logo Sign In

Video Games - a general discussion thread — Page 161

Author
Time

The Wii is a gimmick. It's a GameCube 1.5 with a PowerGlove thrown in the box. Nintendo--whose 8-bit games I grew up on and still own--hasn't had an original idea in years. The GameCube was a fine and underrated system in its day, but Nintendo can't seem to get past Mario, Zelda, and Metroid, and they didn't get the third party support they needed.

This doesn't make the Wii a failure. Nintendo has just moved on from the hardcore gaming audience and found an untapped market, which was genius. They sell every one they make and have left MS and Sony in the dust as far as units sold. I'd be curious to know how many of those Wii systems see daily use though. Practically every gamer I know played with their Wii like crazy for the first month and then lost interest. My Wii collects dust and only sees playtime when people (i.e., girls) come over. Why should I waste my time standing on a stupid balance board when I can jump rope for a real workout and explode mutant heads with the Bloody Mess perk in Fallout 3?

I enjoy my PS3 immensely, however. While it does share much of its library with the 360, there are a few exclusives in addition to the Blu-ray playback that have made it more than worthwhile. Uncharted is amazing, and Uncharted 2 is shaping up to be one of the most beautiful games ever made (actual in-game screenshots, one more for you) with gameplay to match if it's anything like the first installment. And of course I enjoy the titles common to both the PS3 and 360 such as COD4, Oblivion, and Fallout 3. On top of all that, I get one of the best Blu-ray players on the market. The backwards compatibility is a nice bonus also.

I've considered adding a 360 to the mix, but I have my hands full with my PS3 already. I don't see the point.

People bash the PS3, but I've found it to be one of the best all-around home media investments I've ever made. Great games, great movies, and built like a tank.

Forum Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time

I agree that the GC and the Wii both suffered from the major problem of lacking good third party games. I think Rare winding up in bed with MS really crippled the GameCube, as Rare was a very loyal third party developer that was willing to put up with making games on the N64, regardless of its being difficult to make game for. Rare stuck with Nintendo and constantly put out decent games, many of them were pretty childish in the early days, until they decided to prove they had teeth with two finest games released for the 64 in the last years of its life, Perfect Dark and Conker's Bad Fur Day. Had they continued to make games for Nintendo instead of being bought out by MS, I think GC would have held up a bit better.

The statement that Nintendo needs to get over Mario, Zelda, and Metroid is kind of an odd one though. I think Skyjedi said the exact same thing on the last page as well. That is pretty much like saying, Sony needs to get over God of War, Final Fantasy, and Grand Theft Auto. That's crazy! Those games sell and are always sure to be great quality games. Why should any company adandon its most lucrative titles. The fact of the matter is, There are more than twice as many GTA games on the PS2 than there were Metroid games on the GC. Since 2000, there have only been two Zelda titles that were not handheld or spinoff mini-games. Include the handheld titles and the mini-games and you're up to a whopping total of six games spanning four systems. From 1986 until present you have a total of ten Metroid games spanning seven systems (five of those, including one mini-game, are for handheld systems). As for Mario games, there are too many spinoffs for me to count them, but since the days of the N64, there has only been one real Mario game per system. I'll gladly defend the spinoffs, because all systems have them, you have tons of Spiro, Crash, and Sonic spinoffs flooding other consoles, and they are just trying to rip off the Mario games, so obviously they are doing something right with Mario.

Since these three titles always sell really well and are much anticipated everytime a new one is announced, I'd say they far from need to get over them. In fact, I'd argue that they need more of these kinds of games. I'm not saying they should be popping out another sequel for these series every year or so, unless they can do something unique with each one (like how unique, and yet familar Mojora's Mask was compared to Ocarina of Time) so that consumers don't feel like they are playing the same game over and over. But they need more real games. Games someone can pick up and play through by themselves, but bringing new and unique gameplay into the picture via the Wiimote. How great would a new Jedi Knight game be on the Wii, using the Wiimote and the new attachment. That would be something older gamers would get into, drive the value of the system up a bit in the eyes of your average gamer (as opposed to the casual gamers who currently hold the majority of the Wii market share). It is really ashame Wii didn't get Resident Evil 5, as we have seen how great that worked with RE4 on the Wii.

