Sign In

Video Game Thread — Page 162

Author
Time
 (Edited)
C3PX said:

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 mean "long and involved" to be a game that has a lot of unique gameplay, aural, and visual content from start to finish. The N64 showed that it could do that with Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, and quite a few other games, yes, but by and large those games were fewer and didn't have the same breadth or detail that PSX games easily had by comparison. Ocarina of Time was fun and long in terms of gameplay, but it relied upon a lot of recycled content, low-resolution content, other space saving tricks. It's just a fact that there weren't as many N64 games that were "involved" in the sense I'm trying to speak of here (levels/locations, enemies/challenges, music, voice acting, sound effects, textures, animation and the like).

The PSX, on the other hand, (just looking at the titles I own) had FFVII, FFVIII, FFIX, the various Final Fantasy Anthology releases, Metal Gear Solid, Xenogears, Chrono Cross, Symphony of the Night, and Vagrant story, all of which were amazing in terms of their content (yes, even movies and music is nice). Do you really, truly believe those games could have been done just as well for the N64 for the same costs? You believe that the CD format and the ease of translating content to the PSX had nothing to do with many game companies choosing it over the N64?

You're right in pointing out that the PSX had more games than the N64, and I suppose the ratio of short, simple games to long and involved games isn't that far off bewteen the two consoles. However, the more popular a system is, the more likely you are to get crap games being made for that system, so I don't really find a similar ratio of this kind to be anything important. The better question we should be asking in this respect is why one system got more games than another in general. In that sense, let's not forget that the N64 started out strong and didn't fail for the fact that it didn't have people who wanted good games. I'm convinced that the lower number of games being made for the N64 was due to the higher costs involved. A CD format allowed gaming companies' products to be created and copied in ways that were less time or money intensive.

 

 

C3PX said:

 

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.



Where did I say the PSX packed more power or looked better than the N64?

I said the PSX's success over the N64 was no fluke and I outlined specific reasons. I know you focused on one of my reasons (quite frankly the weakest: "long and involved games"), but are you now saying that you didn't read my other, more substantial reasons?

The PS2, since you're bringing it up, was no fluke either. It came out long before the Gamecube or Xbox, offerred people DVD playback (which was a huge draw at the time), offerred backwards compatibility to PSX/PS1 games, had a lot of game-company support, and a lot of interest from people who were already fans of Sony's original playstation. Due to those reasons, the PS2 was a very successful system. It's all pretty simple. Do you think the world is just a stupid place and the free market is stupid? Sony made good decisions that paid off for them.

 

"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

No need to get hostile... the PS1 and the N64 both had their strengths. The PS1 generally had more games and better textures; the N64 had some of the generation's best games and could push more polygons. The PS Discs had more space, the N64 carts didn't have load times. None of this makes one system categorically better than another.

4

Author
Time

"I said the PSX's success over the N64 was no fluke and I outlined specific reasons. I know you focused on one of my reasons (quite frankly the weakest: "long and involved games"), but are you now saying that you didn't read my other, more substantial reasons?"

 

I said nothing about not having read the other reasons you posted. Really not sure how/why you so often come to such outrageous conclusions. Perhaps I agreed with you on all other points, and that is why I did not comment on them. I certainly don't think that would be an unreasonable assumption to make.

But the idea of PSX games, which I personally have always found to be rather shallow and absolutely awful looking, being considered longer and more involved in general than N64 games really stood out to me. I have always felt the exact opposite way. I always stuck with the 64 because I liked the depth, length, and complexity of those games, which was something I never found in any of my friends PSX game libraries. I have always seen the N64 games as unique experiences not available elsewhere, while the PlayStation never felt like a unique experience to me, it felt like a silly little machine that played PC games on your TV set in inferior quality and longer load times.

I really do need to play FF7 sometime though, perhaps that would change my mind to some small degree. I have always felt that complex games are far from rare on the 64, but quite uncommon on the PSX. That is why that part of your post stood out to me, and why I commented on it.

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

Author
Time

If by Complex Games you mean RPGs (which all the games Tiptup listed were) then yeah, the PS1 definitely had more of those. The N64 was not the console of choice for RPG connesuiers.


