goes that traditional gamers write most of the big site game reviews. Those traditional gamers don't get the Wii experience. Therefore, how can they reliably review the games?

Of course, that argument doesn't take into account generally accepted technical criteria like the absence of bugs, long loads, sketchy controls, crashes, etc that we can all agree make poor games. It also doesn't acknowledge that most of those same reviewers were more than willing to give Wii Sports a good score. The argument neglects that pacing is a crucial part of gameplay which is a feature shared across media like literature, film, and even static art.

Edit: Additionally, the argument that Wii games shouldn't be reviewed with the same criteria as other games devalues them all. It essentially "ghetto-izes" the Wii into the family mini-game waggle box.

[Variable Gear]

Mario, I wish there had been a button instead of wiggle and all that kind of ****.

What. the. fuck?

[dark_inchworm]

So Epic gets 3 good g*ames out of a franchise with only one existing right now and they are already worn? I think you need to re-evaluate your definition of worn. For any PC g*amer who actually follows PC gaming Epic has never "obscure".

OK, perhaps "obscure" wasn't the right word for the context. I was referring to days long gone when Jazz Jackrabbit, OMF2097, and Dare to Dream weren't overhyped platinum-selling titles. Recognized, yes; powerhouse, no.

Depending on how much of a cynic you are, you could6 say Unreal had 3 good ones. The original, UT, UT2004. Unreal II instantly shuttered the single-player franchise, UT2003 was a bit bare-bones, and UT3 was basically a prettier UT2004 with annoying striders.

Gears was excellent, I'll grant it that much. At the time it was fresh, save for the fatheads and baditude that permeate every single fucking thing Epic does anymore. Hopefully Gears 2 brings more to the table than the addition of chainsaw duels and prettier shinies, or else the franchise will soon be neglected upon the arrival of a new Epic IP with rounder necks and more obnoxious cole trains.

I wouldn't say Epic is a terrible and completely unimaginative developer. Far from it. I get the impression, though, that they believe they're a much stronger force than they really are. (id is probably the worst in that regard, but Epic is so much more vocal...)

[Wolvie]

IGN: Is there any chance that Epic will ever, is there going to be a point where there are too many Wiis on the market for you guys to not make a game for it?

Capps: No, we go forward, not back. It makes more sense for us to invest in the next-generation tech. There have been shops that have done it. Red Steel was a launch title and that was on Unreal Engine. So it's been done. How you take an engine that's all based on shaders and materials and run it on hardware that doesn't support shaders is just impossible. It's about as easy as PSP for us. Maybe it would make sense, but it makes more sense to invest going forward.

Ouch! This is like that "two Gamecubes duck taped together" comment. The Wii Is the Rodney Dangerfield of consoles, it just gets no respect.

[Yellowman]

Epic suck anyway. Could there games be more generic? Aliens, guns, space marines... YAWN!!

[Zurik]

I pretty much gotta agree with the guy, I've been feeling like the Wii is a gimmick since I bought it. Maybe its because I'm left handed, but all the games feel harder to control using the Wiimote. Metroid Prime: Corruption especially, I have trouble walking and aiming because its backwards from a mouse and keyboard. In Mario Galaxy, I felt like a gamecube controller could do just about every move and would be alot quicker and easier. Also, when a title goes multi-platform I can't really stand the way the Wii version is compared to the other two. I know gameplay over graphics is the big thing, but usually the Wii version is just the same game with a worse control scheme tacked on to make it seem unique.

[Bone]

You are right, people who don't play a lot of games think the Wii is awesome.

People who don't read a lot also think Daniel Steel and Dan Brown are great authors.I play lots of games across different platforms and still think the Wii is awesome. I guess I am in the minority.

[Wolvie]

Epic suck anyway. Could there games be more generic? Aliens, guns, space marines... YAWN!!

I'm getting pretty sick of the giant suit of armor+tiny head character design myself.

[Itchyeyes]

Epic suck anyway. Could there games be more generic? Aliens, guns, space marines... YAWN!!
To be fair, Epic's real legacy is the Unreal engine, not the handful of games that it puts out to essentially serve as marketing tools for the engine. In fact, that's what he was talking about in the interview, whether or not Epic would develop and engine for the Wii, not whether or not they would make games for it.

[dark_inchworm]

marketing tools for the engine

This is it, guys.

[Kamalot]

I am still playing my Wii, and I no longer play Gears of War any more. How many people play a single game for more than a few months? Not many. Many Wii owners are people who aren't used to buying games. Instead of taking a crap on them, why aren't we educating them about what games are coming out for their system that they may also be interested in?

Also, Epic isn't in the business of making games as much as it is in the business of making a top-notch graphics engine for games. That's what they do. You may as well have Ford comment on the state of the bicycle industry. Of course they are gonna crap on it, it isn't what they do.

Mark Rein of Epic has stated that there are only 2 consoles this generation. From his perspective, he's right, cause that's all Epic deals with. Yet the rest of the 24 MILLION Wii owners know otherwise (http://vgchartz.com/hwcomps.php?cons1=Wii&reg1=All&cons2=PS3&reg2=All&cons3=X360&reg3=All&start=39187&end=39551&weekly=1)...

Imagine this conversation took place last generation, where Epic only focused on the two most powerful systems. They would have focused exclusively on the Xbox and GameCube, ignoring the 100 million PS2s. Sure, from a technology perspective it allows them to focus on great tech, but it ignored a large audience.

[HotCod]

see in terms of what epic dose its perfectly valid for them to say they are not going to work on the wii due to its hardwear limits. They are these days mainly a house that builds an engine for the current level of hardwear... this used to be for the PC but its now mainly focused on the console limits beacuse there limits are going to stay the same until the next gen comes out. They spent a lot of time trying to get the best they can out of the consoles and it would be a waste of there time and money to rebuild the thing to work on the Wii... there's just no point.

The problem here is that his putting this across with his own personal view that the Wii is rubbish which makes the perfectly sensible and reasonable idea that its not in there best interests to work with it look some what petty and "i don't like it so i don't bother" which is just silly.

We have a Wii about here and i do use it rather a lot when i have a good game for it, i tend to much rather spent my money on PC games (even if there are still some wii games i really really want) and if i did have a 360 i'd probably spend a lot more time using that. Yet the wii is fun enough for what it is and its worth its weight in gold when it comes to being a "party" system.

But ya, over all a valid point put across in the most stupid way

[Lutheran]

I play lots of games across different platforms and still think the Wii is awesome. I guess I am in the minority.


Hmm if your a wii owner your in the Majority this go round..a lot of people here hate that so bad that it just kills them. It literally sucks the life out of them...GASP GASP GASP

ME? I just enjoy the good games on all the consoles. The Wii is a great console with some nice games and Wiiware is gonna be fantastic. That doesn't mean I don't think Live is the great or that the PS3 is a great machine. I don't have to put down 1 console because I have microsofts balls hanging on my chin. I'll leave that to some of you guys.

[Telefrog]

Also, Epic isn't in the business of making games as much as it is in the business of making a top-notch graphics engine for games. That's what they do. You may as well have Ford comment on the state of the bicycle industry. Of course they are gonna crap on it, it isn't what they do.

Hunh? They're not in the business of making games? Didn't Gears sell an assload? Isn't their shift to consoles primarily all about going to where the sales are? Isn't Silicon Knights suing Epic because they neglected their dev partners to make their own game?

Of course Epic makes a load of money off their engine licenses. So did id, and like them I fully believe Epic would make games their way even if they couldn't license their engine to anyone.

[Savok]

At least Nintendo doesn't have to raid Rob Liefeld's house or 90s comics in general for an ounce of creative inspiration.

Funny how he didn't mention Metroid Prime 3, you'd think it'd be the first thing he picked up considering all Epic makes is shooters. Oh, right, he might have to admit enjoyed something then.

[Gorvi]

Imagine this conversation took place last generation, where Epic only focused on the two most powerful systems. They would have focused exclusively on the Xbox and GameCube, ignoring the 100 million PS2s. Sure, from a technology perspective it allows them to focus on great tech, but it ignored a large audience.
That's flawed logic. Comparing the gap (in terms of both power, and to a lesser extent, install base) between the PS2 and XBOX/GC and the gap between the Wii and PS3/360 is laughable. There's a huge difference there.

Also, the PS2 proved to be a haven for third parties, their games did very well on the system and sold in a multitude of genres. The Wii so far hasn't shown that it has the kind of draw that sells games like that yet. Now, it might, there's no saying that, but it hasn't yet.
I'm getting pretty sick of the giant suit of armor+tiny head character design myself.
I didn't think many people over the age of 14 liked that in the first place.

[Kamalot]

Hunh? They're not in the business of making games?...as much as it is in the business of making a top-notch graphics engine for games. Their core business is creation and licensing of the Unreal Engine. As part of the engine development they use their own engine to make games. It is called 'eating your own dogfood' and is generally a good practice.

Epic makes FAR more money off of licensing their engine than they do making games. They make games, to sell the engine.

[31 Flavas]

I like people who speak their mind. No PR spin. I think it's true in some respect. I have a number of friends who bought the Wii for Wii Sports. Never heard a word about the console since, but now that Wii Fit is coming up, they have begun to talk about it again.Spin free? I don't mean to rain on your parade, but this is like any Bible thumper preaching to his choir about how the Bible is the *absolute* *factual* complete truth of history and the world.

Epic is preaching to the hardcore choir about how next gen graphics are the only game in town.

A real person is critical even when they are hearing what they want to hear.

But this is probably going to fall on deaf ears, lol.

[Kamalot]

At least Nintendo doesn't have to raid Rob Liefeld's house or 90s comics in general for an ounce of creative inspiration.

Funny how he didn't mention Metroid Prime 3, you'd think it'd be the first thing he picked up considering all Epic makes is shooters. Oh, right, he might have to admit enjoyed something then.

LMAO at the Rob Liefeld (http://progressiveboink.com/archive/robliefeld.html)comment! :D

[Telefrog]

Epic makes FAR more money off of licensing their engine than they do making games. They make games, to sell the engine.

I see it the other way around. I know they make way more off the engine than the games, but I think the core of Epic would make games no matter what. I think they really have a passion for their games.

It can be a good or bad thing. It can lead to isolationist game development. Obviously, sometimes games like UT3, or Doom 3, come out that while very good, didn't keep up with gameplay trends and failed to look outside for some fresh ideas or at least find out what their audience had moved on to.

[Savok]

LMAO at the Rob Liefeld (http://progressiveboink.com/archive/robliefeld.html)comment! :D
I think I found their next IP (http://progressiveboink.com/b/images/rob/liefeld%20013.jpg).

[Craigtheplague]

I believe the Wii skeptics just need a little bit of patience. The console is only 1 1/2 years old. If I'm not mistaken, AAA titles take more time to develop than that and only since its release has the Wii shown it should be taken seriously. The release of Wii fit will insure that millions of people will own a Wii board. That's an extra peripheral developers will be able to experiment with and develop games for. I would bet my last dollar....er....euro that the Wii board will not suffer the same fate as Steel Battalion and its awesome $200 controller. (Never played the game, don't know if that's awesome.)

[Deadend]

I see it the other way around. I know they make way more off the engine than the games, but I think the core of Epic would make games no matter what. I think they really have a passion for their games.

It can be a good or bad thing. It can lead to isolationist game development. Obviously, sometimes games like UT3, or Doom 3, come out that while very good, didn't keep up with gameplay trends and failed to look outside for some fresh ideas or at least find out what their audience had moved on to.

To be fair, Epic's audience did not move onto the Wii, they moved onto more realistic and slow paced shooters instead of the twitch-fests.

I still don't see how somehow the Wii causes games to be innovative, whoopty do, a motion controller that has to do motions for the same activity as hitting a button....SO INNOVATIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kamalot]

I still don't see how somehow the Wii causes games to be innovative, whoopty do, a motion controller that has to do motions for the same activity as hitting a button....SO INNOVATIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah... like pointing where you want to shoot is so stupid compared to moving a thumb stick where you want to shoot... wait. No it isn't.

[The Ligand]

You are right, people who don't play a lot of games think the Wii is awesome.

People who don't read a lot also think Daniel Steel and Dan Brown are great authors.

I don't know if someone before me has already said so, but I think you've got a good point in many respects. Going further, I'd guess there are probably some well-read people who would argue that Dan Brown is good for a quick read just the same way that many 'well-gamed' folks might say that the Wii is good for a quick game.

Maybe they're all great. The Wii is Hemingway, the X360 is Fitzgerald, and the PS3 is Faulkner. They're all terrific, but they have different styles, themes, and levels of complexity. Of course, since Faulkner is better than Fitzgerald or Hemingway, then the PS3 must be better than the Wii or 360 ;);)

[HotCod]

hehe rob, if anything gives me hope that you don't have to be able to draw to get paid doing art work he dose. This year at uni i've been heavily drawn in to illustration, which is weird since i'm honestly not a very fantastic drawer its just i've spent a lot of time coming up with diffrent styles that mean i don't have to be able to draw well to pull them off... and so far its working... but dear god even i can draw better than rob, and its not just that his "style" sucks its that he honestly has no idea how to put a human body together... all he needs is one of those wooden pose dolls and some classes in drawing feet.

But then again given that we may not have dead pool with out him i'm able to forgive just how awful he is somehwhat

[Kamalot]

Maybe they're all great. The Wii is Hemingway, the X360 is Fitzgerald, and the PS3 is Faulkner. They're all terrific, but they have different styles, themes, and levels of complexity. Of course, since Faulkner is better than Fitzgerald or Hemingway, then the PS3 must be better than the Wii or 360 ;);)Like books, you could equate the three to theaters, DVDs and television.

The PS3 is a movie theater. You pay 1,800 yen and view a movie with great sound and a huge image. These aren't movies that are remade directly from television, but video that's been made for the movies, and everyone comes wanting that.

Xbox 360 is watching a DVD at home. It's for people who want to watch a movie, but anything is okay. The Wii is a television program. You turn on the television, and you can watch soccer or watch a variety show -- enjoy a program lightly

-Hideo Kojima- (http://kotaku.com/381412/kojima-disappointed-with-metal-gear-solid-4)

[Itchyeyes]

Yeah... like pointing where you want to shoot is so stupid compared to moving a thumb stick where you want to shoot... wait. No it isn't.
And there is a whole 1 game on the Wii that actually accomplishes what you just described successfully. The vast majority of the rest do exactly what Deadend was describing, replace simple button presses with complex Wii remote movements that have no relation to the action taking place on screen. As Deadend was saying, the Wii does not make games more innovative, that's still up to developers and the vast majority of developers have decided to take the low road.

[phantomhitman]

i like this man a lot. i want to have his kids, or maybe babysit them, or just look at them from a distance.

that was all too creepy sounding...


he speaks the wii truth.

[Kamalot]

And there is a whole 1 game on the Wii that actually accomplishes what you just described successfully. The vast majority of the rest do exactly what Deadend was describing, replace simple button presses with complex Wii remote movements that have no relation to the action taking place on screen. As Deadend was saying, the Wii does not make games more innovative, that's still up to developers and the vast majority of developers have decided to take the low road.

Sorry. You are wrong.

Lots of games make excellent use of the Wii's pointer functionality. It is the closest thing to using a mouse on a standard controller. If you are referring to FPS titles specifically, I suggest you rent or buy Medal of Honor Heroes 2, since the FPS controls are even better than those in Metroid Prime 3.

[Telefrog]

Yeah... like pointing where you want to shoot is so stupid compared to moving a thumb stick where you want to shoot... wait. No it isn't.

Metroid Prime what? I mean, if the point and shoot thing is so awesome, you'd think Nintendo would do it for their own game. As far as I know, there's only one game you're describing.

Edit: Yeah Medal of Honor Heroes is it. What other shooter is point and shoot? Link's Bow Training?