Sure, Nintendo is staying afloat just fine with their newfound audience who suck up the mini-games like there is no tomorrow. But they have pretty much lost those who remained loyal to them over the years. Instead of incorporating their new audience into the mix, they have pretty much left their old audience and started over. Not sure how wise of a move that was.

 

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time

I actually remember hearing through the grapevine that during the last generation, Microsoft was paying off some third-party developers to not develop games for the Gamecube. Anybody else heard this, or have I just been standing next to a shitty grapevine?

http://i.imgur.com/7N84TM8.jpg

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Nanner Split said:

or have I just been standing next to a shitty grapevine?

 

LOL, wouldn't surprised me, either way. If something like that were true, it would be hard to verify. I imagine stuff like that happens in these competitive markets all the time.

On the other hand, there is so much ill feeling toward Microsoft floating around, it is inevitable that people are going to think the worst of them, possibly make stuff like this up, and that others will most certianly believe it.

This also could very well have come from the fact that MS bought out Rare, which resulted in Rare no longer making games for Nintendo.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
C3PX said:

The statement that Nintendo needs to get over Mario, Zelda, and Metroid is kind of an odd one though. I think Skyjedi said the exact same thing on the last page as well. That is pretty much like saying, Sony needs to get over God of War, Final Fantasy, and Grand Theft Auto. That's crazy! Those games sell and are always sure to be great quality games. Why should any company adandon its most lucrative titles.

I didn't mean Nintendo should abandon their classic franchises. The problem is that Nintendo keeps throwing all their eggs into the Mario/Zelda/Metroid basket, which is why they're always at the mercy of third party developers to come up with original content. Zelda doesn't sell systems any more, at least not like it used to. Nintendo knows this. GTA and Halo are system-sellers.

So this time, they came up with a gimmick, slapped it on vastly inferior hardware to keep costs down, and marketed it to people not savvy enough to know what they're buying.

Don't get me wrong. Wii is fun with the right people because it encourages social gaming. But the lousy graphics mean that even the best looking titles look like shit compared to what the 360 and PS3 and throwing out there.

 

Sure, Nintendo is staying afloat just fine with their newfound audience who suck up the mini-games like there is no tomorrow. But they have pretty much lost those who remained loyal to them over the years. Instead of incorporating their new audience into the mix, they have pretty much left their old audience and started over. Not sure how wise of a move that was.

The gimmick got them by this time; my guess is that a 1080p Wii isn't going to sell anywhere near as well as the first one did. This new audience won't buy a new console every generation for graphical improvements. The hardcore gamers will...but as you said, Nintendo abandoned them.

Forum Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Alright, I get what you are saying, and I very much agree. Though I feel rather than using Mario, Zelda, and Metroid to sell the Wii, Nintendo is really going fullout on the social party game sort of stuff, which is definitely not going to get somebody to choose a Wii over a 360 or a PS3.

I hope the successor to the Wii will work on being a bit more competitive. I recall reading some statements from Nintendo expressing that the Wii is more of an experimental test system for their next console. Which I hope means they plan to step back into the ring with the big boys for the next round. I have been a huge fan of Nintendo in the past, and I have always rooted for them, but I can honestly say I really have absolutely no desire to get a Wii. That says alot.

 

So, anybody else play the RE5 Xbox demo yet?

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
 (Edited)

The wii still does not have its own Zelda game yet.  I mean a Zelda game that was made specifically for the wii from the beginning, Twilight princess is a gamecube game delayed so long it ended up being on both systems.

Mario Galaxy was developed for the wii, and was the first real mario game since mario 64.  Sunshine was an utter joke and dissapointment.

And i'm not sure if the third part in the new Metrod series was developed for the gamecube originally or was for the wii from the start.