If you're just talking about games that are more than simple button mashers, or mindless action, I'd say the PS1 wins out there, but not by as wide a margin. The problem with the N64 is that even though it has several of the best games ever made, those happen to be about the only games worth playing on it. Outside of stuff by Nintendo and Rare, the N64 library is kind of dire.

4

Author
Time
 (Edited)
C3PX said:

I said nothing about not having read the other reasons you posted. Really not sure how/why you so often come to such outrageous conclusions. Perhaps I agreed with you on all other points, and that is why I did not comment on them. I certainly don't think that would be an unreasonable assumption to make.

Outrageous conclusions? So often?

You said (and I quoted) that sales aren't an indicator of what looks best. This was after you finished a long criticism of one of my reasons for why I believe the PSX (eventually) sold more units than the N64. You were talking to me and so it seems fairly obvious that you were trying to argue against my opinions with that statement of yours. How was that an outrageous assumption for me to make? (I didn't even fully make that assumption; I asked you a question to verify if I was interpreting you correctly.) If you are a person that has trouble communicating your thoughts then that's not my problem. You should have made it more clear that you didn't think I believed that.


Anyways, Darth Chaltab, I'm not offended by C3PX's misunderstanding of my "long and in-depth" point. It wasn't and still isn't very clear on my part. It's a rather hard to define quality (as I was using the term). For my part, I'm not heated over this discussion at all.


I actually believe the N64 had the best graphics of that generation to the degree where I think the PS2 is at a very comparable level with it. I also prefferred the N64 in terms of its gameplay as well: Ocarina of Time, Diddy Kong Racing, Super Smash Bros., Majora's Mask, Goldeneye, StarFox64, Turok 1&2, Episode I Racer (which was actually quite fun), Castlevania64, Bomberman64, Paper Mario, Shadows of the Empire, and others.

However, a strict ability to render graphics and perform quick gameplay is not all a system can excell with. Pre-rendered content can be very important for certain types of games and can often make games very compelling with visuals and sounds (that was all I was trying to communicate). The PSX used a medium that had far more storage capacity (for the price) and that allowed it to be far more compatible with games that relied on a lot of detailed content to enhance gameplay.

Most games for the PSX sucked. I'm no fan of racing games, fighting games, or sports games. I also dislike it when crappy companies are contracted to make important franchise games, but that's most often the case (Goldeneye was a brilliant fluke). I can't speak for your personal experiences, C3PX, or for your friends, but I liked the PSX for other types of games and can easilly see why it was so popular.

"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:

If you are a person that has trouble communicating your thoughts then that's not my problem. You should have made it more clear that you didn't think I believed that.

I am not a person that has a hard time communicating my thoughts, the problem is you are a person that wants to pick fights all the time.

I am tired of explaining every sentence of every post I write that you don't understand. I said the N64 kicked the PSX's ass. You said, the N64 didn't kick the PSX's ass and that the PSX clearly won the war. I agree that it lost the war, when I said it kicked the PSX's ass, I meant because it is a better console and hardware/quality game wise it kicked the PSX's ass. That is why I wrote the offending line.

I said "outrageous assumtions" because you do that all the time. Like assuming Lj thought you accussed him of being a terrorist when there was absolutely no reason to assume he thought any such thing. Since there was no indication that I hadn't read your whole post, it is a funny thing to be worried about. Don't certain points in people's posts stick out to you at times? I see people only respond to one point made in someone elses post all the time, I don't see that as a reason to suppose they didn't read the rest of the post, just that that one sentence is what mattered to them.

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

Author
Time

I find it interesting the two conflicting points about Nintendo here.  Jay has been criticizing the power of the Wii.  And that's not untrue.  It's a weak system compared to its contemporaries.  But now the more recent argument about the N64 vs. the PSX, I think we all agree that PSX "won the war."  And while N64 had certain limitations that PSX didn't, I'm going to express my opinion that it was the more powerful system. 

So we have a Nintendo system that was technologically superior that didn't win the war against a technically inferior but developmentally superior system.  Ten years later, we have an extremely similar but reversed situation.  Nintendo now has the technologically inferior but unique console that is outselling its technologically superior but less-innovative competitors.