[Gorvi]

Metroid Prime what? I mean, if the point and shoot thing is so awesome, you'd think Nintendo would do it for their own game. As far as I know, there's only one game you're describing.
There's a few. I'd argue, though, that it stops being innovative when it becomes the standard. Pointing for shooting isn't even innovative, it's been done with light gun games for years.

[Fonz]

Makes sense to me, Epic is a PC developer, they want the best hardware when it comes to developing, why gimp yourself with 8 year old Wii tech, when the PS3 and 360 still haven't been capped out.

[31 Flavas]

Spin free? I don't mean to rain on your parade, but this is like any Bible thumper preaching to his choir about how the Bible is the *absolute* *factual* complete truth of history and the world.

Epic is preaching to the hardcore choir about how next gen graphics are the only game in town.

A real person is critical even when they are hearing what they want to hear.

But this is probably going to fall on deaf ears, lol.Responding to one's own post is such a faux pas. But I can foresee legitimate arguments being brought against me.

Such as, I should be critical of Nintendo since I'm quite clearly, very much so, in their choir. And literally, and figuratively do buy everything they put out.

My response to such an argument is that I don't claim, at all, to be this "real" person I have set forth. I drink Nintendo's kool-aid and I love it. As much as any bible thumper loves the kool-aid dished out by their ministry.

[The Ligand]

Like books, you could equate the three to theaters, DVDs and television.

Your quote also speaks to the common criticism that Kojima and his gang make interactive movies, not games. I don't buy it, but it has been said (more or less).

[Lutheran]

To be fair, Epic's audience did not move onto the Wii, they moved onto more realistic and slow paced shooters instead of the twitch-fests.

I still don't see how somehow the Wii causes games to be innovative, whoopty do, a motion controller that has to do motions for the same activity as hitting a button....SO INNOVATIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!


Hmmm the wii controls are innovative , if you can't see that you have your head stuffed up your ass. Now that doesn't mean that most devs have done a good job of implementing them but thats not Nintendo's fault.

[Savok]

Your quote also speaks to the common criticism that Kojima and his gang make interactive movies, not games. I don't buy it, but it has been said (more or less).
Actually Kojima in this case is more used for "Epic aren't the biggest bunch of egotistical wankers in the world" argument.

[Itchyeyes]

Sorry. You are wrong.

Lots of games make excellent use of the Wii's pointer functionality. It is the closest thing to using a mouse on a standard controller. If you are referring to FPS titles specifically, I suggest you rent or buy Medal of Honor Heroes 2, since the FPS controls are even better than those in Metroid Prime 3.
You're arguing against a point that nobody is making. No one is disputing that good examples of how to use the Wii remote exist. What we're saying is that the vast majority of developers choose to ignore these and take the easy way out, including Nintendo in more than a few instances. Twilight Princess is the exact same game on the Gamecube that it is on the Wii. Dozens of reviews for Smash Bros. recommend playing it with the Gamecube controller. For every Medal of Honor Heroes 2, that makes an effort to use the Wii remote intuitively there are 2 dozen games that ignore it and simply shoehorn traditional controls onto it.

Again, the Wii remote does not make games innovative. It's still up to developers.

[Bone]

Metroid Prime what? I mean, if the point and shoot thing is so awesome, you'd think Nintendo would do it for their own game. As far as I know, there's only one game you're describing.

Edit: Yeah Medal of Honor Heroes is it. What other shooter is point and shoot? Link's Bow Training?
Elebits and Call of Duty 3 are the first two I thought of other than Metroid and MoH.

[TrackZero]

Then I have bad taste , at least im not sucking on Bill Gates cock on a regular basis..thats something I never have to taste :D

That's my problem with half of your posts (in any thread) Lutheran. You seem to spend more time mentioning Bill Gates wang than you do addressing the issues being discussed. Please try to get more on topic and stop imagining everyone else as some kind of uber-fanboy you're doing battle with.

[mothergoat]

Why do people judge the canvas by what people paint on it?

Have we seen a plethora of button-to-waggle conversions? Sure. Are there games that would work better on a normal controller? Of course! How is this surprising to anyone?

But this system and input configuration is still in its infancy for a home console. Give people some time to create more innovative products.

The bottom line is that many (not all) hardcore gamers are pure graphics whores whether they admit it or not. When tech with a next-gen gameplay device comes along but dressed in lesser graphics tech, they'll throw the baby out with the bathwater and stamp it with the absolutely ridiculous "not next-gen" title.

I play all games for all systems and I love new graphics tech like most gamers would, but pretty only lasts for the honeymoon, once that phase is over, is it fun?

I think the Wii's potential has hardly been tapped and I can't wait to see some of the ideas currently in dev. The fact some of us are closing our minds so quickly to exciting gameplay tech is very sad.

And who is Epic to speak on innovation? A step back? Wow. Pot - kettle - black.

"Beauty" will never take the place of something that's fun first.

[TrackZero]

Responding to one's own post is such a faux pas. But I can foresee legitimate arguments being brought against me.

Such as, I should be critical of Nintendo since I'm quite clearly, very much so, in their choir. And literally, and figuratively do buy everything they put out.

My response to such an argument is that I don't claim, at all, to be this "real" person I have set forth. I drink Nintendo's kool-aid and I love it. As much as any bible thumper loves the kool-aid dished out by their ministry.

I don't see anything wrong with your statements at all. You're completely right, gaming often fundamentally comes down to subjective taste.

On topic though, it's just as valid for Epic's criticisms of the system and why they won't develop for it. No mud needs to be slung either way.

[Ravenlock]

He is being level headed. A level headed person would realize that the Wii sucks. Being open minded and objective doesn't mean never coming to any conclusions.

Wow. That statement is hysterical. "Any rational person would clearly agree with my subjective opinion." Okay. :rolleyes:

I’m an early Wii adopter (Late Nov 2006) and I still get plenty of use out of the system. Would I like to own a 360/PS3? Sometimes - a few times a year, when a big title hits - but I also don’t have the time or money for gaming that I had when I was in college. I can't afford all the consoles. If I'm patient, the good games on the X360/PS3 will eventually show up on my PC, and I can play them there. Just picked up Assassin's Creed on the PC when it came out earlier this month. Waiting doesn't bother me. Nintendo's franchises never come out on other systems, and I want to play those games, so I own a Wii. I also don't have the time or money to buy 3 or 4 games a month anymore, so I pace myself and pick things up when I’m actually done with the last thing, or I get them from Gamefly and then send them back when I’m done. Protip: those of us who grew up with Atari are nearing 30 now. We have jobs and families and we don’t generally get to play 4 hours of games a day unless we’re lucky enough to work in that industry. I still love my games, and I still play through them, but it takes longer and that’s fine with me. I don't think that's a surprise to the EvAv community, but it sure seems like the gaming industry as a whole doesn't realize its core demographic is now in their mid-20's to mid-30's.

As for Wii games, I feel like I've got a good collection - Twilight Princess, Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, Paper Mario, Trauma Center, SSX Blur, Mario Strikers, Godfather Blackhand, Smash Brothers… I’ll be buying Mario Kart and Wii Fit, and I’m looking forward to picking up Okami and No More Heroes (which I've Gamefly'd but don't own yet) and Boom Blox. For the speed at which I can play through them, there’s no lack of good gaming on the system.

As others have mentioned, the "innovation" of the system from a gameplay perspective in my opinion isn't really the "waggle" factor (though that can be entertaining, I'm looking forward to seeing what Force Unleashed does with it), it's the pointer. Twilight Princess was not "better on the Cube" because aiming the damn bow / boomerang with an analog stick is a pain in the ass, and the Wiimote makes it totally intuitive. Galaxy, similarly, benefited in gameplay terms from having a pointing device. For FPS's the argument for it is even more clear, as Metroid Prime 3 and MoH:H2 displayed very nicely.

As for the rest of Epic’s comments… whatever. I played about an hour of both Gears of War and UT III on the PC, and wasn’t the least bit interested in either of them. Gears of War seemed like a fairly entertaining game, but I guess it wasn’t what I was in the mood for at the time. UT III was actually far worse, in my opinion, than UT 2004. The graphics are technically far better, but the environments are all a muddy grey-brown mess, the weapons haven’t improved, and the new vehicles don’t feel as good as the 2004 ones. I’m not at all surprised their PC sales were crap for that - it just isn't a standout game.

In short (too late!): I don’t think the Wii is missing out on anything, not having Epic’s games on the Wii. They aren't a developer that would have excited me by saying they were working on something for it.

[DevilUknow]

Not a huge shocker.

Epic's business strategy is pushing forward graphics and effects through derivative action games and licensing their engine to real game designers (and then hanging them out to dry when their stuff doesn't work).

Wii doesn't allow them to do that, so they won't develop for it.

[Telefrog]

You're arguing against a point that nobody is making. No one is disputing that good examples of how to use the Wii remote exist. What we're saying is that the vast majority of developers choose to ignore these and take the easy way out, including Nintendo in more than a few instances. Twilight Princess is the exact same game on the Gamecube that it is on the Wii. Dozens of reviews for Smash Bros. recommend playing it with the Gamecube controller. For every Medal of Honor Heroes 2, that makes an effort to use the Wii remote intuitively there are 2 dozen games that ignore it and simply shoehorn traditional controls onto it.

Again, the Wii remote does not make games innovative. It's still up to developers.

Exactly. For all their harping on innovation, Nintendo takes the easy way out as well. Twilight Princess? Gamecube port with nunchuk use shoehorned into it. Metroid Prime? Please rescue me from the waggle chores! Mario Galaxy? Waggle was annoying rather than essential and the only good use of the pointing was for the 2nd player to get stars. SSBM? Play it on a GC controller. Mario Kart? Well, the early previews are saying the same thing.

Edit: I liked all those games, BTW. I just really would prefer that the waggle and pointing not get crammed into a game just because that's what the Wii is about.

[TrackZero]

Like books, you could equate the three to theaters, DVDs and television.

Analogies between media, hardware and experience are moot.

[Tabasco]

It only makes sense that someone who makes games that mostly consist of eye candy is not going to like the Wii. Gears was a pretty great game, but I don't see it innovating anything. The Wii is the future of gaming; I mean hands on gameplay and actual movement will be the norm in games one day. It's just more realistic and feels better than pushing buttons on a controller.

The Wii is just the beginning of something that will change the industry. I think it is important for us to stop caring so much about graphics and special effects, and really concentrate on the gameplay and physical aspects of gaming.

Some people prefer to sit on a couch and just mindlessly press buttons. I got over that after about fifteen years of console gaming. I welcome this change wholeheartedly.

[oldjadedgamer]

Everyone I know, myself included bought a Wii at launch and no one plays it now. I'd say 2 months is a good estimate. Everyone did blow off the dust for Mario Galaxy but other then that, it lays dormant.

The people I know who love the crap out of their Wii are my friends with little kids. They can't get enough of it and it's the best system in the world for them. I get them Wii related gifts all the time.

It's just a different audience this time around for the system and that's fine for me. I really don't feel I'm missing out on anything by not playing.

[TrackZero]

Not a huge shocker.

Epic's business strategy is pushing forward graphics and effects through derivative action games and licensing their engine to real game designers (and then hanging them out to dry when their stuff doesn't work).

Wii doesn't allow them to do that, so they won't develop for it.

Yup, straightforward enough. Though you could have removed the insulting "derivative" and "real game designers" comment and still gotten your point across without sounding like an asshole.

They were asked an honest answer and gave it, they shouldn't be attacked for not wanting to develop a product that wouldn't seem profitable for the work/time put into it, and would hold back their manpower/development for the things that do keep them getting paid.

[silv]

I totally agree. The waggle controls suck for normal games like Mario. Throw your hand to spin? wtf? That is the most annoying thing ever.

[Kamalot]

Everyone I know, myself included bought a Wii at launch and no one plays it now. I'd say 2 months is a good estimate. Everyone did blow off the dust for Mario Galaxy but other then that, it lays dormant.

The people I know who love the crap out of their Wii are my friends with little kids. They can't get enough of it and it's the best system in the world for them. I get them Wii related gifts all the time.
Look around. There are plenty of threads on this board for Smash Bros, Baroque, No More Heroes, Okami, and more. People play Wii.

[DevilUknow]

Yup, straightforward enough. Though you could have removed the insulting "derivative" and "real game designers" comment and still gotten your point across without sounding like an asshole.

You're probably right, but it was too much work to edit ;)

[Kamalot]

Yup, straightforward enough. Though you could have removed the insulting "derivative" and "real game designers" comment and still gotten your point across without sounding like an asshole.

They were asked an honest answer and gave it, they shouldn't be attacked for not wanting to develop a product that wouldn't seem profitable for the work/time put into it, and would hold back their manpower/development for the things that do keep them getting paid.

I agree on the first bit of your post, but the 2nd gives me pause. Epic also could have given an honest answer without being insulting and sounding like assholes.

[Generation ABXY]

God damn, the Wii really chaps some people’s asses around here, and I just don’t understand why.

If someone gets enjoyment from it, what the hell should it matter to you? They aren’t trying to kick in your door, smash the things you do love and force you to do things the way the want – they’re not vegetarians! And It’s not some sort of social depravity either, it’s a video game.

I must have missed the announcement where gaming became your own private little pastime or exclusive club, complete with a little handshake and everything. It must have happened, I know, because of you are so unapologetically opposed to games that are simple enough for traditionally non-gamers to pick ‘em up and enjoy it.

Granted, if they sell, they might make more games that appeal to a broader audience, but so what. It is hardly the cracking of the seventh seal. I don’t like cream soda, but I hardly think its continued existence is going to cause an absolute collapse of the fizzy drinks industry. Trying pulling your head out of your ass, it might help you get some perspective.

[Savok]

Epic also could have given an honest answer without being insulting and sounding like assholes.
It's Epic, that's just not physically possible.

[Kamalot]

I don’t like cream soda, but I hardly think its continued existence is going to cause an absolute collapse of the fizzy drinks industry. Trying pulling your head out of your ass, it might help you get some perspective.

I can't stand cream soda and actively make my voice heard on the Salute to Soda forums (http://www.salutetosoda.com/). If the assholes who make cream soda weren't such assholes, there'd still be Surge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surge_%28soft_drink%29)on the market! :mad:

(a freaking JOKE people!)

[dark_inchworm]

It's Epic, that's just not physically possible.

This dude was bad enough to win ten internets.

[Kelegacy]

I think the single greatest detriment to gaming this generation is the success of the Wii. The shockwaves will be felt for years to come.

Okay, maybe not, but I really don't like the Wii. My least favorite gaming system of all time. And I've been playing since the early 80's.

[Kamalot]

I think the single greatest detriment to gaming this generation is the success of the Wii. The shockwaves will be felt for years to come.

Right, cause teaching a wide audience that games can be fun and not detrimental to society is bad for gamers, right?

[Ravenlock]

Look around. There are plenty of threads on this board for Smash Bros, Baroque, No More Heroes, Okami, and more. People play Wii.

Indeed. I think both sides of the argument (which as someone mentioned is a pretty silly argument, why do you care what other people are having fun with?) are suffering from quite a bit of myopia. I work in an office of software developers - pretty technical, nerdy, gamer-type people - and the Wii-owners outnumber the X360/PS3 owners by a considerable margin, and the Wii-owners definitely play games on their systems.

Obviously that isn't the situation everywhere, but it's a little bit silly to pretend that disappointment is in any way the universal long-term reaction to buying a Wii. No, it's not.

[Draconis]

God damn, the Wii really chaps some people’s asses around here, and I just don’t understand why.

Knee jerk reaction is because it doesn't have generic FPS shooter XXXXXVIIIII out the wazoo, along with tons of shiny racing games, testosterone driven blood gouge fests, and eating the livers of tiny small animals as you slaughter their corpses for health.

Overreaction much yes, but again, thats a good summary, not truthful, but still probably a good summary.