Nintendo needs to make some adult games, some games with storytelling depth and movie like cutscenes like an interactive movie game experience or reading a novel.  Final Fantasy has always been my favorite because of these qualities.  Twilight Princess had a somewhat interesting story, i liked the darker tone but Windwaker was brilliant as well. 

Mario has always intended to be a cartoon like game.   The storytelling potential has always been shall we say a joke.

How about a good castlevania game for the wii. I remember when those games were only on the nintendo.

I liked the mythic like quality of the new metroid series as well.

I thought it was a bold move for Nintendo for instance to be the first to get the Survival Horror game Resident Evil 4 on the gamecube, before it came out on the other systems.

I want some more SquareEnix titles on the wii and not just gimicky or spinoff games, how about a real final fantasy game developed for the wii.  Or a real Dragon Quest game.  I remember thinking maybe they might have dragonquest 9 on the wii.

Getting the creator of final fantasy to make games exclusively for Microsoft Xbox 360 under the Mistwalker company label would have been quite a thing if his best years were not already behind him, i'm saying that and i liked blue dragon.  Lost Odyssey was a huge ripoff of final fantasy X visually. 

I'm not sure but i think Sony still has exclusive rights to Final Fantasy VII therefore preventing it from ever being on the ds or a wii virtual console game. 

Not sure if GOD of War 3 will be the smash hit sony needs ever so desperately to get them out of the bottom feeder position in the console wars.  We all know that Metal Gear 4 did not do it, it did not get the same response as the first 3 metal gear solid games.  I think its an awesome and epic game with a great story.  They lost Exclusivity to Final Fantasy XIII.  Sony's crown jewel and thing they always had over nintendo was the fact that they stole square and the final fantasy series away from them.  Then SquareEnix announces The 360 will get the game on 4 standard dvds that would fit on a blu ray disc on the PS3.  Sony gets Final Fantasy Versus XIII as an exclusive but who gives a shit as that is not the canon main story series.

I was going to buy a PS3 like i did a ps1 based on the exclusiveness of a Final Fantasy game.  Now i don't know which system i should purchase the 360 or the PS3.

The 360 will get both Final Fantasy XIII and Mass Effect 2.  Already has Halo 3 and Fable 2.  But the PS3 has Metal gear and is going to have god of war.  tough decision really.

To me as third party developers go and the massive library of games Xbox 360 reigns supreme.  Though in terms of sales especially in Japan the wii and the ds have outsold sony and microsoft both from what i remember hearing was a 3 to 1 margin.  and the PS3 was so expensive that it even failed in japan.  The first xbox failed in japan but its sequel it doing healthy numbers supposedly.

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author
Time

The 360 also currently enjoys the distinction of being the least expensive current gen console out there. At $199.99 for a bare bones unit, the 360 costs just barely $70 more then the PS2! And with a PS2 at the suggested retail price of $129.99, you still need to buy a memory card (at least another $16) and games, while the $199 Xbox includes a 256mb memory unit and a couple of games.

Not to mention Microsoft will upgrade Xbox arcade owners to a 20gb HD and a three month Xbox Live gold membership for just $30. With that, you basically get a 20gb Xbox for $20 less than a Wii, the formerly least expensive current gen console on the market.

 

All consoles on the current retail market and their SRPs,

PS2 - $129

Xbox Arcade (no HD + 2 games) - $199

Wii - $249

Xbox (60 GB HD + 2 games) - $299

Xbox (120 GB HD + 2 games) - $399

PS3 (80 GB HD) - $399

PS3 (160 GB HD + 1 game) - $499

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time

There's no question that price is a factor in this generation. If Sony had managed to get the PS3 down to $299 before Black Friday, their sales numbers would be very different right now.

Of course, it's easy for Nintendo to compete on price; their hardware is pretty old and weak. MS let quality control go completely out the window, so they're able to dump some fairly piss-poor engineering into a box at a bargain price. The PS3, on the other hand, is truly a fine piece of hardware. I'm not saying that as a fanboy, it's just fact. The failure rate is extremely low and the components are of very high quality. Expensive as hell to build though. Unfortunately for Sony, they built a piece of hardware that was meant to last, both quality- and technology-wise, while the other guys reused old tech or turned a blind eye to build quality.