Obviously, it's not a direct parallel, otherwise we'd be seeing more games for the Wii--maybe they are pumping out as many as they did for PSX, but my eyes just never pay attention to the shovelware.  But like lj said, if it was just the gimmicks bringing people in, Wii sales would have cooled off over the past two years (not three, lj).  I think reception and gamer opinion to it has cooled, but, like others have said, it's not because the system is inherently gimicky.  It's proven that it can handle all sorts of genres capably.  It's just not being utilized in the way it should.  I just wonder very strongly what Nintendo is going to produce for the next generation.

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
Gaffer Tape said:

But like lj said, if it was just the gimmicks bringing people in, Wii sales would have cooled off over the past two years (not three, lj).

Sorry, I thought I read somewhere that it's been out for 3 years.  I only got one recently even though I've been wanting one for about 6 months.  Even the system I have is borrowed from my brother in law.

As far as the Wiimote being a gimmick, the game really does need to be rethought when making it.  I'll give you two examples.  Hulk and Iron Man (I've played both).  With the Hulk, it's painfully obvious that the developers didn't bother even trying to make the Wiimote work right.  The game is very difficult to play due to the "Tomb Raider"esque camera that sits behind the player.  This makes the "super jump" very difficult since it's so hard to see where you're landing.

Iron Man, on the other hand, is a complete joy to play with the Wiimote (even with the same camera angle).  You simply point it at the screen, use the thumbstick to make him walk, and then move the mote to make him turn.  Flying is even better since you push one button to hover and one to fly, but you still just move the mote around in order to steer.

Is it a bit gimmicky?  Maybe, but I feel like I'm Iron Man when I'm playing it.  If I used a classic controller, I'd feel like I was playing a game and I'd still be moving the controller around like I was flying (that's just the way I play flying games), it just wouldn't be doing anything.

As far as tennis and bowling are concerned, that's exactly what I was referring to before.  Someone who figures out that they can just flick their wrist isn't going to have fun playing with a Wii.  Moving around and swinging your arms is half the fun.  If you're just going to sit there flicking your wrist, then don't even bother.

 

F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time

The the GameBoy, PS2, and Nintendo DS should be proof enough that the most powerful system isn't always the one that wins the highest market share.

4

Author
Time
 (Edited)

 


Darth Chaltab
 said:

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.

Sorry, I misspoke. I meant COD:WAW, which looks like ass on the Wii compared to the PS3 and 360 versions.

Mario Galaxy does look great...at 480p. It doesn't look incredible by any stretch on any display where scaling is required. lordjedi mentioned that his DVDs still look great as proof that 480p is adequate. Yes, DVDs do look great, because scaling live action photography is much different than scaling game content. All the little details in live action scale much better because the resulting artifacts are much harder to spot in all the chaos, whereas scaling Wii games results in obvious stairstepping and other problems.

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.

No, they won't. I'll see you in 2011 or whenever they release their next console and we'll talk about it then. They'll sell it to Nintendo fanboys and hardcore gamers who buy every system. These newfound casual gamers won't be returning en masse for the next round because they won't pay to play tennis and pop balloons in 1080p. The increase in power won't be of any interest to them because they don't care about specs or graphics quality (obviously).

 

The the GameBoy, PS2, and Nintendo DS should be proof enough that the most powerful system isn't always the one that wins the highest market share.

The difference is that software sales for those systems kept/keep pace with the hardware sales. GameBoy development was cheap because there was only so much you could do with a 2 inch black and white (well, dark green and light green) screen, and it had no competition when it launched. The PS2 had such a huge installed base, you couldn't go wrong as a developer. Same thing with the DS, which also lets devs recycle their SNES and N64 titles with minimal effort.

Nintendo is doing very well financially with the Wii because they built a system that allows them to make a profit on the hardware. They also sell the most popular games for that system--the games casual gamers are most likely to buy because they're system branded (Wii Music, Wii Fit, etc.) and even casual gamers recognize Mario and Zelda.

Where does that leave third party developers? They can't port their PS3 and 360 games without major effort because the Wii's hardware is too weak and taking advantage of the Wiimote requires extra work if it's going to be anything other than a gimmick (take lordjedi's Hulk vs. Iron Man example). And the simple truth is that traditional games for traditional gamers wouldn't do well with these newfound casual gamers.

lordjedi said:

As far as tennis and bowling are concerned, that's exactly what I was referring to before.  Someone who figures out that they can just flick their wrist isn't going to have fun playing with a Wii.  Moving around and swinging your arms is half the fun.  If you're just going to sit there flicking your wrist, then don't even bother.