The best analogy I can put up is this, why it drives people fucking nuts. Take a look at Dark Sector, 2nd Chapter in I believe, when you come out and it is literally a monsoon of Rain out there. All the shiny graphics, all of the beautiful water effects, bump mapping, fractal lighting blah blah blah.

Put simply, the Wii is not capable of doing that. Nintendo knew this going in, and I think alot of the hardcore gamers feel "Forsaken", and ignored, because they feel like Nintendo has shunned them. They feel as if Nintendo thinks that they don't matter, because they don't pump graphics to the eye bleeding edge limit.

However, that having been said, Dark Sector is a prime example of a game that can be shiny, but many will dispute its fun factor.

Then you have games like Okami, No More Heroes, Metroid Prime 3, Super Mario Galaxy, Medal of Honor Heroes 2, etc....which are quite pleasant graphically in many aspects, nowhere near as shiny as 360 or PS3, but still definitely quite a pleasant experience.


Put simply, Nintendo specifically aimed for a lower bar this generation. This was their strategy. They pumped all of the graphics tech into the gamecube and look where it got them...nowhere. This time, they made the system more accesible, easier to program for, the knowledge base of how to code for the games was already there....

The price was lower, good games happened on launch....


There's a reason why Nintendo is dominating this generation. Something all of the Microsoft and Sony Fanboys would never have believed at the start of the console wars. Their strategy is paying off, plain and simple. Good games are only a part of the equation.

What is a "Good Game" is subjective to many, but me and my Girlfriend have a combined total of 21 Wii Games, 15 360 Games, and 1 PS3 game....

And on the 360, alot of the games my GF has is Koei Games. Dynasty Warriors etc. What many may argue are sucky games, but her and I have a blast playing them together Co-op.

So to each individual, different tastes.

[Ravenlock]

Lots of good stuff in that post Draconis. Well said.

[Kamalot]

Knee jerk reaction is because it doesn't have generic FPS shooter XXXXXVIIIII out the wazoo, along with tons of shiny racing games, testosterone driven blood gouge fests, and eating the livers of tiny small animals as you slaughter their corpses for health.

Overreaction much yes, but again, thats a good summary, not truthful, but still probably a good summary.


The best analogy I can put up is this, why it drives people fucking nuts. Take a look at Dark Sector, 2nd Chapter in I believe, when you come out and it is literally a monsoon of Rain out there. All the shiny graphics, all of the beautiful water effects, bump mapping, fractal lighting blah blah blah.

Put simply, the Wii is not capable of doing that. Nintendo knew this going in, and I think alot of the hardcore gamers feel "Forsaken", and ignored, because they feel like Nintendo has shunned them. They feel as if Nintendo thinks that they don't matter, because they don't pump graphics to the eye bleeding edge limit.

However, that having been said, Dark Sector is a prime example of a game that can be shiny, but many will dispute its fun factor.

Then you have games like Okami, No More Heroes, Metroid Prime 3, Super Mario Galaxy, Medal of Honor Heroes 2, etc....which are quite pleasant graphically in many aspects, nowhere near as shiny as 360 or PS3, but still definitely quite a pleasant experience.


Put simply, Nintendo specifically aimed for a lower bar this generation. This was their strategy. They pumped all of the graphics tech into the gamecube and look where it got them...nowhere. This time, they made the system more accesible, easier to program for, the knowledge base of how to code for the games was already there....

The price was lower, good games happened on launch....


There's a reason why Nintendo is dominating this generation. Something all of the Microsoft and Sony Fanboys would never have believed at the start of the console wars. Their strategy is paying off, plain and simple. Good games are only a part of the equation.

What is a "Good Game" is subjective to many, but me and my Girlfriend have a combined total of 21 Wii Games, 15 360 Games, and 1 PS3 game....

And on the 360, alot of the games my GF has is Koei Games. Dynasty Warriors etc. What many may argue are sucky games, but her and I have a blast playing them together Co-op.

So to each individual, different tastes.
This post is full of WIN! (http://nodwick.humor.gamespy.com/cats/1154987249982ka4.jpg) Thanks Draconis!

[Mr.Green]

I think the single greatest detriment to gaming this generation is the success of the Wii. The shockwaves will be felt for years to come.

Okay, maybe not, but I really don't like the Wii. My least favorite gaming system of all time. And I've been playing since the early 80's.

Fuel meet fire. Fire meet fuel.

Seriously, the Wii brings more people to gaming. Obviously, it's killing the industry. I don't understand your reasoning. You think all devs will stop making "hardcore" games because waggling mini games are selling well? The GTA's, Halo's, CoD's and dozens of "hardcore" games are still selling millions. This ain't gonna stop any time soon. Sleep well.

[Savok]

Put simply, the Wii is not capable of doing that. Nintendo knew this going in, and I think alot of the hardcore gamers feel "Forsaken", and ignored, because they feel like Nintendo has shunned them. They feel as if Nintendo thinks that they don't matter, because they don't pump graphics to the eye bleeding edge limit.
Then they're idiots. What do they think Smash Bros is?

[Telefrog]

Right, cause teaching a wide audience that games can be fun and not detrimental to society is bad for gamers, right?

But what if the Wii is teaching newcomers is that gaming is a juvenile, kiddy hobby with throwaway mini-game, experiences?

What if the first comic book you read was an Archie Digest and that's all you got to read for a long time? When you then saw The Dark Knight Returns or Watchmen, you'd be shocked. You'd think comic book publishers are trying to ruin kids. They peddle smut to impressionable minds.

Isn't that what the industry as a whole is trying to get away from? To prove that videogames can be serious big business and legitimately artistic? That videogames can offer adult (not pornographic) experiences?

[TrackZero]

The Wii is just the beginning of something that will change the industry. I think it is important for us to stop caring so much about graphics and special effects, and really concentrate on the gameplay and physical aspects of gaming.


You mean abandon all the effort/evolution put elsewhere in the industry and simply fall back to worrying about a control schema? This isn't even an issue of gameplay being discussed, it's just about a controller. Controls become more fresh, yes, but it doesn't change fundamental aspects of the gameplay that haven't been explored in various ways on other controls in the past. To rephrase that into a more practical example, if I'm making a (and yes, tear this up for being generic, but they're not going to stop being made) World War 2 shooter. How would the gameplay change? Fundamentally? It wouldn't. You'd still be in a war, killing off the enemy. Most likely still in first person and by aiming your gun, or overhead as you direct your troops (FPS/RTS). You'd still be using tactics, taking cover, flanking positions, etc. Now the controls certainly can change, but my point in this example is to not mix up gameplay with controls.

I fire up Mario Kart Wii, and I'm still playing Mario Kart. The gameplay is still the same. The controls however, change. And don't get me wrong, new controls can be great! Motion sensing/ability to point at the screen make for fun new ways to move your kart around.

So here is where the fundamental divide happens for most people, in all of our subjective opinions. What's more important to you? New advancements in controls, graphics, gameplay, physics, narrative, sound/music, etc.? For me, assuming the gameplay is building on an existing formula that I enjoy, it's about graphics/narrative/physics. Because that's the side of the experience where I encounter the most immersion. Controls to me are a secondary function. I've played lots of games on the Wii. And while I certainly do like some of what I'm seeing, in my case I can't afford to sacrifice all of those other factors that I do want to see just for improvements in controls. That takes me away from what I enjoy. While for you, it can be other things, which is great, I'm not going to attack you for it.

All I wanted to point out was that controls are not the same thing as gameplay, though they can add new aspects to it.

[31 Flavas]

I don't see anything wrong with your statements at all. You're completely right, gaming often fundamentally comes down to subjective taste.

On topic though, it's just as valid for Epic's criticisms of the system and why they won't develop for it. No mud needs to be slung either way.Well, ya, I guess what i'm saying is that Epic's criticisms are valid. But, not really. ;)

They won't develop for Wii because they make top end graphics engines and Wii isn't top end. Compromising on that compromises their business. Just as much as Nintendo compromising on Wii (i.e. doing hi-def, 5.1, or eliminating FC's) would compromise their business.

It's obvious that a middle ground exists, but not really. The middle ground is someone else's business

[Gorvi]

But what if the Wii is teaching newcomers is that gaming is a juvenile, kiddy hobby with throwaway mini-game, experiences?

What if the first comic book you read was an Archie Digest and that's all you got to read for a long time? When you then saw The Dark Knight Returns or Watchmen, you'd be shocked. You'd think comic book publishers are trying to ruin kids. They peddle smut to impressionable minds.

Isn't that what the industry as a whole is trying to get away from? To prove that videogames can be serious big business and legitimately artistic? That videogames can offer adult (not pornographic) experiences?
That's a damn good point. Also, the new audience that they're bringing in aren't going to be interested in the games that most of us enjoy. When I see a soccer mom or grandma playing Disgaea or Front Mission, I'll be impressed.

[digitalErich]

At least Nintendo doesn't have to raid Rob Liefeld's house or 90s comics in general for an ounce of creative inspiration.
Wow, that rings so true I'm surprised no one has made this comment before.

[TrackZero]

I agree on the first bit of your post, but the 2nd gives me pause. Epic also could have given an honest answer without being insulting and sounding like assholes.

They don't have a reason to care. You're not the market they're going for, so they can tell it to you from their perspective. Whether you agree with their reasons or not.

[Savok]

But what if the Wii is teaching newcomers is that gaming is a juvenile, kiddy hobby with throwaway mini-game, experiences?

What if the first comic book you read was an Archie Digest and that's all you got to read for a long time? When you then saw The Dark Knight Returns or Watchmen, you'd be shocked. You'd think comic book publishers are trying to ruin kids. They peddle smut to impressionable minds.

Isn't that what the industry as a whole is trying to get away from? To prove that videogames can be serious big business and legitimately artistic? That videogames can offer adult (not pornographic) experiences?
Don't compare games to comics. Comics are viewed as they because of Seduction of the Innocent and the resulting Silver Age.

It's an entirely different beast.

[TrackZero]

God damn, the Wii really chaps some people’s asses around here, and I just don’t understand why.

If someone gets enjoyment from it, what the hell should it matter to you? They aren’t trying to kick in your door, smash the things you do love and force you to do things the way the want – they’re not vegetarians! And It’s not some sort of social depravity either, it’s a video game.


It doesn't. If you enjoy it, then good on you. However, I don't like it when people get into zealot mode (with any product).

[TrackZero]

Well, ya, I guess what i'm saying is that Epic's criticisms are valid. But, not really. ;)

They won't develop for Wii because they make top end graphics engines and Wii isn't top end. Compromising on that compromises their business. Just as much as Nintendo compromising on Wii (i.e. doing hi-def, 5.1, or eliminating FC's) would compromise their business.

It's obvious that a middle ground exists, but not really. The middle ground is someone else's business

Exactly. I won't criticize Epic for making what's in their view the best decision for making money. I'd have to agree with their internal conclusions, and from what I can tell, manpower is a serious issue for them, so they can't spare any to handle coding up Wii middleware (on what essentially would be a new engine).

[Kamalot]

But what if the Wii is teaching newcomers is that gaming is a juvenile, kiddy hobby with throwaway mini-game, experiences?

That's a danger, but looking at the success of the system, that hasn't happened. Also, there are a wide enough library of games available on the Wii that the danger isn't imminent.

Every successful system has a ton of shitty and mediocre games. That's the nature of success. The Dreamcast had the best ratio of awesome/crap titles, and that didn't help the system.

[Hellstorm]

Epic Exec: "This Wii is selling like nuts. Can our engine run on it."
Epic Programmer: "No, we didn't really build a scalable engine with UE3."
Epic Exec: "So we can't sell this to any Wii devs?"
Epic Programmer: "We don't even have Wii dev kits."
Epic Exec: "This Wii could undermine our main selling points. Okay, down play the thing, make up some falsecities...like no shaders. Then hope the thing stops selling."
Epic Programmer : "Hold me sir, I'm cold and frightened of the Wii."
CliffyB: "Hey guys, check out this new bling I bought. It's dope yo!"

[Kamalot]

That's a damn good point. Also, the new audience that they're bringing in aren't going to be interested in the games that most of us enjoy. When I see a soccer mom or grandma playing Disgaea or Front Mission, I'll be impressed.

Mom's aren't usually drawn to those kind of games. But you put a Wii in the house, and the kids may be drawn to those kind of games. A huge install base lets niche games survive.

[Kamalot]

Epic Exec: "This Wii is selling like nuts. Can our engine run on it."
Epic Programmer: "No, we didn't really build a scalable engine with UE3."
Epic Exec: "So we can't sell this to any Wii devs?"
Epic Programmer: "We don't even have Wii dev kits."
Epic Exec: "This Wii could undermine our main selling points. Okay, down play the thing, make up some falsecities...like no shaders. Then hope the thing stops selling."
Epic Programmer : "Hold me sir, I'm cold and frightened of the Wii."
CliffyB: "Hey guys, check out this new bling I bought. It's dope yo!"

Awesome. :D

The Penny Arcade strip is coming soon...

[Mr.Green]

Epic Exec: "This Wii is selling like nuts. Can our engine run on it."
Epic Programmer: "No, we didn't really build a scalable engine with UE3."
Epic Exec: "So we can't sell this to any Wii devs?"
Epic Programmer: "We don't even have Wii dev kits."
Epic Exec: "This Wii could undermine our main selling points. Okay, down play the thing, make up some falsecities...like no shaders. Then hope the thing stops selling."
Epic Programmer : "Hold me sir, I'm cold and frightened of the Wii."
CliffyB: "Hey guys, check out this new bling I bought. It's dope yo!"

Except there is at least one Wii game running on the Unreal Engine. It's in the quote from this interview.

[TrackZero]

There's a reason why Nintendo is dominating this generation. Something all of the Microsoft and Sony Fanboys would never have believed at the start of the console wars. Their strategy is paying off, plain and simple. Good games are only a part of the equation.

Just quoting out this one part I have contention with. I certainly predicted the Wii's success, long before it ever released. Don't make the mistake of thinking Nintendo fans are the only "visionaries" out in the market. The big N made a smart move by introducing a product that appeals to the lowest common denominator (don't take offense to that, but it's what their strategy is/was), is cheap to produce but allowed them to add a new control scheme to the market that they can grow out in future generations, and it set them apart from their competition. Given what their financials were like in GC era, it was also the best thing they could have done.

However, there's no need to attack other platforms because they didn't feel the need for this change. They're successful at what they do as well and also continue to move gaming forward, just not via a drastic approach in one area. Everyone's got something to give this gen, enjoy it all!

[Flatpicker]

Mom's aren't usually drawn to those kind of games. But you put a Wii in the house, and the kids may be drawn to those kind of games. A huge install base lets niche games survive.

The gaming industry was a multi-billion dollar business before the Wii arrived.
We were doing just fine without these shovelware titles.

[Gorvi]

Mom's aren't usually drawn to those kind of games. But you put a Wii in the house, and the kids may be drawn to those kind of games. A huge install base lets niche games survive.
A huge install base doesn't necessarily mean that niche games will survive, just a significant hardcore install base. Of course, one may follow the other, but not always.

[Savok]

Except there is at least one Wii game running on the Unreal Engine. It's in the quote from this interview.
And surprise surprise, it's a crap game.

[H.Bogard]

Ah yes, we all know that pixel shaders are what make a game.

Call me when we have tanks tearing through walls in Gears. UE3 is the same as UE2 with more polys until then.

[Kamalot]

Except there is at least one Wii game running on the Unreal Engine. It's in the quote from this interview.

Yep. Red Steel uses the old Unreal Engine.

[Kelegacy]

The Wii controller has ruined more fun for me than inspired. Huge Zelda fan, yet I grew irritated early on with Twilight Princess because of the waggling. I wish the Wiimote was a peripheral, and not the standard controller.

I love relaxing with games, reclining back in my chair and not having to shake it madly to attack a monster. I had some fun "pretending" with Wii Sports the first day or so after we received it, but it grew old fast.