For me, the best games the PS3 has to offer are more appealing than the 360's library. There's nothing the 360 has that has the same finesse and class as Uncharted--nothing--and it's still one of the best looking titles to come out of this generation. The visuals from the sequel are simply stunning and blow away even the original. I'm also a racing game fan, so Gran Turismo 5 and Wipeout HD are great exclusives. And while I'm not the biggest FPS fan, Resistance was great for a launch title and Resistance 2 got rave reviews.

The PS3 doesn't have the broad library the 360 does, but when I look at the types of games I like to play, the PS3's library is better suited to my tastes.

Forum Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time

I have to agree with that.  While the first two iterations of the PlayStation (especially the first) broke down constantly, I haven't heard anything bad about PS3s while 360s you seem to hear breaking down all the time.  However, Nintendo has always had consistently reliable products, and I can still play all my old systems to this day, even though my NES will be 20 years old next year. 

While I haven't been keeping up with the libraries of the other consoles, nothing I have heard about has grabbed me.  I've had Final Fantasy XII for two years now, and I have yet to play it, and XIII has yet to interest me in the least.  I've been a huge FF fanboy for years, but now I just don't care anymore about the new directions, especially since all the great names have moved on.  I also didn't really care much about playing GTA4.  I got 2, 3, and Vice City, but after that, I just got tired of that too.  I didn't even bother with San Andreas, so the fact that 4 didn't come to Wii didn't really bother me all that much.  I never liked Halo, as I don't like first-person shooters that much to begin with (Perfect Dark was one of the few I didn't mind).  I'm a bit sad that Wii will be getting a different version of the Ghostbusters game than the other consoles, and that's probably the only regret that I have.

Meanwhile, Wii hasn't put out that many games recently that I want.  After two years, my library is still pretty small.  But all the games I have, I love:  Twilight Princess, Super Mario Galaxy, Super Paper Mario, and Mario Kart Wii.  Sigh, yes, all of them are Mario and Zelda titles, and, like I said, it's not very much, but it's more than 360 or PS3 has done to interest me.  And I also have SMB2 (J), Sonic 2, Zelda II, and Mega Man 9 for the Virtual Console, so I can't complain about that either.  While my Wii does spend some time (quite a bit of time on occasion) collecting dust, it never really bothers me.  In fact, I jump back to my old consoles so frequently that I probably wouldn't have noticed anything out of the ordinary if you guys hadn't pointed it out.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time

SMB2(J) was the first virtual console game I bought. :).  I still need to get megaman 9, but I'm waiting till I can finish at least one of the originals.  I own 3 for the NES.

A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Yeah, you probably should wait until then.  It's just as hard as its predecessors, and that's not even factoring in the new challenge section.

That said, I managed to finish it in 2 days because I'm just hardcore like that.  ^_~

EDIT:  Oh, and SMB2(J) was the first VC game I got too.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time

The Wii's control scheme can be a gimmick, or, given the right game/development, a big enhancement. The Wii version of "The Godfather" is a perfect example. I own it on the PC, but after playing it on the Wii I've never been able to go back to it. It's a shame that games like Grand Theft Auto or Saint's Row haven't gotten similar treatment.

http://i.imgur.com/7N84TM8.jpg

Author
Time

Yeah, I generally hate first person shooters, but even I have to admit that they'd be a perfect genre for Wii, and I am baffled that more of them haven't been released on the console.  Playing Twilight Princess proved to me that aiming with the cursor is far easier and more satisfying than aiming with an analog stick.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time

I mean this in a completely friendly way, Jay: you're full of crap!

No, seriously. The Wii control itself isn't inherently gimmicky--in the right games, it's a huge asset. And the inferior hardware is still capable of some downright beautiful visuals in games like Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3.