 

If you can just flick your wrist to play the game, that's a problem with the game, not the gamer. That's why button mashing games get shit on so much by hardcore gamers. If the player can just keep hitting buttons to move forward or win with no skill or strategy involved, then the game was poorly made, end of story.

Or maybe the Wiimote isn't capable of tracking the difference, which makes it a hardware shortcoming (gimmick).

I know I come off as a Wii hater, but I honestly don't hate it. It's weak hardware, but it's quality hardware, which is nice, and it is lots of fun when friends come over. I even enjoyed being a nerd and swinging my sword in Twilight Princess until I got bored with what is ultimately a pretty average game.

At the end of the day, I'll take Oblivion with a DualShock over Zelda with a Wiimote. I'll take Fallout 3 and Uncharted over Mario Kart and Wii Music. Different strokes, that's all.

 

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

MTFBWY

Author
Time

I agree with Jay. Nintendo is in deep when the big picture/long run are considered. They've alienated a shit load of third-party developers for too long...devs that won't necessarily come running back when Nintendo plays catch up with what will undoubtedly be another under-powered console under the auspices of "quality" over power. I've always felt that while graphics don't make the game, they do place certain limits on what can and can't be ported to a system, and Nintendo's going to reap what they've sown in this regards, sooner or later. What they did with the Wii was assure themselves another console in 2011. If they don't do something stunning that captures hardcore gamers, I don't see how they can survive.

What's amazing to me is how developers have abandoned PC gaming en mass in the last year or so. EA Sports has announced that it's not porting Madden any more, which really blows. And they blame it all on piracy. It really irks me because the current consoles and the last gen wouldn't have been shit if they didn't bastardize pc features like online play and anything even approaching pc graphics.

Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
 (Edited)

To me the wii is gimmicky garbage.  I was dying to own the supernes, the n64 and the gamecube.  But i could not care less about the wii, the wii mote pisses me off.  If i had a choice of using a traditional game controller maybe i would would feel differently on that score but the system lags behind every previous console nintendo has put out in terms of games, except maybe for Mario galaxy.  The only game the system is worth owning for and easily beaten rather quickly.  Twilight princess is also easy.  As a hardcore zelda and mario and metroid fan those games give me zero challenge.

Twilight Princess as i have said in the past was developed for the gamecube and delayed so many times it was released on both systems gamecube and wii.  Therefore since from the beginning it was not intended for the wii i don't consider it a real newly developed zelda game for the wii that is still to come, if it even does before the next console.  The wii is basically the same as the gamecube with a gimicky thing with motion sensor technology you swing around, that looks like a tv remote.

They also fail by having standard dvd technology that spins backwards like the gamecube.  But the 360 is also left behind because they did not go the Blu Ray route.  the PS3 is built like a tank and is future proof.  If it only had the game library that the 360 has it would fucking own all.

Nintendo will never put out any more epic games like , Donkey Kong Country, Conker's bad fur day or Goldenyeye, or perfect dark.  Games on Both the supernes and the nintendo 64.  Because they sold off rare to microsoft.

They sold Conkers, perfect dark.  Of course they kept the donkey kong series but did not make any more games except the horrible 64 incarnation.  and that bongos game on the gamecube.  And of course the 007 license went to however made those games on the playstation and the ports that were made for the other systems.  I think it was sony.  Now the license went to Activision.

A remake of Goldeneye 64 would have been awesome on a next gen system like the xbox 360 or the ps3. 

They could have just released the original low res 480i version in 480p for the virtual console on the wii, or they could have retooled it for the wii mote to be bond's gun,lol.

I was all for a cool star wars lightsaber game on the wii, for the chance to actually use the damn thing after playing twilight princess and mario and wii sports into the ground.  Do we get a good star wars game set in the eu or even the original trilogy fillms, no of course not.  The game they promised us for years turns out to be set in the horrible prequel universe continuity with the bad clone wars cartoon and cheap crap animation like the 2008 film.

too bad the wii's version of force unleashed was a joke.  Had the system the processing power of the 360 or the PS3 along with the wiimote that could have been the lightsaber game.