The amount of posts in this thread just goes to show that the Wii debate is heated. The Wii is something I would buy my 9 year old nephew, but not something I'd buy a gaming friend my own age. I see the young kids in my family having fun with it, and I know it succeeds as a children's toy. The Wii is obviously not aiming at my demographic, hence my overwhelming disinterest in it.

[oldjadedgamer]

And surprise surprise, it's a crap game.

But it sold very well, the only thing publishers care about.

The Wii controller has ruined more fun for me than inspired. Huge Zelda fan, yet I grew irritated early on with Twilight Princess because of the waggling. I wish the Wiimote was a peripheral, and not the standard controller.

I bought the GameCube version of Zelda and played it on my Wii.

[Itchyeyes]

very long post
I can't speak for everyone, but none of the things you said address my beef with the Wii. To me the biggest problem with the Wii is this, 99% of the games on the system could have been (and many were) made for the Gamecube with an almost imperceptible loss in the quality of experience, if any at all. That, in and of itself isn't that scary though. The scary part is that there are millions of people cheer-leading the Wii as the second coming of Christ, when in fact the system itself is almost imperceptibly different from its predecessor that they all completely ignored.

If someone wants to cheer-lead the Wii then that's fine with me, but do it for the right reasons. Don't do it for the Wii remote that 95% of games barely even make use of, and only 1 game (Wii Sports) really necessitates it. Don't do it for the online system that is almost nonexistent. Don't do it for Nintendo's attempt to appeal to casual gamers, which is mostly just marketing anyways. And most definitely don't do it just because it's Nintendo. The reason someone should support the Wii is for the games. Because if we're supporting the system for those other reasons then gimmicky controls, marketing, and Nintendo branding is what we'll get, but if we support the system for the games, the good games, then good games is what we'll get.

[Ravenlock]

Isn't that what the industry as a whole is trying to get away from? To prove that videogames can be serious big business and legitimately artistic? That videogames can offer adult (not pornographic) experiences?

I would argue without hesitation that there are mature/adult (not pornographic) experiences currently on or coming the Wii comparable to those available on the 360 and the PS3. Off the top of my head:

Godfather Blackhand
Scarface
No More Heroes
Baroque
Alone in the Dark
Brothers in Arms
Call of Duty 3
Red Steel
Manhunt 2
Resident Evil 4
Resident Evil Umbrella Chronicles

as well as games that are not necessarily graphically violent or profane but are certainly mature, full-fledged games like Bully, Okami, Metroid Prime 3, Fire Emblem, Trauma Center, etc.

No, it doesn't have the sheer number of blood-soaked violence-fests that the 360 does, nor does it have GTA or Halo, but anyone who thinks it only has kiddie games or minigame collections really isn't paying attention.

[Draconis]

This post is full of WIN! (http://nodwick.humor.gamespy.com/cats/1154987249982ka4.jpg) Thanks Draconis!


Thanks to both you and Ravenlock.


Seriously though, its some good points, and 31 Flavas and Trackzero also have good points to dictate as well. Epic is in this for Business. Its all about the money.

And they make money licensing their Engine Technology. The Wii cannot run it, therefore, not profitable for them. Plain and simple. Perhaps theres a bit of bitterness there, maybe they feel, like many Gamers, Nintendo should have pushed the Envelope. I honestly don't know, I'm not going to put words into their mouths.


Honestly, there are ALOT of good games out for the Nintendo Wii, and the titles continue to build up that are good. There's plenty to play on the system. Some will grow bored with it, as is the nature of things. Hell, I do that with my 360 and PS3. Truth be told I'm on my PC more then any other system. Its just a matter of taste and preference. Really, the fact that people get up in arms over their personal choices in such a vehement manner is rather....disconcerting.

Still, it does make life interesting and help to pass the day when I am utterly bored. :)

[Telefrog]

Don't compare games to comics. Comics are viewed as they because of Seduction of the Innocent and the resulting Silver Age.

It's an entirely different beast.

Is it? Because I'm seeing parallels every single day.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=video+games+children+effects&spell=1

[Mr.Green]

And surprise surprise, it's a crap game.

Yeah. You got a point?

Red Steel sucked because of the engine it was built on?

[Kamalot]

Honestly, there are ALOT of good games out for the Nintendo Wii, and the titles continue to build up that are good. There's plenty to play on the system. Some will grow bored with it, as is the nature of things.
I grew bored with Gears of War much faster than I grew bored of my Wii.

[Telefrog]

No, it doesn't have the sheer number of blood-soaked violence-fests that the 360 does, nor does it have GTA or Halo, but anyone who thinks it only has kiddie games or minigame collections really isn't paying attention.

1) I'm not talking about "blood-soaked violence-fests" which I would argue do just as march harm by adding to the popular reputation of gaming as a juvenile boys' hobby.

2) All the Wii games you cited have been attacked by parents' groups and the media for their violence and innappropriateness for children. In fact, a few of them were specifically noted because the Wii is rooted in parents' minds as a family-friendly console.

[Itchyeyes]

I would argue without hesitation that there are mature/adult (not pornographic) experiences currently on or coming the Wii comparable to those available on the 360 and the PS3. Off the top of my head:

Godfather Blackhand
Scarface
No More Heroes
Baroque
Alone in the Dark
Brothers in Arms
Call of Duty 3
Red Steel
Manhunt 2
Resident Evil 4
Resident Evil Umbrella Chronicles

as well as games that are not necessarily graphically violent or profane but are certainly mature, full-fledged games like Bully, Okami, Metroid Prime 3, Fire Emblem, Trauma Center, etc.

No, it doesn't have the sheer number of blood-soaked violence-fests that the 360 does, nor does it have GTA or Halo, but anyone who thinks it only has kiddie games or minigame collections really isn't paying attention.
Oh here we go down this road again. I feel like it's 2001 and I'm in a Gamespot forum.

[Draconis]

I can't speak for everyone, but none of the things you said address my beef with the Wii. To me the biggest problem with the Wii is this, 99% of the games on the system could have been (and many were) made for the Gamecube with an almost imperceptible loss in the quality of experience, if any at all. That, in and of itself isn't that scary though. The scary part is that there are millions of people cheer-leading the Wii as the second coming of Christ, when in fact the system itself is almost imperceptibly different from its predecessor that they all completely ignored.

If someone wants to cheer-lead the Wii then that's fine with me, but do it for the right reasons. Don't do it for the Wii remote that 95% of games barely even make use of, and only 1 game (Wii Sports) really necessitates it. Don't do it for the online system that is almost nonexistent. Don't do it for Nintendo's attempt to appeal to casual gamers, which is mostly just marketing anyways. And most definitely don't do it just because it's Nintendo. The reason someone should support the Wii is for the games. Because if we're supporting the system for those other reasons then gimmicky controls and marketing is what we'll get, but if we support the system for the games, the good games, then good games is what we'll get.



Whilst what you state bear relevance, I sincerely doubt the number of games is at 99%. There are certain games that are implemented on the Wii, such as Trauma Center, where if placed on the gamecube, the experience is actually quite literally deplorable and nowhere near the same in comparison.

There are more as well. Twilight Princess was far more enjoyable for me with the "Waggle" as some might state, but I also like the fact that I could aim my bow instead of using an analog stick. Same goes for Metroid Prime 3. I was more immersed in the experience.

Now, that having been said, I do agree with some of your points. Alot of games do not take enough advantage of the Wii Remote, which is pretty much the entire point of the system aside from Online options. (not talking about gameplay, but rather Wii Ware, VC, etc).

But truthfully, the Onus of thus is upon the heads and shoulders of the Developers. Not you, not I. If anyone should be bitched at, its the Developers who decide to play it safe. Plain and simple.

As an aside, I am quite sure, just to make a point here, that even without the Wii Remote, alot of Nintendo Detractors would still be quick to handily and quite readily point out, that without the innovation of the controller, Nintendo, and indeed Third Party Devs, would be doing "More of the Same".

There are many stale arguments that quite never settle to the dust of the floor. They never will. But that is the nature of the ordeal.

Furthermore, to make an additional point. If someone did make a game that literally was 1-1 ratio actions for everything you do. Picking up items, swinging a sword, running, walking, etc.....

You'd have gamers dead on the couch after having suffered a massive coronary due to sheer exertion. Exaggeration much yes, but remember that early on alot of the bitching about the Wii was due to TOO MUCH activity required in the minds of the gamers.

[Tabasco]

You mean abandon all the effort/evolution put elsewhere in the industry and simply fall back to worrying about a control schema? This isn't even an issue of gameplay being discussed, it's just about a controller. Controls become more fresh, yes, but it doesn't change fundamental aspects of the gameplay that haven't been explored in various ways on other controls in the past. To rephrase that into a more practical example, if I'm making a (and yes, tear this up for being generic, but they're not going to stop being made) World War 2 shooter. How would the gameplay change? Fundamentally? It wouldn't. You'd still be in a war, killing off the enemy. Most likely still in first person and by aiming your gun, or overhead as you direct your troops (FPS/RTS). You'd still be using tactics, taking cover, flanking positions, etc. Now the controls certainly can change, but my point in this example is to not mix up gameplay with controls.

I fire up Mario Kart Wii, and I'm still playing Mario Kart. The gameplay is still the same. The controls however, change. And don't get me wrong, new controls can be great! Motion sensing/ability to point at the screen make for fun new ways to move your kart around.

So here is where the fundamental divide happens for most people, in all of our subjective opinions. What's more important to you? New advancements in controls, graphics, gameplay, physics, narrative, sound/music, etc.? For me, assuming the gameplay is building on an existing formula that I enjoy, it's about graphics/narrative/physics. Because that's the side of the experience where I encounter the most immersion. Controls to me are a secondary function. I've played lots of games on the Wii. And while I certainly do like some of what I'm seeing, in my case I can't afford to sacrifice all of those other factors that I do want to see just for improvements in controls. That takes me away from what I enjoy. While for you, it can be other things, which is great, I'm not going to attack you for it.

All I wanted to point out was that controls are not the same thing as gameplay, though they can add new aspects to it.

You have a very valid point. For me, controls help with the immersion much more than graphics and sound. I like DDR, Guitar Hero, Police 911, Dance Maniax, Samba de Amigo, Virtual On, etc. because they are more realistic to me than the best graphics could ever hope to be. For me it is totally about physical immersion. My imagination can compensate for bad graphics no problem.

That is totally why I love my Wii so much.

[Savok]

Is it? Because I'm seeing parallels every single day.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=video+games+children+effects&spell=1
That shit is as old as Mortal Kombat, even older really.

Main difference here is gaming was really a passtime for kids, it grew into more adult stuff when we did.

Modern comics started as a more adult thing, DC = Detective Comics, they were crime stories with rape and murder for christ sake. Batman killed people.

It was also a time without the Internet. The Internet changes everything.

[Savok]

Yeah. You got a point?

Red Steel sucked because of the engine it was built on?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_Engine_games

You tell me.

[abso]

I smell a lot of fanboi in this thread.

With that said, I've been developing small games for the wii for class this past semester, and it's a fucking pain in the ass to do anything cool with the remote. It's great for cheap gesture recognition, but for position it is hell. For one, it only has 3 degrees of freedom, so you can get acceleration, but you can't get rotation. The IR field of view for is craptastic, so any pointing is limited to about 45 degrees (I think it's actually even less than that). Maybe the actual wii sdk provides methods to improve on things, but my time programming with the device has left me wanting more. You are basically stuck doing small gestures, because anything more interesting you might want to try, just doesn't work well. If the remote gave you 3D position (or even a wider field of view for pointing), things would be so much better.

[Ravenlock]

1) I'm not talking about "blood-soaked violence-fests" which I would argue do just as march harm by adding to the popular reputation of gaming as a juvenile boys' hobby.

Cool. I would actually agree with you, but it wasn't clear from your initial post (to me) that that was your opinion. My apologies for the misinterpretation.

]2) All the Wii games you cited have been attacked by parents' groups and the media for their violence and innappropriateness for children. In fact, a few of them were specifically noted because the Wii is rooted in parents' minds as a family-friendly console.

Valid point. Those games, when cross-platform, received the exact same reception on other consoles, however. I don't think that issue will go away until people who grew up with gaming are the ones representing it in the media and purchasing the games for their children. To too many people, the entire field is a foreign entity. That won't last long, though.

As for art in games, I think Okami and the upcoming Sam & Max games on the Wii are great contributors to that discussion. No More Heroes as well, though I didn't really like all the aesthetic choices they made. I would love to see Shadow of the Colossus remade on the Wii. The fact that it's so well suited for adventure games in general, both of the point-and-click and 3rd-person-action variety, makes it a really good system IMO for games that speak to an artistic vein. I certainly don't feel it detracts from the discussion.

[Itchyeyes]

But truthfully, the Onus of thus is upon the heads and shoulders of the Developers. Not you, not I. If anyone should be bitched at, its the Developers who decide to play it safe. Plain and simple.
I don't really have much to add to your post, but I did want to touch on this subject, and I have to disagree with you. The problem is that the producers are the gatekeepers, and most of the producers exist in that world of public companies that requires them to focus on increasing revenues. This means that, by and large, they choose to fund games that they think will sell. Developers actually have very little choice here, as very few have the millions of dollars it takes to create a modern game (even a Wii game). Likewise, the producers have very little choice as well (although they do have more than the developers), because a manager or exec who continually chooses to focus on niche games that don't sell will soon find himself without a job at best and under investigation by the SEC at worst.

We as customers though, have infinite choice. We choose which games to buy, which games to rent, and (in some cases) which games to pirate. We choose which games to talk about to our friends and which games to read about in magazines and on websites. We choose which games we like, the publishers in turn choose which developers can make those games. If we want quality, innovative games to be made, then the onus is on us to demand those games and accept nothing less. And the onus is on us to teach those new to the hobby that there are better games out there and that they don't have to settle for whatever licensed movie game makes its way down the pipe.

[Zaro]

I smell a lot of fanboi in this thread.

With that said, I've been developing small games for the wii for class this past semester, and it's a fucking pain in the ass to do anything cool with the remote. It's great for cheap gesture recognition, but for position it is hell. For one, it only has 3 degrees of freedom, so you can get acceleration, but you can't get rotation. The IR field of view for is craptastic, so any pointing is limited to about 45 degrees (I think it's actually even less than that). Maybe the actual wii sdk provides methods to improve on things, but my time programming with the device has left me wanting more. You are basically stuck doing small gestures, because anything more interesting you might want to try, just doesn't work well. If the remote gave you 3D position (or even a wider field of view for pointing), things would be so much better.

Tell me, how many cool thing have you made with standard controller?

[MightyMouse]

If Rockstar drops the GTA series to make games aimed at a more casual audience, I'll hate the Wii. If Bioware decides that they can't make Mass Effect 2 on the 360 because it doesn't have a Nunchuk and Wiimote, I'll hate the Wii. If Kojima decides he can only keep his career afloat by making games that will appeal to the entire family, I'll hate the Wii. Right now it doesn't affect my gaming experience in the least.

[Mr.Green]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_Engine_games

You tell me.

Okay. The engine had nothing to do with it. Satisfied?

[Zaro]

If Rockstar drops the GTA series to make games aimed at a more casual audience, I'll hate the Wii. If Bioware decides that they can't make Mass Effect 2 on the 360 because it doesn't have a Nunchuk and Wiimote, I'll hate the Wii. If Kojima decides he can only keep his career afloat by making games that will appeal to the entire family, I'll hate the Wii. Right now it doesn't affect my gaming experience in the least.

Will you hate Microsoft if they decide to make a motion controller?

[jacktion]

I like people who speak their mind. No PR spin. I think it's true in some respect. I have a number of friends who bought the Wii for Wii Sports. Never heard a word about the console since, but now that Wii Fit is coming up, they have begun to talk about it again.