The Wii's problem is that nobody is taking it seriously right now--not even Nintendo. When the best thing they have for the Christmas season is a rehash of Animal Crossing, there is definitely something WRONG with the picture. Also, Nintendo has been developing new intellecutal properties, or bringing ones over from Japan. Animal Crossing,  for one. Pikmin, Disaster: Day of Crisis*, Operation HAMMER, and all the new Wii and DS Casual IPS. They also brought the Advance Wars and Fire Emblem series over from Japan, and those have been seeing success.

The problem with their approach as of late is simply too much focus on the casual market and not enough focus on avid gamers. And if Nintendo can't be convinced to give a crap about us, then how are they going to convince the third parties?

At least we're getting MadWorld and The Conduit next year.

4

Author
Time

You're absolutely right, DC.

Nintendo's curse of late is that they make great hardware, but can't get anyone to respect it. As much as I love Shigeru Miyamoto, I sort of blame him for this. He thinks his vision for gaming (which is admittedly brilliant) is the only vision that people should have for games. It all started with the N64: it was a great system but it NEEDED a CD drive! After that, when Nintendo had learned its lesson and made a perfect peice of hardware in the Gamecube, nobody knew it because Nintendo didn't really care about what they had created (because of Miyamoto). I'm glad they're still making tons of money, but fads only last so long. As a fan, I worry.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time

Nintendo's hardware is shit and they're getting by on sad nerds with dreams of swinging real swords. Sorry.

The visuals look great if you have an older TV to match the older hardware (480i/480p). Even the most gorgeous Wii games look like ass on a 1080p display though. Developers have to anti-alias everything to death to make it look halfway decent. And when you compare titles common to all systems, like COD4, the Wii's visuals are sorely lacking. I've yet to see a Wii title that's significantly better than Resident Evil 4 on the GameCube, but I've seen plenty of titles on the 360 and PS3 that easily surpass it.

The Wii controller's accuracy is laughable. The fact that there needs to be a visible target onscreen for gun games is proof of this. You're not actually aiming at anything; you're using the controller to move the targeting sight around the screen. Add the fact that there's no difference in a game's response between the player doing a full backhand swing in tennis and the player flicking his wrist, and you have all the proof you need that it really is a gimmick.

Despite the strong sales, from a gaming perspective, the Wii is the N64 of this generation. It's old technology with a few standout titles sitting on top of a pile of shovelware.

And if Nintendo thinks all these non-traditional gamers buying into the gimmick today will fork over the cash tomorrow when they finally release a real piece of hardware, they have another thing coming.

Forum Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time
Jay said:

Nintendo's hardware is shit and they're getting by on sad nerds with dreams of swinging real swords. Sorry.

Nintendo came out with a control device in this latest generation that has great potential and that is nothing near "shit." Microsoft and Sony are scrambling to copy it. Not to mention, the Wii is a solid system with respect to it's non-3D-rendering capabilities (quality components and all of that). One of the biggest problems is the way Nintendo has crippled the use of the Wii's potential with limited "channels" and sheer bullshit like that (it's one of the key reasons I never purchased a Wii). The homebrew mods people are doing with the Wii are pretty sweet and show how serious of a console it could have been had Nintendo not been idiots.

Otherwise, the Wii aside, I was mostly referring to the Gamecube as a great piece of hardware. It was an awesome litle device for its time (for the price). If you want to call that shit then you don't know what you're talking about and you don't know hardware.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Jay said:

Despite the strong sales, from a gaming perspective, the Wii is the N64 of this generation. It's old technology with a few standout titles sitting on top of a pile of shovelware.

The N64 was on top as far as graphics went, PS couldn't touch it. But PS could do video and audio that the N64 could never dream of, not thanks to more power but thanks to a CD drive and 650mb of space. Even with PS's beautifully pixelated videos, the N64 still kicked the PS pathetic little ass. Not to mention you had zero load time with the 64, I have no idea how you Sony fans learned to sit through those load times without deciding it just wasn't worth it. Unlike the 64, the Wii has nothing on anyone as far as hardware goes, so I wouldn't really compare the 64 with the Wii.

I guess you can call the Wii shit all you like, but at the end of the day, the Wii is still outselling everyone. The point of a video game system isn't to wow you shitless with its graphics, it is to entertain you. Not saying the Wii necessarily does that better than the others, but a lot of people seem to feel it does.