Lucasfilm games aka Lucasrts is a joke now anyway they won't do a real Kotor 3 with Bioware, that would have the same customization ability and depth as mass effect.  Of course not because they will make a shit mmo with a montly subscription and set hundreds of years later.  Forget what happened to the hidden sith empire threat, or what happened to Revan in the unknown regions nobody really cared to find out the story after playing through the first 2 games. WTF?  it would be Like if Lucas made star wars and empire strikes back and just jumped 200 hundred years later for the third film without telling us what was Han Solo's fate.

 

“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
JediSage said:

I agree with Jay. Nintendo is in deep when the big picture/long run are considered. They've alienated a shit load of third-party developers for too long...devs that won't necessarily come running back when Nintendo plays catch up with what will undoubtedly be another under-powered console under the auspices of "quality" over power.

When has this changed?  That's a serious question.  Nintendo has always been about quality over power.  Always, always, always.  Even back to the NES and Super NES.  Nintendo may have alienated some people (I'll take your word for it), but Sony has made things just as hard in the opposite direction.  The PS3 is a pain in the ass to program for.  Yes, it's very powerful.  But all that power is useless if you can't easily make a game for it.

It's also possible that Nintendo will come up with a way to make all those titles easily "upgraded" to HD.  HD seems to be the real crux of the argument right now anyway.  The Wii doesn't do HD and for the "hardcore gamers" that's a must have.  Sorry, I just don't buy it.  A visually stunning game is nice to look at for a while, but if it doesn't have good gameplay, it won't last 5 minutes.

Oblivion might be great to look at, but the retarded beginning of beating up giant rats with a sword kind of turned me off.  It really shouldn't take more than one stab to kill a rat.

So when did Nintendo's attitutde of quality over power change?

What's amazing to me is how developers have abandoned PC gaming en mass in the last year or so. EA Sports has announced that it's not porting Madden any more, which really blows. And they blame it all on piracy. It really irks me because the current consoles and the last gen wouldn't have been shit if they didn't bastardize pc features like online play and anything even approaching pc graphics.

You answered your own statement.  It's due to piracy (or so they say).  It's much more difficult and time consuming to pirate console games than it is PC games.  There's still a fairly large market of PC games though.  I wouldn't really consider anything EA does as having a huge impact on PC games though.  EA is pretty much hated throughout the gaming world so as long as there's other publishers besides them, PC games will be fine.

 

F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time

I doubt it's really due to piracy so much as it is due to the console market being more lucrative (at the moment, at least.)

PC developers have to straddle the line between putting out something that looks amazing and something that will actually run on enough computers to make its money back. The difficulty of keeping up with the latest tech is greater than console gaming, where every game produced for a console WILL (theoretically) run on it.

4

Author
Time
 (Edited)
lordjedi said:

Nintendo has always been about quality over power.  Always, always, always.  Even back to the NES and Super NES.  Nintendo may have alienated some people (I'll take your word for it), but Sony has made things just as hard in the opposite direction.  The PS3 is a pain in the ass to program for.  Yes, it's very powerful.  But all that power is useless if you can't easily make a game for it.

They said the same thing about the PS2 and it dominated the last generation regardless. There were plenty of talented developers who pushed the PS2 to its limits despite its supposed programming difficulty.

When it comes to programming, some frameworks are more difficult to use than others, the general rule being that the easier the framework is to use, the less flexibility when compared to more complex frameworks. I build all my web applications in ColdFusion because it's fast and easy. However, there are times I need to dig into the underlying Java because ColdFusion doesn't provide an easy tag or function that does what I need it to do. I appreciate what ColdFusion does on its own because it allows developers and designers to focus more on functionality and user experience instead of trying to get things to work; that ease of use comes at a price though.

Making games is similar. Some dev kits do a lot for you and allow you to focus on the creative aspects instead of grinding away on source code, but if the system doesn't allow you to go deeper, it'll peak early in terms of technical capabilities.

Developers who don't want to do the work to make beautiful PS3 games have other options. That's why the 360 gets so many games first and the PS3 gets a poorly done port. There are good reasons why Kojima refuses to port MGS4 to the 360; it just can't handle the game as it is and he doesn't want to sacrifice the game's quality to put it on the 360.