Don't you mean that you like people who agree with you? If they disagree then it is PR spin?


I'm open minded towards all systems and the Wii is the first one that I think is conceptually flawed. I would actually put it far behind systems like the Jaguar and Virtual Boy

The Wii is "far behind" the Virtual Boy? Are you crazy? The Virtual Boy? I'm sorry but this clearly reveals that you have a heavy bias against the Wii.

All the vitriol against the Wii in here just once again illustrate how threatened hardcore gamers are against this new product. It is the same with any enthusiast market. There are a group of hardcore film buffs who scoff against anything mainstream and lament that all movies are not analog and made by scandinavian directors from the 40s. There is a group of car nuts who cry whenever Ferrari releases a new vehicle that does not have 30% more torque than last year's model. These tightknit groups are very fanatical and close-minded and it is because they love their hobby so much and they don't want it to change. Games are the same and the hardcore group is a small minority but very outspoken and highly critical of anything that is new and threatening.
As someone on the border who can see the hardcore and the mainstream it is clear that the Wii is not a fad. It is not a virus. No one is being fooled. The Wii is a very popular and fun product that is being played by lots and lots of people every day. The hardcore seem to think that somehow people are being deceived somehow. That most people are stupid and don't know when they are having fun or not. That Nintendo is tricking people into spending hundreds of dollars on something that is horrible and crappy. But that is not the case. People play the Wii and they love it. It is well designed. If it is not for you then fine but just accept that you have niche tastes that don't reflect those of the majority. Don't insult the vast majority of the population for not having your narrow view of what game tech should be.

[Savok]

Okay. The engine had nothing to do with it. Satisfied?
Not really, no.

[Kamalot]

The hardcore seem to think that somehow people are being deceived somehow. That most people are stupid and don't know when they are having fun or not. That Nintendo is tricking people into spending hundreds of dollars on something that is horrible and crappy. But that is not the case. People play the Wii and they love it. It is well designed. If it is not for you then fine but just accept that you have niche tastes that don't reflect those of the majority. Don't insult the vast majority of the population for not having your narrow view of what game tech should be.

This post is excellent. Thanks! :D

[Generation ABXY]

This post is excellent. Thanks! :D

I agree, that was a great post.

[Telefrog]

As someone on the border who can see the hardcore and the mainstream it is clear that the Wii is not a fad. It is not a virus. No one is being fooled. The Wii is a very popular and fun product that is being played by lots and lots of people every day. The hardcore seem to think that somehow people are being deceived somehow. That most people are stupid and don't know when they are having fun or not. That Nintendo is tricking people into spending hundreds of dollars on something that is horrible and crappy. But that is not the case. People play the Wii and they love it. It is well designed. If it is not for you then fine but just accept that you have niche tastes that don't reflect those of the majority. Don't insult the vast majority of the population for not having your narrow view of what game tech should be.

I agree that no one (except maybe 3rd party devs) are being tricked by the Wii. However, I do find your other point odd, seeing as we have threads on this site and articles on others pointing to that fact that the majority of the population don't actually enjoy the games on the Wii after Wii Sports since they aren't buying them.

As others have said, it's on devs to really get the Wii's potential realized, and I'd say that in most cases that's not happening.

In this case, we have Epic admitting they don't get the Wii and stating that they won't bother wasting their time trying to shoehorn their gamestyle onto the platform. Not a bad thing, IMHO.

[KSmitty]

The gaming industry was a multi-billion dollar business before the Wii arrived.
We were doing just fine without these shovelware titles.
Yeah those crappy Wii shovelware ports are almost as bad as those crappy liscensed games. You know, the same ones that make up the majority of the top 20 games sold last fiscal year? Oh thats right crap wasn't around before the Wii. :rolleyes:

[Draconis]

I agree that no one (except maybe 3rd party devs) are being tricked by the Wii. However, I do find your other point odd, seeing as we have threads on this site and articles on others pointing to that fact that the majority of the population don't actually enjoy the games on the Wii after Wii Sports since they aren't buying them.

As others have said, it's on devs to really get the Wii's potential realized, and I'd say that in most cases that's not happening.

In this case, we have Epic admitting they don't get the Wii and stating that they won't bother wasting their time trying to shoehorn their gamestyle onto the platform. Not a bad thing, IMHO.


Define "Majority" of the population Telefrog. Us, here at Evil Avatar? Maybe Kotaku, Joystiq, Gamefaqs? What is your sampling of data and how are you coming to the conclusion?

If anything, we are the Minority. I readily acknoweldge that I myself am amongst the Minority. I am about as hardcore a gamer as you can get, buying every system and the games I love for them, as well as PC games. But I full acknowledge I am in the minority when it comes to the grand encompassing scope that is those who own, and play, and Enjoy the Nintendo Wii.

We aren't the Majority. If you mean the "Majority here on Evil Avatar" then fine, I will agree with your point there. However, most of the site has a heavy tilt towards extreme Hardcore Gamers. Not exactly a fair sampling of the populus considering the very nature of the site and its posters inherently narrow down that sample into a niche.

I'm not going to say Sony Bias, or Nintendo Bias, or even Microsoft Bias. Of late, those lines have started to blur amongst a good deal of us, especially with the concurrent failures of Hardware on MS's console turning many away from Microsoft in Ire or anger, as well as Sony's various install issues etc that have some up in arms.

Things change, but really, little truly does change.

But yeah, if anything, we are anything but the Majority when it concerns the Wii.

[RMan]

I can't speak for everyone, but none of the things you said address my beef with the Wii. To me the biggest problem with the Wii is this, 99% of the games on the system could have been (and many were) made for the Gamecube with an almost imperceptible loss in the quality of experience, if any at all. That, in and of itself isn't that scary though. The scary part is that there are millions of people cheer-leading the Wii as the second coming of Christ, when in fact the system itself is almost imperceptibly different from its predecessor that they all completely ignored.
The thing is, the Wii remote is by far the most significant advance in gaming this generation, that's not to say it's the second coming for gaming, but relatively speaking, it's simply far more significant than better graphics. Some see it as such, some don't, but make no mistake, most don't 'ignore' the lack of advances in some areas, they just don't care about them. I mean, why should you see it as just as bad that the 360, for instance, has the same controller as last generation, are all it's fans just sheep ignoring that fact? No, they just, for whatever reason, don't care as much. Should I care more about a piece of technology because it costs more, or because it makes a bigger difference? The Wii is VERY different from it's predecessor, and I'm ignoring nothing, I'm just not using your values to judge these changes.

In the end, if MS had released the motion controller, or the Wii would otherwise run their engine (or supported their philosophy), then you would certainly not hear these comments from them. They built their system to not be scalable, and some of you guys seem to want to hail that as an enlightened path, it's not, it's just more focused/niche. Some developers make scalable technology, and some don't, Epic felt they wouldn't be hurt by targeting only high end tech, and now they seem bitter because they backed the wrong horse. Their design philosophy clearly focuses on graphics and high cost productions, and the Wii's philosophy couldn't be more different than that. I doubt they really dislike the controller, or even if they do, I seriously doubt they would if it was introduced on a system they didn't already hate.

[TheFlyingOrc]

That's flawed logic. Comparing the gap (in terms of both power, and to a lesser extent, install base) between the PS2 and XBOX/GC and the gap between the Wii and PS3/360 is laughable. There's a huge difference there.


I actually disagree, Gorvi.

Yes, NUMERICALLY, there is certainly a much larger difference in between the 360 and the Wii and the Xbox and the PS2.

However, as games get more powerful, there's a law of diminishing returns that comes into play. This generation doesn't look as much better than the previous generation than the previous generation looked better than the generation before it. Because of this, I personally feel that the VISUAL FIDELITY between the PS2 and the Xbox is about the same as the difference between the Wii and the 360/PS3. Unfortunately, too many Wii games are just PS2 ports, so you can't really tell. Mario Galaxy -> Bioshock seems pretty similar in difference as Shadow of the Colossus -> Resident Evil 4(GC)

[RMan]

However, I do find your other point odd, seeing as we have threads on this site and articles on others pointing to that fact that the majority of the population don't actually enjoy the games on the Wii after Wii Sports since they aren't buying them.
Perhaps you should look into the difference between fact and hearsay, because you used the wrong word there. Wii software sells well, and that’s a fact, no matter how much haters suggest otherwise.

[Gorvi]

I actually disagree, Gorvi.

Yes, NUMERICALLY, there is certainly a much larger difference in between the 360 and the Wii and the Xbox and the PS2.

However, as games get more powerful, there's a law of diminishing returns that comes into play. This generation doesn't look as much better than the previous generation than the previous generation looked better than the generation before it. Because of this, I personally feel that the VISUAL FIDELITY between the PS2 and the Xbox is about the same as the difference between the Wii and the 360/PS3. Unfortunately, too many Wii games are just PS2 ports, so you can't really tell. Mario Galaxy -> Bioshock seems pretty similar in difference as Shadow of the Colossus -> Resident Evil 4(GC)
No. I think your eyes may be broken, or you may have been drinking, I'm not sure which. ;)

Sure, there were some crappy looking PS2 games, but none between the XBOX and PS2 that looked like a generational gap (for the same game, that is). SotC vs RE4 is just a bad comparison, one is focuses on huge open environments and the other is smaller and more detailed areas. Bioshock also looks much, much better than SMG, at least in HD.

[Telefrog]

Define "Majority" of the population Telefrog. Us, here at Evil Avatar? Maybe Kotaku, Joystiq, Gamefaqs? What is your sampling of data and how are you coming to the conclusion?

The "majority" in my post was based on simple math with available sales data (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48646) as starters. Obviously, the "majority" of Wii buyers are not buying the software to go with it. The reasons why are myriad and unconfirmed, but the truth is that this "majority" just doesn't buy software at the rates we do. They just don't (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48815).

Part of it is that the Wii has a lot of shovelware. Part of it is that the Wii's casual audience just doesn't buy games at the rate we do. Part of it is that devs have shoehorned waggle and pointing into their games.

I'm firmly in the majority when I say that I like the Wii itself. It's a great little machine. I can readily see the potential gameplay I could be getting out of it. I am not alone in my perception that the games themselves have a lot to be desired so far. In fact, with the exception of Wii Sports, it seems the "majority" agrees.

[Telefrog]

Perhaps you should look into the difference between fact and hearsay, because you used the wrong word there. Wii software sells well, and that’s a fact, no matter how much haters suggest otherwise.

No. I would say Nintendo software sells well on the Wii. Other people's software (except Guitar Hero III - which is a great brand name) doesn't. As I've pointed out (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48815), Wii software as a whole isn't selling at a rate in line with the hardware.

It's not like I'm alone with this perception. Game publishers, developers, game media, and now mainstream media has backed me up on this.

[Zaro]

No. I think your eyes may be broken, or you may have been drinking, I'm not sure which. ;)

Sure, there were some crappy looking PS2 games, but none between the XBOX and PS2 that looked like a generational gap (for the same game, that is). SotC vs RE4 is just a bad comparison, one is focuses on huge open environments and the other is smaller and more detailed areas. Bioshock also looks much, much better than SMG, at least in HD.

Bioshock looks better than Mario Galaxy, c'mon. ;)

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b45/Gaia_Zaro/Games/bioshock_cosplay.jpg

[TheFlyingOrc]

seeing as we have threads on this site and articles on others pointing to that fact that the majority of the population don't actually enjoy the games on the Wii after Wii Sports since they aren't buying them.

...not really. They've been selling alright for some time, and are even beating the PS3 in attach rate. The sales are more end-of-year loaded, which is one thing about the Wii I definitely don't like.

[TheFlyingOrc]

No. I think your eyes may be broken, or you may have been drinking, I'm not sure which. ;)

Sure, there were some crappy looking PS2 games, but none between the XBOX and PS2 that looked like a generational gap (for the same game, that is). SotC vs RE4 is just a bad comparison, one is focuses on huge open environments and the other is smaller and more detailed areas. Bioshock also looks much, much better than SMG, at least in HD.

Not really. As I recall, you DID not play your PS2 on an HD screen, which may be part of my bias. Most of my PS2 experiences were on a large screen, which made the system hideous.

[Phanto]

When was the last/first time we saw a Epic title on a Nintendo platform?

[Itchyeyes]

The thing is, the Wii remote is by far the most significant advance in gaming this generation, that's not to say it's the second coming for gaming, but relatively speaking, it's simply far more significant than better graphics. Some see it as such, some don't, but make no mistake, most don't 'ignore' the lack of advances in some areas, they just don't care about them. I mean, why should you see it as just as bad that the 360, for instance, has the same controller as last generation, are all it's fans just sheep ignoring that fact? No, they just, for whatever reason, don't care as much. Should I care more about a piece of technology because it costs more, or because it makes a bigger difference? The Wii is VERY different from it's predecessor, and I'm ignoring nothing, I'm just not using your values to judge these changes.

In the end, if MS had released the motion controller, or the Wii would otherwise run their engine (or supported their philosophy), then you would certainly not hear these comments from them. They built their system to not be scalable, and some of you guys seem to want to hail that as an enlightened path, it's not, it's just more focused/niche. Some developers make scalable technology, and some don't, Epic felt they wouldn't be hurt by targeting only high end tech, and now they seem bitter because they backed the wrong horse. Their design philosophy clearly focuses on graphics and high cost productions, and the Wii's philosophy couldn't be more different than that. I doubt they really dislike the controller, or even if they do, I seriously doubt they would if it was introduced on a system they didn't already hate.
I'm confused what you're trying to say here as you seem to have completely ignored the entire point of my post. Even if the Wii remote is as significant as you seem to think it is, which is a debate for another time, very few of the games on the Wii even scratch its potential. This is my frustration. All the Wii cheerleaders point and say "look how great this controller is", but the thing is that I played Metroid Prime on the Gamecube. I played RE4, and Smash Bros, and Twilight Princess, and Mario Kart. And you know what, they weren't all that different if they were even different at all.

There are essentially 3 types of games on the Wii right now. There are the games that substitute things like shaking the controller for simply pressing a button, which in my view is actually a step back. There are games that use the Wii remote as a pointing device, which while better than a controller for those purposes isn't exactly revolutionary given that we've been doing it with mice and light guns for decades now. And then there is Wii Sports. To me Wii Sports is the only game that actually "gets it". Wii Sports was the promise that the Wii held and every time I pick up a game I fell tremendously let down, because where Wii Sports succeeded practically every game that has come after it on the Wii has failed.

So if people want to go around cheerleading the Wii, then fine by me. But do so for the right reason, which is not the controller that none of the developers actually use, but the games that are out there that are good no matter what control scheme they're using.

[Gorvi]

Not really. As I recall, you DID not play your PS2 on an HD screen, which may be part of my bias. Most of my PS2 experiences were on a large screen, which made the system hideous.
Ah, well, that it did. That's one reason my PS2 was never hooked up to my big TV.

[Flatpicker]

Yeah those crappy Wii shovelware ports are almost as bad as those crappy liscensed games. You know, the same ones that make up the majority of the top 20 games sold last fiscal year? Oh thats right crap wasn't around before the Wii. :rolleyes:
???

This relates to the idea that a huge install base does not = niche titles survivability how?

[ChaosDent]

In the end, if MS had released the motion controller, or the Wii would otherwise run their engine (or supported their philosophy), then you would certainly not hear these comments from them. They built their system to not be scalable, and some of you guys seem to want to hail that as an enlightened path, it's not, it's just more focused/niche. Some developers make scalable technology, and some don't, Epic felt they wouldn't be hurt by targeting only high end tech, and now they seem bitter because they backed the wrong horse. Their design philosophy clearly focuses on graphics and high cost productions, and the Wii's philosophy couldn't be more different than that. I doubt they really dislike the controller, or even if they do, I seriously doubt they would if it was introduced on a system they didn't already hate.