As for Nintendo having another thing coming... what makes you so sure they will release the same thing over again? Has Nintendo ever done that? They are usually at the top of new ideas, they are the ones constantly being ripped off by everyone else. Next gen you'll see every console copying Nintendo by using motion sensors (Sony has already done this I believe), and Nintendo will be on to making new things for the others to copy. Kind of funny we are having this conversation now, when it was the exact same conversation before the Wii came out. "Nintendo is dead, because they never have new ideas, this gen will be the end for them, their new console will crash just like the Dreamcast." Then along comes the Wii and everyone is like, "Holy shit! Well, okay, next time! Next time they are dead."

Well, we will see. I predict that next time they will put themselves back up there with the big boys, but this requires them learning from their biggest problem first, something they may well not do judging by the current look of things.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time

The N64 was on top as far as graphics because it came out last--and it was only on top if you appreciated fuzzy anti-aliasing.

Load times? I don't remember playing any PS1 games that had outrageous load times. Maybe there were a few, but not that I recall. And the reason we put up with it is because the game library was outstanding. So N64 had no load times. I'll take some load times and a huge library over no load times and no games. Don't get me started on the game prices.

Yes, Wii is outselling everyone, just like McDonald's outsells Ruth's Chris. If it were possible to log all the actual play hours of each console--not just sales--you'd find that most 360s and PS3s are powered on almost daily, while most Wiis see use on weekends only. Did Nintendo attract the masses and turn non-gamers into gamers? Absolutely. My dad bought my stepmom a Wii earlier this year. And like most other Wiis sold to this new generation of "gamers," it collects dust. You think my dad will buy Nintendo's next console? Not a chance in hell.

I agree that the point of a gaming system is to entertain its users. I find the Wii entertaining only in short bursts, and I guarantee you that's how 90% of its owners use it. Visit any forum dedicated to gaming. Ask the users who own more than one console and also own a Wii which one they actually use on a daily basis and which one lost its appeal a year ago.

Tiptup said:

Otherwise, the Wii aside, I was mostly referring to the Gamecube as a great piece of hardware. It was an awesome litle device for its time (for the price). If you want to call that shit then you don't know what you're talking about and you don't know hardware.

I complimented the GameCube a few posts earlier, calling it a fine and underrated piece of hardware. I still have one, but boxed it up once I got the Wii thanks to the backwards compatibility.

But a GameCube with a higher clock speed and jacked up Power Glove is a piece of shit in this generation. If you can't see that, you don't know what you're talking about and you don't know hardware.

Forum Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time
C3PX said:

Next gen you'll see every console copying Nintendo by using motion sensors (Sony has already done this I believe), and Nintendo will be on to making new things for the others to copy.

The PS3 launched with the Sixaxis controller. Sony applied for the patents of said controller in 1999. It wasn't a ripoff of the Wii's controller.

This idea that Nintendo innovates and everyone else copies them is nonsense. Nintendo hasn't innovated since they lost their stranglehold on the US market through restrictive licensing practices and artificial cartridge shortages.

Forum Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time
Jay said:

If it were possible to log all the actual play hours of each console--not just sales--you'd find that most 360s and PS3s are powered on almost daily, while most Wiis see use on weekends only. Did Nintendo attract the masses and turn non-gamers into gamers? Absolutely. My dad bought my stepmom a Wii earlier this year. And like most other Wiis sold to this new generation of "gamers," it collects dust. You think my dad will buy Nintendo's next console? Not a chance in hell.

 

People keep saying this and I just think it's the biggest joke in the world.  I know plenty of gamers that have Wii's and play them every single day.  I'd play mine every day if I wasn't busy with my PC and my son (I manage to play it about once a week).  The thing is, most of the people that are off playing their Wii's just aren't on gaming forums posting about how great their console is.  They don't need to be because they're having a ton of fun playing their Wii.