It's also possible that Nintendo will come up with a way to make all those titles easily "upgraded" to HD.  HD seems to be the real crux of the argument right now anyway.  The Wii doesn't do HD and for the "hardcore gamers" that's a must have.  Sorry, I just don't buy it.  A visually stunning game is nice to look at for a while, but if it doesn't have good gameplay, it won't last 5 minutes.

Oblivion might be great to look at, but the retarded beginning of beating up giant rats with a sword kind of turned me off.  It really shouldn't take more than one stab to kill a rat.

You keep bringing up good gameplay like the PS3 doesn't have it. It does. Tons of it. More than I've been able to find on the Wii, frankly. All while managing to look good at the same time.

Sorry you didn't like Oblivion, but it seems to me you're stuck on one somewhat silly gameplay aspect in an otherwise outstanding game. And why exactly should a giant rat half the size of a man take only one stab to kill? Let's assume it should. If that's the case, why doesn't a headshot in COD immediately kill your opponent? I'll tell you why...while that may be more realistic, it would only make sense to apply the same rules to the player, and then the game becomes frustratingly hard. Games aren't real life and real life rules and mechanics don't work.

As far as upgrading existing Wii titles to HD, it may be possible for them to run the games at 1080p, and while that may smooth the edges out a bit, that will do nothing for the texture resolution, which is where all the real detail comes from. They'll look like upscaled games, just like DVDs look like upscaled DVDs and not HD. And would that be much of a selling point? How many people bought the PS3 because it upscales PS1 and PS2 games?

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

MTFBWY

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Regarding Call of Duty:WAW, it's true that it looks basically like a PS2 game in 480p, but that's less a problem with the hardware and more a problem of lazy developers. Games built for the Wii from the ground up tend to look considerably better.

Sure, it doesn't reach the level of the X-Box and PS3, but I'd hardly call The Conduit ugly.

4

Author
Time

So, did you guys just get tired of arguing politics? :-p

A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Darth Chaltab said:

Regarding Call of Duty:WAW, it's true that it looks basically like a PS2 game in 480p, but that's less a problem with the hardware and more a problem of lazy developers. Games built for the Wii from the ground up tend to look considerably better.

The primary demographic for COD mostly consists of 360 and PS3 owners. Putting minimal effort into the Wii version was less about laziness and more about return on investment.

The sales numbers prove that decision was the correct one. COD:WAW has been a complete failure on the Wii while selling millions of copies for the 360 and PS3. The extra effort to make the Wii version look better wouldn't have been worth the time and money--and "better" is a relative term because it still wouldn't look half as good as the PS3 and 360 versions.

bkev said:

So, did you guys just get tired of arguing politics? :-p

It's Christmas. Peace on Earth and whatnot.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

MTFBWY

Author
Time
Jay said:

They said the same thing about the PS2 and it dominated the last generation regardless. There were plenty of talented developers who pushed the PS2 to its limits despite its supposed programming difficulty.

I don't recall developers saying that about the PS2.  From what I've heard, the Cell processor is practically limitless in its capabilities, but that also makes it far more difficult to program for.  So much so that the Orange Box for PS3 was delayed many times (from what I've heard).

Developers who don't want to do the work to make beautiful PS3 games have other options. That's why the 360 gets so many games first and the PS3 gets a poorly done port. There are good reasons why Kojima refuses to port MGS4 to the 360; it just can't handle the game as it is and he doesn't want to sacrifice the game's quality to put it on the 360.

Metal Gear Solid 4?  The game that may as well be a movie for the first 20 minutes?  If that's your idea of a quality game then it's no wonder the PS3's market share is so bad.  MGS4 is my idea of a Final Fantasy equivalent.  You spend so much time watching what's happening that you don't really play a game as much as you sit and watch a movie.

It's also possible that Nintendo will come up with a way to make all those titles easily "upgraded" to HD.  HD seems to be the real crux of the argument right now anyway.  The Wii doesn't do HD and for the "hardcore gamers" that's a must have.  Sorry, I just don't buy it.  A visually stunning game is nice to look at for a while, but if it doesn't have good gameplay, it won't last 5 minutes.