This is exactly the impression I get, every time I read a comment about the Wii from someone at Epic. They seem less like genuine oppinions, and more like well informed FUD tactics at a major threat to their middleware business.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Ah, well, that it did. That's one reason my PS2 was never hooked up to my big TV.

That would color our perceptions quite a large amount. I enjoyed Shadow of the Colossus, but it was ugly on my 42" screen.

Maybe you had to blow it up big to notice the differences.

However, given the art style that Mario is confined to, I don't think you can do much better than Mario Galaxy, the only thing more powerful hardware would have helped with is better AA.

[MightyMouse]

Will you hate Microsoft if they decide to make a motion controller?
If MS somehow adding a motion controller to the 360 means that Bioware won't make Mass Effect 2, or that I won't get a follow on to Drake's Fortune, then yes. I would hate MS too.

[Ravenlock]

I smell a lot of fanboi in this thread.

With that said, I've been developing small games for the wii for class this past semester, and it's a fucking pain in the ass to do anything cool with the remote. It's great for cheap gesture recognition, but for position it is hell. For one, it only has 3 degrees of freedom, so you can get acceleration, but you can't get rotation. The IR field of view for is craptastic, so any pointing is limited to about 45 degrees (I think it's actually even less than that). Maybe the actual wii sdk provides methods to improve on things, but my time programming with the device has left me wanting more. You are basically stuck doing small gestures, because anything more interesting you might want to try, just doesn't work well. If the remote gave you 3D position (or even a wider field of view for pointing), things would be so much better.
That's a shame to hear - thanks for chiming in with your experience with it.

[31 Flavas]

Exactly. I won't criticize Epic for making what's in their view the best decision for making money. I'd have to agree with their internal conclusions, and from what I can tell, manpower is a serious issue for them, so they can't spare any to handle coding up Wii middleware (on what essentially would be a new engine).Of course, there is also a conflict of interest angle, too. (I think, but maybe I'm thinking to hard)

In that, they'd obsolete, if that's the right word, their Hi-def UT3 engine, with the Low-def Wii tech engine. I mean, why would an independent game developer license the UT3 engine for 360 or PS3, when Wii is the system that is selling, and Epic has developed a fully maximized Wii tech game engine.

Nintendo being on top has got to be such a pain in the ass for game developers. The hardcore are all on the 360 and PS3 because of the Hi-Def, 5.1, and Online. But with Wii system sales as they are, do they stick with 360 and PS3, or put it on Wii?

[Gorvi]

That would color our perceptions quite a large amount. I enjoyed Shadow of the Colossus, but it was ugly on my 42" screen.

Maybe you had to blow it up big to notice the differences.

However, given the art style that Mario is confined to, I don't think you can do much better than Mario Galaxy, the only thing more powerful hardware would have helped with is better AA.
Now I wouldn't say that. I played SMG on my 65", and while it looks really, really good for a Wii game, there's definitely more that can be done. More going on in the levels, for one. There's plenty that could be added. Not that it detracts from the game, per say, but more can be done.

[Flatpicker]

Will you hate Microsoft if they decide to make a motion controller?

The problem is not the motion controller per se, it's the implementation of it's functionality and the games created that don't use it correctly.

Most people would be hailing the wiimote as a new standard if the games were using it in a better way.
Replacing button mashing with stick waggling isn't how to do it.

[Bone]

I smell a lot of fanboi in this thread.

With that said, I've been developing small games for the wii for class this past semester, and it's a fucking pain in the ass to do anything cool with the remote. It's great for cheap gesture recognition, but for position it is hell. For one, it only has 3 degrees of freedom, so you can get acceleration, but you can't get rotation. The IR field of view for is craptastic, so any pointing is limited to about 45 degrees (I think it's actually even less than that). Maybe the actual wii sdk provides methods to improve on things, but my time programming with the device has left me wanting more. You are basically stuck doing small gestures, because anything more interesting you might want to try, just doesn't work well. If the remote gave you 3D position (or even a wider field of view for pointing), things would be so much better.
Are you developing games to use in the Wii web browser? Sounds like you don't have access to the SDK and so are really making games that could just as easily work in Flash and a web browser (which, if I am correct, you are).

While that's really cool for a school project, I don't think you can equate that to "I'm developing for Wii and here's why developing for it sucks".

It would be like only having tools like Game Maker to create PC games. Sure, you can do neat stuff, but without a real programming language your options are limited.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Now I wouldn't say that. I played SMG on my 65", and while it looks really, really good for a Wii game, there's definitely more that can be done. More going on in the levels, for one. There's plenty that could be added. Not that it detracts from the game, per say, but more can be done.

I did say you can't do much better, not that you can't do any better.

And back on topic: I was never bothered by the motion controls in galaxy. I can see how someone wouldn't like them, but I thought they were a slight plus.

[RMan]

No. I would say Nintendo software sells well on the Wii. Other people's software (except Guitar Hero III - which is a great brand name) doesn't. As I've pointed out (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48815), Wii software as a whole isn't selling at a rate in line with the hardware.
Since when is Nintendo software not software? You were saying people were tired of the system and not buying games, now you want to revise it to say 3rd party (which translates to gamers not buying the lesser Wii games, I’d hardly call that a failing of the system or consumer). Even the post you made reports Wii sales at 3.7 vs 4.7 on the 360, a more expensive system appealing to a more hardcore gamer. 3.7 is NOT BAD, and not so wildly different than 4.7, concluding that the majority of gamers don’t buy games is just stupid/crazy. Unless you think the minority of gamers on the Wii are just buying games at a stellar level to make the averages work, which seems pretty crazy. In the end, the average game sales are lower, but quite expected for a lower priced system (esp one with a pack-in), and support nothing like the wild conclusions you have come to.
It's not like I'm alone with this perception. Game publishers, developers, game media, and now mainstream media has backed me up on this.
Hehe, although I’m quite sure you can find one member of each of these groups that suggests a similar view to yours (there’s enough crazies in the world), the vast majority of these groups have suggested no such conclusion. Your perception seems limited to that which supports your prejudice, but your perception is still not fact.

[kickmybum]

Wow, an interesting note from this interview is that Gears 2 is only 10 hours long. How long was Gears 1 and Halo 3?

[pomeroy]

Gears 1 was pretty short, if I recall correctly.

[RMan]

I'm confused what you're trying to say here as you seem to have completely ignored the entire point of my post. Even if the Wii remote is as significant as you seem to think it is, which is a debate for another time, very few of the games on the Wii even scratch its potential. This is my frustration. All the Wii cheerleaders point and say "look how great this controller is", but the thing is that I played Metroid Prime on the Gamecube. I played RE4, and Smash Bros, and Twilight Princess, and Mario Kart. And you know what, they weren't all that different if they were even different at all.
I’m saying that the impact is relative, and honestly, I kinda agree with you here. The point, though, is that the improvements that the 360/PS3 offer over their predecessors are less significant, so the Wii gets more attention because it’s more significant, not because it’s some wild improvement changing the face of gaming, it’s just the best we have this generation. Let’s face it, technology has been advanced enough for the last two generations that the bulk of the ‘big changes’ had happened, so the bar is lower for exciting advancements. The Wii promises, and sometimes succeeds, in delivering a unique, enjoyable, and/or intuitive experience because of the controller, and for many of us it is simply the best thing we’ve seen in some time, even in it’s infancy.

[lockwoodx]

In an interview with IGN (http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/868/868001p1.html) at the NY Comic Con, Epic's President Mike Capps had some not too kind things to say about Nintendo's very successful console. It doesn't look like we'll be seeing any Wii games from Epic..... ever.

Something tells me he's not too hot on the Wii.

Epic sounds alot like Rare did, before they started to suck.

[Lutheran]

That's my problem with half of your posts (in any thread) Lutheran. You seem to spend more time mentioning Bill Gates wang than you do addressing the issues being discussed. Please try to get more on topic and stop imagining everyone else as some kind of uber-fanboy you're doing battle with.


Dude , I am posting on the biggest fanboy 360 forum on the planet. And a ton of the posters here love to bash on the Wii for no other reason then it makes them feel better about themselves when they do so. We still have the same people ( such as yourself ) saying in any positive Wii thread that " Teh Wii has no games " and moronic stuff like that. If you look at my replies in all these threads you speak of , they are mostly in response to 360 lovers who have said something retarted about the Wii for no good reason other then they hate it. Like Eternal Gamer saying any reasonable person would know the Wii sucks..then amending it to the Wii fans are not mental , they just have bad taste.

I am pretty sure if the Wii wasn't kicking every other consoles ass most of you fanboys wouldn't even waste your time typing the word Wii. It just kills a lot of you that its been a hit. Aren't you the guy who said not to spend any money on the wii because nintendo doesn't care about their customers..buy Microsoft or Sony? As if they care so much about anything else but the bottom line as well. When others stay on topic and don't spew hate then I won't either.


EDIT

Actually I hate defending the Wii in this manner , your post does have some merit in that I don't like to fling mud like that as it takes away from my arguement..so I do apologize in some respects. Maybe much like Jack I should not be on a forum like this any longer due to my age and the fact that I don't seem to be quite as good as a lot of you when it comes to calmly replying with sarcasm/venom that doesn't stray into name calling or talking about gay sex with billionaires :)

[EL CABONG]

He has a point . I got a Wii because I played Wii sports with some buds and thought it was cool. I sold it because I never touched it after the first couple of weeks. The Wii is fun for a while, but it gets old fast.

[Lutheran]

Knee jerk reaction is because it doesn't have generic FPS shooter XXXXXVIIIII out the wazoo, along with tons of shiny racing games, testosterone driven blood gouge fests, and eating the livers of tiny small animals as you slaughter their corpses for health.

Overreaction much yes, but again, thats a good summary, not truthful, but still probably a good summary.


The best analogy I can put up is this, why it drives people fucking nuts. Take a look at Dark Sector, 2nd Chapter in I believe, when you come out and it is literally a monsoon of Rain out there. All the shiny graphics, all of the beautiful water effects, bump mapping, fractal lighting blah blah blah.

Put simply, the Wii is not capable of doing that. Nintendo knew this going in, and I think alot of the hardcore gamers feel "Forsaken", and ignored, because they feel like Nintendo has shunned them. They feel as if Nintendo thinks that they don't matter, because they don't pump graphics to the eye bleeding edge limit.

However, that having been said, Dark Sector is a prime example of a game that can be shiny, but many will dispute its fun factor.

Then you have games like Okami, No More Heroes, Metroid Prime 3, Super Mario Galaxy, Medal of Honor Heroes 2, etc....which are quite pleasant graphically in many aspects, nowhere near as shiny as 360 or PS3, but still definitely quite a pleasant experience.


Put simply, Nintendo specifically aimed for a lower bar this generation. This was their strategy. They pumped all of the graphics tech into the gamecube and look where it got them...nowhere. This time, they made the system more accesible, easier to program for, the knowledge base of how to code for the games was already there....

The price was lower, good games happened on launch....


There's a reason why Nintendo is dominating this generation. Something all of the Microsoft and Sony Fanboys would never have believed at the start of the console wars. Their strategy is paying off, plain and simple. Good games are only a part of the equation.

What is a "Good Game" is subjective to many, but me and my Girlfriend have a combined total of 21 Wii Games, 15 360 Games, and 1 PS3 game....

And on the 360, alot of the games my GF has is Koei Games. Dynasty Warriors etc. What many may argue are sucky games, but her and I have a blast playing them together Co-op.

So to each individual, different tastes.


Good post , unfortunately it will be mostly ignored by some posters here. There are a lot of hardcore gamers out there that love the Wii. I am one of them , a guy like Avnovice is as hardcore as they come..he will play things most people wouldn't even glance at..he loves the Wii. To each his own. I think I get so mad at times because I think of this forum as being smart about gaming and being nothing like some of the other forums out there with constant flame wars and such. Then to see blatant hate for a console like we see from time to time here just destroys the whole thought of this being a smart place for gamers to go for discussions. Just MHO is all.

[Lutheran]

You mean abandon all the effort/evolution put elsewhere in the industry and simply fall back to worrying about a control schema? This isn't even an issue of gameplay being discussed, it's just about a controller. Controls become more fresh, yes, but it doesn't change fundamental aspects of the gameplay that haven't been explored in various ways on other controls in the past. To rephrase that into a more practical example, if I'm making a (and yes, tear this up for being generic, but they're not going to stop being made) World War 2 shooter. How would the gameplay change? Fundamentally? It wouldn't. You'd still be in a war, killing off the enemy. Most likely still in first person and by aiming your gun, or overhead as you direct your troops (FPS/RTS). You'd still be using tactics, taking cover, flanking positions, etc. Now the controls certainly can change, but my point in this example is to not mix up gameplay with controls.

I fire up Mario Kart Wii, and I'm still playing Mario Kart. The gameplay is still the same. The controls however, change. And don't get me wrong, new controls can be great! Motion sensing/ability to point at the screen make for fun new ways to move your kart around.

So here is where the fundamental divide happens for most people, in all of our subjective opinions. What's more important to you? New advancements in controls, graphics, gameplay, physics, narrative, sound/music, etc.? For me, assuming the gameplay is building on an existing formula that I enjoy, it's about graphics/narrative/physics. Because that's the side of the experience where I encounter the most immersion. Controls to me are a secondary function. I've played lots of games on the Wii. And while I certainly do like some of what I'm seeing, in my case I can't afford to sacrifice all of those other factors that I do want to see just for improvements in controls. That takes me away from what I enjoy. While for you, it can be other things, which is great, I'm not going to attack you for it.

All I wanted to point out was that controls are not the same thing as gameplay, though they can add new aspects to it.


Now this , this makes a ton of sense. I think the only thing you lose with the Wii though is the uber graphics of the 360 and PS3. The Wii graphics are better then the XBOX 1 graphics and right up until the mid first year of the 360 everyone died over the XBOX 1 graphics. Do they really all of a sudden stink because the new game systems can do better? Are games any more fun on the 360 to you then they were on the original XBOX ( is any game on the 360 that much better then Ninja Gaiden Black or Halo )? If you say because of Live Intergration and online gaming then I agree 100 percent. Certainly better graphics are nice but if a game stinks it doesn't matter how good it looks it still stinks. Great post though.

[Lutheran]

He has a point . I got a Wii because I played Wii sports with some buds and thought it was cool. I sold it because I never touched it after the first couple of weeks. The Wii is fun for a while, but it gets old fast.


Its a post like this that to me is totally invalid. I mean he had the system for a few weeks then decided it got old fast..without playing a shitton of the good games that came out for it over the next 12 months. I appreciate his opinion and he isn't bashing the console but certainly its not a subjective review on how good or bad the Wii is.

[Greeble]

I think most of the wii hate is due to the fact that development dollars are in limited supply and that with the wii's popularity more traditional "hardcore" serving devs are moving over there due to its low costs. Many developers are thinking, "Hmmm, I can make 1 360/ps3 game or I can make 2 or 3 wii games. Lets make the wii games".

The thing is most EvAv readers would prefer the 1 big budget game to the 2 or 3 lower budget titles, so they "hate" the wii. I got a feeling this was a big reason so many 360 fanboys hated on the ps3, till they realized it was ok for games to be multiplatform. (I really don't think Burnout, CoD4, or DMC4 suffered from being multiplatform)

P.S. I kind of find myself "hating" the DS. Because I enjoy gaming on my psp slim a lot more than my DS (screen resolution/size, d-pad, more comfortable to hold) and wish that more titles don't really take advantage of the touch screen would show up on the psp as well or instead. (Such as Castlevanias, RPGs)

[Lutheran]

I grew bored with Gears of War much faster than I grew bored of my Wii.


I thought Gears was fantastic , I loved it.

[Lutheran]

Don't you mean that you like people who agree with you? If they disagree then it is PR spin?




The Wii is "far behind" the Virtual Boy? Are you crazy? The Virtual Boy? I'm sorry but this clearly reveals that you have a heavy bias against the Wii.