Think about it for a second.  If the Wii were really such a piece of crap that no one plays after a few weeks, they wouldn't still be selling like mad.  The people who have them would be recommending against them to everyone they know and sales would have fallen shortly after launch.  Hell, if that were the case, you'd be able to find them on craigslist and ebay for dirt cheap.  Instead, 3 years after launch, Nintendo can still barely make them fast enough.

Nintendo did the same thing they always do, they released a console at a reasonable price point that parents and "hard-core" gamers alike can afford.  That is their market and that hasn't changed.

I have no doubt Nintendo will release a hi-def console when they can do it at a reasonable price point.  $200-$250 is reasonable.  $400 is not.  As PC users have known for a long time, graphics are nothing without gameplay.  You can have the most beautiful game ever and if the gameplay sucks, people aren't going to buy it.  Nintendo is not going to sacrifice gameplay in order to get stunning graphics.  Sure, they aren't going to release something that looks like ass, but 480p doesn't even look that bad on an HDTV (my DVDs still look great!).

 

F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
 (Edited)
C3PX said:

The N64 was on top as far as graphics went, PS couldn't touch it. But PS could do video and audio that the N64 could never dream of, not thanks to more power but thanks to a CD drive and 650mb of space. Even with PS's beautifully pixelated videos, the N64 still kicked the PS pathetic little ass.

The N64 did not kick the ass of the PSX (despite the fact that I would have wanted it to). In terms of sales, the Playstation won that generation of the console wars and that wasn't just a fluke. The CD drive afforded more than just easy video and audio capabilities. For instance, games with complicated textures or other pre-rendered images were simply not possible on the N64 without their detail being reduced to crap. What was the point of having solid rendering and softened graphics to display blurry textures? It was also rare to see an N64 game that was long and involved. CD was the format of choice at that time and Nintendo made a huge mistake. After the first few generations of PSX titles it was very rare to find a game that wasn't well optimized for quick load times. Nintendo was just being stupid.

 

 

Jay said:

 

I complimented the GameCube a few posts earlier, calling it a fine and underrated piece of hardware. I still have one, but boxed it up once I got the Wii thanks to the backwards compatibility.

But a GameCube with a higher clock speed and jacked up Power Glove is a piece of shit in this generation. If you can't see that, you don't know what you're talking about and you don't know hardware.

Ahh, I missed your compliments of the Gamecube. I was just clarifying that it was the console I was mostly referring to when I was commending Nintendo's skill with hardware. Even the Virtual Boy was an impressive gizmo to me (even though I couldn't play it due to my glasses).

Otherwise, the Wiimote is no "power glove." I owned a power glove and it actually was complete and utter shit. For the sake that I know you're not an idiot I'll assume you're using hyperbole with that comparison. Same thing goes with the rest of the Wii being "shit." Between its control potential, storage and data access potential, and solid manufacturing, its hardware is nice. While I agree with you that it is weak in terms of graphical power, there's more to appreciating hardware than just that alone (and, even then, it's not "shit"). (Not to mention, as you yourself just said, it was the first Nintendo console system that allowed backwards compatibility.)

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Tiptup said:
C3PX said:

The N64 was on top as far as graphics went, PS couldn't touch it. But PS could do video and audio that the N64 could never dream of, not thanks to more power but thanks to a CD drive and 650mb of space. Even with PS's beautifully pixelated videos, the N64 still kicked the PS pathetic little ass.

The N64 did not kick the ass of the PSX (despite the fact that I would have wanted it to). In terms of sales, the Playstation won that generation of the console wars and that wasn't just a fluke. The CD drive afforded more than just easy video and audio capabilities. For instance, games with complicated textures or other pre-rendered images were simply not possible on the N64 without their detail being reduced to crap. What was the point of having solid rendering and softened graphics to display blurry textures? It was also rare to see an N64 game that was long and involved. CD was the format of choice at that time and Nintendo made a huge mistake. After the first few generations of PSX titles it was very rare to find a game that wasn't well optimized for quick load times. Nintendo was just being stupid.

 

I wasn't saying the 64 kicked its ass in terms of sales, obviously the PSX did better.