Oblivion might be great to look at, but the retarded beginning of beating up giant rats with a sword kind of turned me off.  It really shouldn't take more than one stab to kill a rat.

You keep bringing up good gameplay like the PS3 doesn't have it. It does. Tons of it. More than I've been able to find on the Wii, frankly. All while managing to look good at the same time.

Sorry you didn't like Oblivion, but it seems to me you're stuck on one somewhat silly gameplay aspect in an otherwise outstanding game. And why exactly should a giant rat half the size of a man take only one stab to kill? Let's assume it should. If that's the case, why doesn't a headshot in COD immediately kill your opponent? I'll tell you why...while that may be more realistic, it would only make sense to apply the same rules to the player, and then the game becomes frustratingly hard. Games aren't real life and real life rules and mechanics don't work.

Have you even played COD?  A headshot does immediately kill your opponent (at least COD4 does).  If that's not how it is on PS3, then that's a shortcoming of that port.  In the PC world, a headshot is an instant kill and has been since games like DOD.  Maybe you weren't playing on Expert though.  Maybe the PS3 doesn't have multiple difficulty levels.  Most of the time the computer AI won't even take a shot at your head since it's a small target.  I can assure you, on the PC, when playing online, headshots are instant kills.  Yes, it's a little frustrating, but unless you're sitting still for long periods of time, you'll be difficult to hit.

As far as upgrading existing Wii titles to HD, it may be possible for them to run the games at 1080p, and while that may smooth the edges out a bit, that will do nothing for the texture resolution, which is where all the real detail comes from. They'll look like upscaled games, just like DVDs look like upscaled DVDs and not HD. And would that be much of a selling point? How many people bought the PS3 because it upscales PS1 and PS2 games?

All that's necessary for textures is to release high resolution ones.  The same thing has been done in the PC world for ages.  You simply download the "high-res" textures and boom, games instantly look better.  If the developers have high res textures available, they could easily be downloaded for an instant game "upgrade".

 

F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time

If that were the case for the Wii, though, that would be a bit... inconvenient.  Obviously downloading high-res textures would only apply to the Wii console it was downloaded to.  It wouldn't affect the game itself.  And the flash memory is limited enough that I wouldn't want to download new textures for most games.  Hell, I've played Mario Galaxy on an HDTV, and it looked pretty good to me if I recall correctly.  Eh, whatever.

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
lordjedi said:

I don't recall developers saying that about the PS2.

The PS2 was panned quite a bit by some for its development difficulty. The Emotion Engine was something very different, much like the Cell, and a lot of developers bitched and moaned about it.

Metal Gear Solid 4?  The game that may as well be a movie for the first 20 minutes?  If that's your idea of a quality game then it's no wonder the PS3's market share is so bad.  MGS4 is my idea of a Final Fantasy equivalent.  You spend so much time watching what's happening that you don't really play a game as much as you sit and watch a movie.

I don't recall commenting on the quality of the gameplay. I merely used it as a technical reference to illustrate that games made from the ground up to take advantage of the PS3's power aren't easily ported to the 360.

I also find it odd that you're commenting on a game you most likely haven't played all the way through. Kind of a trend it seems, given your quick loss of interest in Oblivion due to unrealistic rat fighting. Do you turn off movies if the first ten minutes fail to entertain you? Do you toss books aside when the first chapter isn't what you were expecting?

Have you even played COD?  A headshot does immediately kill your opponent (at least COD4 does).  If that's not how it is on PS3, then that's a shortcoming of that port.  In the PC world, a headshot is an instant kill and has been since games like DOD.  Maybe you weren't playing on Expert though.  Maybe the PS3 doesn't have multiple difficulty levels.  Most of the time the computer AI won't even take a shot at your head since it's a small target.  I can assure you, on the PC, when playing online, headshots are instant kills.  Yes, it's a little frustrating, but unless you're sitting still for long periods of time, you'll be difficult to hit.

I've been playing online a long time and a headshot is in no way a universal one-hit kill, nor is it always a one-hit kill in COD4 with all weapons. All arms get damage multipliers on headshots, but that doesn't ensure instant death, particularly with smaller arms. Perhaps a headshot is always an instant kill with any weapon in Expert mode, but that's not the game's default and not what I was referring to. Yes, the PS3 has different difficulty levels.