All the vitriol against the Wii in here just once again illustrate how threatened hardcore gamers are against this new product. It is the same with any enthusiast market. There are a group of hardcore film buffs who scoff against anything mainstream and lament that all movies are not analog and made by scandinavian directors from the 40s. There is a group of car nuts who cry whenever Ferrari releases a new vehicle that does not have 30% more torque than last year's model. These tightknit groups are very fanatical and close-minded and it is because they love their hobby so much and they don't want it to change. Games are the same and the hardcore group is a small minority but very outspoken and highly critical of anything that is new and threatening.
As someone on the border who can see the hardcore and the mainstream it is clear that the Wii is not a fad. It is not a virus. No one is being fooled. The Wii is a very popular and fun product that is being played by lots and lots of people every day. The hardcore seem to think that somehow people are being deceived somehow. That most people are stupid and don't know when they are having fun or not. That Nintendo is tricking people into spending hundreds of dollars on something that is horrible and crappy. But that is not the case. People play the Wii and they love it. It is well designed. If it is not for you then fine but just accept that you have niche tastes that don't reflect those of the majority. Don't insult the vast majority of the population for not having your narrow view of what game tech should be.


Ouch dude great post...man I suck at rebuttals lol.

[DarkDaY]

I agree with the op, but I dont think the wii sucks, my mom loves mine, and really I have never seen her giggle so much while playing it let alone get so addicted, her friends come over and they drink wine and play all night.

It hit a target market, it nailed it and the numbers show that.
For the rest of us, when Mario/Zelda/Metroid etc pop up we can just go pick up another, borrow or rent one.

The days of owning Nintendo as my main console are over though, they went down a road I cant travel. I did try though.

[Disgustipated]

I actually disagree, Gorvi.

Yes, NUMERICALLY, there is certainly a much larger difference in between the 360 and the Wii and the Xbox and the PS2.

However, as games get more powerful, there's a law of diminishing returns that comes into play. This generation doesn't look as much better than the previous generation than the previous generation looked better than the generation before it. Because of this, I personally feel that the VISUAL FIDELITY between the PS2 and the Xbox is about the same as the difference between the Wii and the 360/PS3. Unfortunately, too many Wii games are just PS2 ports, so you can't really tell. Mario Galaxy -> Bioshock seems pretty similar in difference as Shadow of the Colossus -> Resident Evil 4(GC)

Heh, you're kidding, right? The PS2 covered some huge hardware gaps and made games that were comparable in visual quality - if not better - than most GC/Xbox games.

The visual fidelity between the PS2 and Xbox is very, very close. The difference between the Wii and 360/PS3 is huge.

[Bone]

Heh, you're kidding, right? The PS2 covered some huge hardware gaps and made games that were comparable in visual quality - if not better - than most GC/Xbox games.

The visual fidelity between the PS2 and Xbox is very, very close. The difference between the Wii and 360/PS3 is huge.I disagree. The difference between the BEST looking PS2 game and BEST looking Xbox game was pretty large. And the PS2's best-lookers came near the end, after how many years of developers "practicing" on the system?

And the Gamecube was capable of prettier games than the PS2, both on paper and in practice. RE4 was a pretty good indicator.

[bean19]

Who cares? The Unreal franchise (not the engine itself) is basically dead and buried. Fire up UT3 and look at how many people are playing. Gears will lose steam after the third one. Epic's shtick is worn. They'll be obscure again in 5 years or so.

/imho

Wow. I was working my way through this thead, and I'm almost certain someone must have corrected you by now, but I couldn't resist replying.

UT 3 is not terribly successful, but it is an EXCELLENT game. . . the problem is that PC FPS gaming is not as popular. Gears of War sold over 5 million units, and (most of all) the Unreal 3 engine is being licensed by a ton of next-gen developers.

[Ravenlock]

Wow. I was working my way through this thead, and I'm almost certain someone must have corrected you by now, but I couldn't resist replying.

UT 3 is not terribly successful, but it is an EXCELLENT game. . . the problem is that PC FPS gaming is not as popular. Gears of War sold over 5 million units, and (most of all) the Unreal 3 engine is being licensed by a ton of next-gen developers.

Perhaps people weren't correcting him because they agree with him. I said early in the thread, I actually thought UT III was a huge step down from UT 2004 - a game I still play with my coworkers. The graphics are technically superior, yes, but the environments are all a muddy grey-brown mess, the weapons haven’t improved, and the new vehicles don’t feel as good to me as the 2004 ones. The giant walker in particular just seemed silly and unwieldy.

I don't believe it had low sales numbers on the PC because PC folks are tired of FPS's - Half Life Episode 2, Team Fortress 2, Crysis and Call of Duty 4 have all been consistently in the top slots on PC sales charts since their releases. (Below their console counterparts in at least COD's case, but still above UT III's position on those same PC charts.) UT III just isn't a standout game on the PC, where so many better options - including its own predecessor for < $20 - exist.

[Meatgortex]

There are multiple paths to increasing the immersion of games. Increased hardware specs is one path, new control schemes are another path. One isn't directly better then the other.

Better graphics can be more immersive.
This can be done through better art direction and/or more horsepower. The balance here is shifting towards art direction and this will be even more obvious on the next round of consoles.

More richly simulated systems can be more immersive.
Physics engines, AI advances, and various emergent system design can increase the amount of interactivity in an environment. This requires clever design and a lot more horsepower, with the balance on the horsepower side for a while to come.

More intuitive and contextual control schemes can be more immersive.
By more closely mapping what a player does with a controller to what is happening in the game you can increase both the sense that you are actually doing the action, and the number of potential players that understand how to play your game.

The PS3/360 focus on the first two points, the Wii focuses on the third option. The first two primarily increase immersion by adding complexity which is important to current gamers. The control option opens games up to a wider variety of gamers who were previously intimidated by controller complexity. The Wiimote does little to increase gameplay depth, but when used properly it does a bunch to increase usability and immersion.

The developer vs. Wii issue:
The problem with the Wii is that the Wiimote is still a generalized controller. It's a different generalized controller then the standard dual-stick setup of the other machines and it might be better, but it's still general. As a result it will only averagely work for the majority of games.

On a 360 or PS3 if I want to innovate my control mechanics I can ship the game with a peripheral that custom matches what I want to do, although this is risky and potentially costly. See GH/Rockband or even WiiFit. What I can't do is ship a game on the Wii with a peripheral that increases the little white boxes specs to let me simulate more systems.

I think it's great that Nintendo decided to innovate on the control side of the equation, much like they did with the DS. I just wish that they had attached it to more capable hardware so you didn't have to trade away the other two advances just to use motion control.

[Disgustipated]

I disagree. The difference between the BEST looking PS2 game and BEST looking Xbox game was pretty large. And the PS2's best-lookers came near the end, after how many years of developers "practicing" on the system?

And the Gamecube was capable of prettier games than the PS2, both on paper and in practice. RE4 was a pretty good indicator.

Ok, but what was the best-looking game on PS2 and the best-looking game on the Xbox?

I'll put MGS3 vs Halo 2, for example. I thought MGS3 looked better. That game looked fucking phenomenal, and still does.

[bean19]

I think most of the wii hate is due to the fact that development dollars are in limited supply and that with the wii's popularity more traditional "hardcore" serving devs are moving over there due to its low costs. Many developers are thinking, "Hmmm, I can make 1 360/ps3 game or I can make 2 or 3 wii games. Lets make the wii games".

Hmm. . . well you start wrong. I think most of the people who criticize the Wii do not "hate" it. They merely don't understand why it is so wildly popular and they dislike certain things about the system.

However, the criticisms are pretty spot on. Here are my problems with the Wii (in order of importance):

1. Game library - I have had fun playing a few of the Nintendo games at friend's houses, but I know that if I bought a Wii today, then I'd have two games I'd want to own, and 4 that I'd want to put on my Gamefly queue. Even if I look at games coming out this fall the number doesn't rise significantly. The Nintendo games that are "killer apps" to many of the Nintendo fans here, simply don't interest me that much. I understand how fans of Nintendo first-party games don't have this problem though.

"Nights" looks really good, but I can name 5 exclusives I'd like to play on the PS3 this Fall and 9 on the Xbox 360 (as well as 7 great next-gen multi-platform titles on both the PS3 and 360). It's not that the systm doesn't get great games. It's just that, like the Gamecube, I would buy it and then play the 3-5 great titles each year and it would otherwise collect dust.

2. Weak Technology - I want to buy the NEXT Wii. The one that uses motion controls but has graphics that don't look like last generation. That is a bit of being a graphics whore. . . and if the game has wonderful gameplay then I can get past it. . . but usually games that have bad graphics and a gimmick are really one-note. I can play PopCap games on my PC or download XBLA games that are like this for a lot less money. Basically, the weak technology means that Wii games really NEED to have great gameplay AND use the Wii controls (effectively) to be interesting to me. A few games do this, and more will do it over time. . . but I'd really just like the next Wii that has better graphics.

3. Shitty online - I like multiplayer and the Wii has the weakest multiplayer features.

Like I said, there are a few good games each year, so I'll buy a Wii a few years from now when owning one will mean quite a few months of entertainment before I dry up the well AND the system will be in stock everywhere and probably less expensive. If it only cost $100 (which it should considering that it has really cheap parts) and I could find one easily, then I'd buy one now.

[Venkman]

Ok, but what was the best-looking game on PS2 and the best-looking game on the Xbox?

I'll put MGS3 vs Halo 2, for example. I thought MGS3 looked better. That game looked fucking phenomenal, and still does.

Put it next to Conker, Doom 3, Oddworld Stranger, or Riddick.

The ps2 pales in comparison.

just to hammer the point home: Splinter Cell Chaos Theory. That was gorgeous.

[bean19]

Perhaps people weren't correcting him because they agree with him. I said early in the thread, I actually thought UT III was a huge step down from UT 2004

I won't bother to argue against your opinion that UT III isn't as strong a game as UT2K4, as opinions are subjective and people's enjoyment of games varies. However, that doesn't at all support dark_inchworm's theory that Epic will be irrelevant in 5 years. They have one of the biggest blockbusters of all time with Gears of War (sequel coming out this Fall), and the Unreal 3 Engine is the most frequently licensed next-gen engine around.

[Venkman]

If MS or sony do a straight ripoff of the Wiimote, most arguments become moot. Those controls can be ported to PS3 or Xbox 360, so you get Wii experience with the graphics they deserve.

The Wii has a ton of unfulfilled potential. There are still only 2 games I would buy. Smash Brothers and Metroid 3. I have all the classic games I want already.

[Gorvi]

Put it next to Conker, Doom 3, Oddworld Stranger, or Riddick.

The ps2 pales in comparison.

just to hammer the point home: Splinter Cell Chaos Theory. That was gorgeous.
God of War II. And, yeah, MGS3 holds up to those others, too.

[bean19]

The ps2 pales in comparison.

He's right that the difference between the Xbox and the PS2 in graphics quality was significant. However, I agree with you completely that the difference between the Wii and the Xbox 360/PS3 is MUCH, MUCH bigger. The Wii looks closer to graphics on the original Xbox than it does to the 360 or PS3.

It's probably true that visual fidelity is harder to see as technology improves. The PS3 and 360 graphics are probably the most similar between any two consoles in any previous generation. However, the Wii is completely and utterly destroyed by both of them. Maybe the person who originally said they are close is playing his 360/PS3 on a SD television.

[Venkman]

God of War II. And, yeah, MGS3 holds up to those others, too.

God of War 2 is a true work of art. But no way does MGS3 touch Splinter Cell 3 in terms of technical prowess. Graphics and true sound immersion.

[Gorvi]

God of War 2 is a true work of art. But no way does MGS3 touch Splinter Cell 3 in terms of technical prowess. Graphics and true sound immersion.
I'll have to call that a difference of opinion, then, and leave it at that.

[bean19]

I'll have to call that a difference of opinion, then, and leave it at that.

If Vinkman isn't lazy (like me), then he'll link you to screen comparisons and benchmarks of both systems that show that the original Xbox is clearly more powerful than the PS2.

I'm not interested in that though. It gets WAY too far off topic. I just wanted you to know that you are stating that you have an opinion that a fact is incorrect. Maybe you are saying that you felt that they were similar enough that art direction in your favorite games made you feel like they were similar in power?

If that's the case, then I could see how someone might have that opinion. . . they certainly were close enough in power that if you compare a game like God of War II to something mediocre on the original Xbox like Fable, then you might think that. I can see how someone who only saw Wii Sports, Zelda, and Mario Party might think that the original Xbox is more powerful than the Wii if they played Beyond Good & Evil and/or Psychonauts on it too.

However, I think we can ALL agree that no one will ever think that the Wii is as powerful as the 360 or PS3.

[Ravenlock]

I won't bother to argue against your opinion that UT III isn't as strong a game as UT2K4, as opinions are subjective and people's enjoyment of games varies. However, that doesn't at all support dark_inchworm's theory that Epic will be irrelevant in 5 years. They have one of the biggest blockbusters of all time with Gears of War (sequel coming out this Fall), and the Unreal 3 Engine is the most frequently licensed next-gen engine around.

Well, half of his post was that the Unreal franchise (and he specifically said "not the engine") is more or less dead. I agree with his assessment. There are better multiplayer games out on the consoles, and WAY better multiplayer games out on the PC, even just looking at previous iterations of the same franchise. Unless user-generated content really takes off, something both MS and Sony have incentive to NOT allow, UT III isn't looking at a bright future.

As for the engine licensing, yeah, that's great now, but I can't disagree with him that in 5 years it may not matter. I'm personally not even that interested in GoW2, though I acknowledge it'll sell like hotcakes - but it's their only franchise that really interests people anymore, so unless they can keep beating that horse they're going to have to come up with something else.

His basic statement that their schtick is worn out is one I pretty much totally agree with. Cliffy B just keeps on coming off as an arrogant ass who thinks his games are the most revolutionary thing around, when in UT III's case they're actually regressing and GoW's got some stiff competition out there. They make a real pretty engine, but their games (which was the point of this thread, originally) just aren't that enticing to me.

[Tabasco]

I would definitely say that the original Xbox had way better graphics than PS2. It unfortunately had way worse games though.

I think Nintendo has the most fun games this generation. That coupled with their new way of control, is certainly why they are winning the console war. I'm pretty sure they will win it; and when they do, we will see an even more immersive system from them with even better games. I think this is going to revolutionize gaming, whether the "hardcore" want it to or not. I see traditional controller gaming going the way of PC gaming. It will never die, but it will certainly be a niche in the greater gaming world.

[Venkman]

If Vinkman isn't lazy (like me), then he'll link you to screen comparisons and benchmarks of both systems that show that the original Xbox is clearly more powerful than the PS2.

I am lazy. I think Gorvi is leaning towards better art direction in those games. I certainly can't disagree with that. God of War 2 is amazing, but I think most people (myself included) remember MGS 2 and 3 graphics more for the cutscenes than the gameplay- and gameplay graphics are MUCH different than realtime cutscene graphics. In that respect, the graphics (IMO) in MGS 3 were easily out-shined by the phenomenal tanker section of MGS2.

And both of them were easily outdone by the opening level of Splinter Cell 3 in terms of polycount, a more realistic and interactive lighting model, material behavior, etc. Animated normal maps for dripping water? A character whose clothing looks wet when he comes out of the rain? These were things people said "wow" about for Gears of War and Uncharted, respectively. And Splinter Cell: Chaos theory did them both years before on a previous-gen system.

[Venkman]

I think Nintendo has the most fun games this generation.

Which ones do you find so fun? It's not a disagreement, I'm curious. I haven't bought a Wii because I find the software library lacking in compelling games- or the really good ones I've bought on other systems already (like Zelda, Re4, Okami).

[Disgustipated]

Put it next to Conker, Doom 3, Oddworld Stranger, or Riddick.