I still think PlayStation games looked like crap. As for it being rare to see an N64 game that was long and involved? What do you mean? Maybe I am not quite understanding what you mean by "long and involved". In fact, I cannot think of too many of the games I owned that were not pretty long and pretty involved. 

I haven't played through too many PSX games, one of them I have played through was Tomorrow Never Dies, it was pretty linear and extremely short. I also played some of The World is Not Enough. I never beat it, but I remember reading the list of levels, and it seemed very short. It too was also pretty straight forward without a whole lot of variety. Oh yeah, and they both looked like total shit as far as graphics were concerned. Finally, I played 007 Racing, need less to say, it is not very involved at all, about as simple and uninvolved as they get.

Goldeneye for the N64 on the other hand, was very long, and I would consider it far more involved than the three James Bond games for the PlayStation. Different level objectives, and even sections of the level were availible on different difficulty levels. Four players could play simultaniously in multiplayer. I forget how many levels Goldeneye has, but I remember it having a very decent length. Certainly better than the PSX Bond games longevity. For every level there were also achievements you could complete in order to unlock secrets. Oh yeah, and unlike the PSX Bond games, Goldeneye didn't look like a pile of crap.

Both Zelda games had some pretty complex systems in them and were quite involved. In fact, I'd be interested to hear what PSX games are that involved beyond FF7. Perfect Dark was even longer than Goldeneye. Most of my friends who were PSX obsessed, tended to be into fighting games and sports games. Two of the least involved and complicated genres out there. Metal Gear Solid was pretty long and involved, I'll give that one credit, but you might as well have played it on the PC, as I, an N64 owner, did without needing to buy a PSX to play an inferior version of the game.

The PS2 outsold The GameCube, and I think even the Xbox (though I could be wrong), sales is not always an indicator of which console packs the most power or looks the best. The PS2 was an under powered piece of crap compared to its contemporaries, yet it is an awesome system and has an impressive library of games, and is the only one left from the last gen that is still selling decently today.

I still thing the 64's biggest problem lay in the fact that it lacked games. But as for the games it did have... well, Tomorrow Never Dies on the PSX may have wowed me with its opening sequence complete with title song ripped right out of the film, but at least Goldeneye was longer, fun to play through more than once, and the characters didn't look like they were built out of cinderblocks.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Jay said:

The visuals look great if you have an older TV to match the older hardware (480i/480p). Even the most gorgeous Wii games look like ass on a 1080p display though. Developers have to anti-alias everything to death to make it look halfway decent. And when you compare titles common to all systems, like COD4, the Wii's visuals are sorely lacking. I've yet to see a Wii title that's significantly better than Resident Evil 4 on the GameCube, but I've seen plenty of titles on the 360 and PS3 that easily surpass it.


I counter with Mario Galaxy. It looks incredible on my widescreen HDTV.  Also, Call of Duty 4 did not come out on the Wii. And no crap the X-Box and PS3 titles surpass it. Nobody is arguing that the Wii looks as good as them. What I'm saying is that good art design and intelligent use of hardware can still make a damn fine-looking game with out the power of the other two consoles.

The Wii controller's accuracy is laughable. The fact that there needs to be a visible target onscreen for gun games is proof of this. You're not actually aiming at anything; you're using the controller to move the targeting sight around the screen. Add the fact that there's no difference in a game's response between the player doing a full backhand swing in tennis and the player flicking his wrist, and you have all the proof you need that it really is a gimmick.

It's still more visceral than pressing a button. Yeah, Wii Tennis kind of sucks, but the motion sensing for Wii Bowling is fantastic. It's not inherently gimmicky, Jay. The problem is that most developers haven't used it for anything more than gimmicks. Good first person shooters and some unusual games like Zak and Wiki make great non-gimmick use of the technology.

And if Nintendo thinks all these non-traditional gamers buying into the gimmick today will fork over the cash tomorrow when they finally release a real piece of hardware, they have another thing coming.

If the 'real piece of hardware' that Nintendo releases in the future still supports the mass-market casual gamers for an affordable price, they'll still eat it up.

 

4