The ps2 pales in comparison.

just to hammer the point home: Splinter Cell Chaos Theory. That was gorgeous.

How about I hammer this point home: Those games looked great, but the Xbox was incredibly powerful compared to the PS2.

64 MB of VRAM on an amazingly powerful GeForce 3? Check. 700 Mhz Intel processor? Check.

The PS2 had a 300 Mhz processor and 4 MB of VRAM. Four megabytes of VRAM. On a much less powerful GPU.

And honestly, most PS2 games were comparable to Xbox titles in terms of visual quality.

The difference was just not that huge.

You want huge, look at the difference between Metroid Prime 3 and Halo 3, or Call of Duty 4.

Also, another big one: Gran Turismo 3/4 versus Forza 1. I thought GT3/4 looked better. They were jaw-dropping.

[bean19]

Well, half of his post was that the Unreal franchise (and he specifically said "not the engine") is more or less dead.

My reply was about the fact that he feels that Epic will not be relevant in five years. If you want to discuss the other aspects of his post, more power to you, but this goes back to the opinion bit again; I certainly don't agree. I think the graphics are amazing, the gameplay is extremely solid. And even if the weapons are the same as the ones in UT2K4, they were already excellent - plus the addition of hoverboards and the new vehicles are appreciated. However, mileage obviously varies.

The fact that you don't like the game, and I love it doesn't have much to do with the fact that Epic is extremely relevant in the industry right now. If fewer people bought a Resident Evil game (many people were becoming bored with it around Outbreak and RE 3, btw) would that mean that Capcom is not going to be relevant in 5 years even though Capcom has many great IPs in it's stable like DMC, Megaman, and Phoenix Wright?

It's the same thing for Epic. They have a multi-million dollar console IP in Gears of War. UT 3 is actually a really good game that many of us enjoy a great deal and that will probably sell very well once it makes it's way on to the Xbox 360 (and that is already selling much better now that it has been released on Steam), and the UT 3 engine is the most used next-gen game engine. Suggesting that they are going to be irrelevant in 5 years is ludicrous.

[jeffbax]

How about I hammer this point home: Those games looked great, but the Xbox was incredibly powerful compared to the PS2.

64 MB of VRAM on an amazingly powerful GeForce 3? Check. 700 Mhz Intel processor? Check.

The PS2 had a 300 Mhz processor and 4 MB of VRAM. Four megabytes of VRAM. On a much less powerful GPU.

And honestly, most PS2 games were comparable to Xbox titles in terms of visual quality.

The difference was just not that huge.

You want huge, look at the difference between Metroid Prime 3 and Halo 3, or Call of Duty 4.

Also, another big one: Gran Turismo 3/4 versus Forza 1. I thought GT3/4 looked better. They were jaw-dropping.
Well, the Xbox didn't have 64MB VRAM, it had a shared 64MB total. PS2 had what 24 MB total?

Yeah, its amazing what developers did on the system, which is why I can't wait to see end of life PS3 games.

That said, I'm not sure PS2 could match games like Panzer Dragoon Orta, Stranger's Wrath, JSRF, Conker, Ninja Gaiden, Rallisport 2, Psychonauts. Damn if MGS3, God of War 2, SOTC weren't really trying though. PS2 had some really really strong efforts, stronger than the Xbox got relatively speaking IMO.

[Venkman]

And honestly, most PS2 games were comparable to Xbox titles in terms of visual quality.

The difference was just not that huge.

If you don't see the difference technically, then I don't know what to say. The best way is to compare exclusives and it was pretty clear to my eyes.


That said, I'm not sure PS2 could match games like Panzer Dragoon Orta, Stranger's Wrath, JSRF, Conker, Ninja Gaiden, Rallisport 2, Psychonauts. Damn if MGS3, God of War 2, SOTC weren't really trying though. PS2 had some really really strong efforts, stronger than the Xbox got relatively speaking IMO.

That's what I'm saying.

[Chrome Dome]

It didn't have to. It needed to ramp up the graphics, physics, clean up the gameplay issues, slap on a good storyline and do a complete revamp on the multiplayer. Which it did, and the fans were happy. Only people who didn't like Halo in the first place complained.

I agree. The only problem I have with Halo can be better explained by John Gabriel's greater internet dickwad theory than by any failing of the game itself. With that said though just the other day (after downloading the new maps and playing in the legendary playlist) I was wishing instead of implementing filters to allow me to base my search on faster connection/my language they had implemented one that let me filter out people who have been put on avoid list by a certain number of people. I can handle lag but loudmouth/music playing/ignorant people ruin the experience for me. There is essentially a limitless supply of douchebags on the internet. So while the idea of being able to avoid people sounds great, it's technically flawed the way it's implemented. Live will provide you with another annoying player as fast or faster than you can add them to your avoid list. If I could avoid people preemptively who have a history of being annoying then my experience is improved. There is also a real incentive for good behavior because when players can be avoided based on their past behavior then bad behavior means longer waits to match into a game.
Other than that one minor wish I have nothing to complain about in the game.

[Gorvi]

If Vinkman isn't lazy (like me), then he'll link you to screen comparisons and benchmarks of both systems that show that the original Xbox is clearly more powerful than the PS2.

I'm not interested in that though. It gets WAY too far off topic. I just wanted you to know that you are stating that you have an opinion that a fact is incorrect. Maybe you are saying that you felt that they were similar enough that art direction in your favorite games made you feel like they were similar in power?

If that's the case, then I could see how someone might have that opinion. . . they certainly were close enough in power that if you compare a game like God of War II to something mediocre on the original Xbox like Fable, then you might think that. I can see how someone who only saw Wii Sports, Zelda, and Mario Party might think that the original Xbox is more powerful than the Wii if they played Beyond Good & Evil and/or Psychonauts on it too.

However, I think we can ALL agree that no one will ever think that the Wii is as powerful as the 360 or PS3.
Oh, I wasn't trying to say the PS2 was more powerful than the XBOX, that was clearly not the case. I was just trying to say that the gap wasn't all that big, and in some cases, some PS2 games looked as good as some of the better looking XBOX games. A lot of that was in the art direction, though, you're right on that.

[Venkman]

Oh, I wasn't trying to say the PS2 was more powerful than the XBOX, that was clearly not the case. I was just trying to say that the gap wasn't all that big, and in some cases, some PS2 games looked as good as some of the better looking XBOX games. A lot of that was in the art direction, though, you're right on that.

VERY few games (even today) touch the level of art direction in God of War 2. I think that's more of what was going on in Metroid Prime 3. No matter what engine that was on- ps2, Wii, or even N64, retro made that game sing.

[TheFlyingOrc]

It's probably true that visual fidelity is harder to see as technology improves. The PS3 and 360 graphics are probably the most similar between any two consoles in any previous generation. However, the Wii is completely and utterly destroyed by both of them. Maybe the person who originally said they are close is playing his 360/PS3 on a SD television.
That was me. The disagreement isn't that the Wii is much weaker than the other two - the difference is my estimation of the PS2 - it consistently has horrific jaggies, and I'm talking about visually "impressive" games like FFXII and SotC.

[Chainblast]

I thought Epic went where the money was? Seriously though, I do mostly agree with him. I got a Wii on launch day, and aside for VC, I barely turn it on. Perhaps that's why the attach-rate is so poor.

[bean19]

That was me. The disagreement isn't that the Wii is much weaker than the other two - the difference is my estimation of the PS2 - it consistently has horrific jaggies, and I'm talking about visually "impressive" games like FFXII and SotC.

Oh, well I think most people will agree that the Wii is more powerful than last generation consoles. You might get a few people who think that the original Xbox is more powerful, but they probably aren't gamers and won't be posting here.

[fitbabits]

For those just tuning in, anyone care to throw up some notes on the preceding six pages?

[Hemalin]

For those just tuning in, anyone care to throw up some notes on the preceding six pages?

Wii sucks, Epic sucks, no you suck, PS2 sucks, Wii is teh awesome, Wii is destroying gaming. ...or something like that, there may have been a RIP Dreamcast in there somewhere.

[Evil Avatar]

For those just tuning in, anyone care to throw up some notes on the preceding six pages?

More Nintendo vs. Everyone Else crybaby talk than you can waggle your controller at.

Yes, yes we know Nintendo makes good kiddie games.

[TheFlyingOrc]

More Nintendo vs. Everyone Else crybaby talk than you can waggle your controller at.

Yes, yes we know Nintendo makes good kiddie games.

Yes, yes we know video gamers have a right to call anyone else immature. ;)

[mod_boy]

There are multiple paths to increasing the immersion of games. Increased hardware specs is one path, new control schemes are another path. One isn't directly better then the other.

Better graphics can be more immersive.
This can be done through better art direction and/or more horsepower. The balance here is shifting towards art direction and this will be even more obvious on the next round of consoles.

More richly simulated systems can be more immersive.
Physics engines, AI advances, and various emergent system design can increase the amount of interactivity in an environment. This requires clever design and a lot more horsepower, with the balance on the horsepower side for a while to come.

More intuitive and contextual control schemes can be more immersive.
By more closely mapping what a player does with a controller to what is happening in the game you can increase both the sense that you are actually doing the action, and the number of potential players that understand how to play your game.

The PS3/360 focus on the first two points, the Wii focuses on the third option. The first two primarily increase immersion by adding complexity which is important to current gamers. The control option opens games up to a wider variety of gamers who were previously intimidated by controller complexity. The Wiimote does little to increase gameplay depth, but when used properly it does a bunch to increase usability and immersion.

The developer vs. Wii issue:
The problem with the Wii is that the Wiimote is still a generalized controller. It's a different generalized controller then the standard dual-stick setup of the other machines and it might be better, but it's still general. As a result it will only averagely work for the majority of games.

On a 360 or PS3 if I want to innovate my control mechanics I can ship the game with a peripheral that custom matches what I want to do, although this is risky and potentially costly. See GH/Rockband or even WiiFit. What I can't do is ship a game on the Wii with a peripheral that increases the little white boxes specs to let me simulate more systems.

I think it's great that Nintendo decided to innovate on the control side of the equation, much like they did with the DS. I just wish that they had attached it to more capable hardware so you didn't have to trade away the other two advances just to use motion control.


I completely agree here. I'm astounded at how many people forget that for many people, video games = escapism. Immersion counts and the Wii's waggle only accounts for one facet; the physical.

We can all pray at the altar of "gameplay before graphics" but I'd rather have my gameplay wrapped with a nice crunchy tasty 3D normal mapped and shaded, immersive experience if I had a choice.

Here's to gameplay WITH graphics. Why settle for less?

[Wolvie]

I didn't think many people over the age of 14 liked that in the first place.

Good point.

[Steele Johnson]

Wow, what a narrow mind. There's a shit load of money to be made on that platform if game designers started focusing less on graphics tech and more on the actual fun factor of the game. Maybe if they did that, they'd create new genres that take advantage of the Wiimote.

It really surprises me that game designers have no clue as to what they can do with the Wiimote. That platform has so much potential for great games, but no one knows what to do.

If I were in the video game business, the first thing I'd put on my top 5 list is the console that has the largest installed base (and growing). The next thing I'd do is put "time to market". The next would be "catering to the masses". After that I'd start thinking of utilizing the Wiimote (because of course I've picked the Wii at this point). And the last thing I'd focus on is IP. When that was all sorted out, I'd pump out 2 - 3 triple A titles for the platform in the same time that it would take 1 triple A title for the 360/PS3. But you wouldn't be able to play the game on those consoles because they do not have the input device that's required to make the game amazing.

[mod_boy]

Wow, what a narrow mind. There's a shit load of money to be made on that platform if game designers started focusing less on graphics tech and more on the actual fun factor of the game. Maybe if they did that, they'd create new genres that take advantage of the Wiimote.

It really surprises me that game designers have no clue as to what they can do with the Wiimote. That platform has so much potential for great games, but no one knows what to do.

If I were in the video game business, the first thing I'd put on my top 5 list is the console that has the largest installed base (and growing). The next thing I'd do is put "time to market". The next would be "catering to the masses". After that I'd start thinking of utilizing the Wiimote (because of course I've picked the Wii at this point). And the last thing I'd focus on is IP. When that was all sorted out, I'd pump out 2 - 3 triple A titles for the platform in the same time that it would take 1 triple A title for the 360/PS3. But you wouldn't be able to play the game on those consoles because they do not have the input device that's required to make the game amazing.

Sorry, but that's just crap. Guitar Hero & Rock Band proves you can make successful games on ANY platform with a good peripheral input sold with the game.

You can always release a Wiimote style controller w/ the 360 or PS3 but you can't insert halfway decent video card and memory in that Wii.

[donkeydrop]

So you stop playing it after two months, but they buy it and they stop playing it after two months but they've showed it to someone else who then goes out and buys it and so on. Everyone I know bought one and nobody turns it on.

The truth hurts

[Hellstorm]

I thought Epic went where the money was? Seriously though, I do mostly agree with him. I got a Wii on launch day, and aside for VC, I barely turn it on. Perhaps that's why the attach-rate is so poor.
So by poor attach-rate you mean one that is close to the 360 and beating the PS3? I would hate to see what you call the sub Wii attach-rate of the PS3. Abysmal? Non-profitable?

[mod_boy]

Here's a well researched article on Wii's attach rate: http://www.nextgenthinktank.com/node/9 (http://www.nextgenthinktank.com/node/9)

Looks like Wii Sports is INCLUDED in the attach rate.

From the article: Delving a little deeper shows how desperate the situation is for third party publishers. When the Nintendo million sellers are removed from the tie ratio (23.21M units), the tie rate drops from the 4.8 range to a shockingly low 2.33.

[TrackZero]

Aren't you the guy who said not to spend any money on the wii because nintendo doesn't care about their customers..buy Microsoft or Sony? As if they care so much about anything else but the bottom line as well. When others stay on topic and don't spew hate then I won't either.

I didn't say just buy MS/Sony. I said:

So if anyone is wearing rose-coloured glasses, I recommend now be the time you take them off, look around at the rest of the marketplace, and find somewhere else to invest your money. I'm not saying give up on Nintendo/DS/Wii. I'm saying stop caring, because they sure as shit don't care about you. Just buy what's fun and comes out, otherwise ignore the speculation, rumors, and most all stop hoping that you matter to that company, in any way. There's other alternatives out there who actually may value you as a consumer.

Which is summarized in saying, don't be a fanboy. Get any system where there's good games to be had. Like Nintendo games? Great. But don't go and attack/defend in some of mis-thought console war mindset. It's not worth it, because there's no one you're doing it for.

Personally, right now, with regards to the Wii. I'm holding out until I can pick it up in other colours (Oh Reggie, you minx. Just hurry up already.), and be able to pick up all the triple A titles I want for a nice library (same thing I did with PS2). I get enough time on the system at friends places right now anyways (and one of the systems strengths is playing in a group) to tide me over.

[RMan]

Yea, it's pretty funny, like so many of the haters here, Epic seems upset because they just didn't understand gaming. The simple truth is, if you didn't get why the Wii was cool, and why people could love it, then you just don't understand gaming. I can understand not thinking it'd be as big as it is, but thinking it was bad because of lack of graphics, and thinking it's not worth supporting or it'd tank because of it, well, that's simply crazy, tunnel-vision prejudice at it's worst/finest. It's hard to know how much Epic really believes what they say, it's so clearly self-serving it's hard to tell, but again, if you don't get the Wii's success, you don't understand games, period. This applies heavily to many of the people on this board, they didn't get it, perhaps still don't, and they're bitter because it's now clear that they didn't have their finger on the pulse of gaming as much as they thought. You know what, get over it, accept that most people don't, will not, and never did care much about graphics. Accept that fidelity just doesn't affect the experience much for most people, no matter how much it does for you. Your values are niche, always have been, the Wii just exposes how much that has always been true (actually been exposed many times, just not so dramatically).