All that's necessary for textures is to release high resolution ones.  The same thing has been done in the PC world for ages.  You simply download the "high-res" textures and boom, games instantly look better.  If the developers have high res textures available, they could easily be downloaded for an instant game "upgrade".

You're assuming Nintendo's next console will be backwards compatible with the Wii. Seeing as the Wii was Nintendo's first console to incorporate backwards compatibility--and mostly because the hardware is so similar to the Gamecube's--I wouldn't count on that. Let's also hope Nintendo can be bothered to make some decent internal storage options available on their next console so this texture upgrade--which will never, ever happen on any Wii game ever--is possible.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

MTFBWY

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Jay said:

Metal Gear Solid 4?  The game that may as well be a movie for the first 20 minutes?  If that's your idea of a quality game then it's no wonder the PS3's market share is so bad.  MGS4 is my idea of a Final Fantasy equivalent.  You spend so much time watching what's happening that you don't really play a game as much as you sit and watch a movie.

I don't recall commenting on the quality of the gameplay. I merely used it as a technical reference to illustrate that games made from the ground up to take advantage of the PS3's power aren't easily ported to the 360.

I also find it odd that you're commenting on a game you most likely haven't played all the way through. Kind of a trend it seems, given your quick loss of interest in Oblivion due to unrealistic rat fighting. Do you turn off movies if the first ten minutes fail to entertain you? Do you toss books aside when the first chapter isn't what you were expecting?

You called it a quality game.  When I'm looking at quality, I look at the visuals as well as the gameplay.  I watched a friend "play" MGS4 for about 20 mins.  He started at the beginning.  Right around the 4th cut scene, in a room full of gamers, we were all shouting "enough already!  let us play!".  The first 20 mins seem to be mostly cut scenes that couldn't be bypassed.  I really have no interest in playing through a game that's probably going to stop every so often and play a cut scene that I can't bypass.  I absolutely can't stand that about games.

EDIT: It's possible that we were able to bypass some of the cut scenes.  I honestly can't recall it that clearly.  My main point is that there were so many in the beginning of the game that it just got stupid.  When he first started to play, he literally moved 5 ft (in game) and another cut scene started.  That was just lame.

When I start a game, I do that to play it, not watch 20 mins of opening video that's trying to explain some kind of background story.  To top it off, even if the game wants to show that much video, at least let me bypass it.  I watched the guy try to bypass it with every key on the controller and nothing worked.  That's why we eventually turned it off and turned a movie on instead.

I don't turn off movies or stop reading books because they are meant to be watched and read.  A game, by its very nature, is meant to be played, not watched.  Maybe that's why Portal was voted Game of the Year by a few gaming magazines, even though there's no multiplayer and you don't shoot anyone.

Have you even played COD?  A headshot does immediately kill your opponent (at least COD4 does).  If that's not how it is on PS3, then that's a shortcoming of that port.  In the PC world, a headshot is an instant kill and has been since games like DOD.  Maybe you weren't playing on Expert though.  Maybe the PS3 doesn't have multiple difficulty levels.  Most of the time the computer AI won't even take a shot at your head since it's a small target.  I can assure you, on the PC, when playing online, headshots are instant kills.  Yes, it's a little frustrating, but unless you're sitting still for long periods of time, you'll be difficult to hit.

I've been playing online a long time and a headshot is in no way a universal one-hit kill, nor is it always a one-hit kill in COD4 with all weapons. All arms get damage multipliers on headshots, but that doesn't ensure instant death, particularly with smaller arms. Perhaps a headshot is always an instant kill with any weapon in Expert mode, but that's not the game's default and not what I was referring to. Yes, the PS3 has different difficulty levels.

From what I've played, it's not that you can't get an instant kill with a pistol, it's just really hard.  If you walk right up behind someone and put a gun to their head (doesn't matter which one), you're going to kill them.  But try doing that during the heat of combat and you'll likely never land a shot.  I've had this happen to me on more than one occasion, so it's certainly possible.

All that's necessary for textures is to release high resolution ones.  The same thing has been done in the PC world for ages.  You simply download the "high-res" textures and boom, games instantly look better.  If the developers have high res textures available, they could easily be downloaded for an instant game "upgrade".

You're assuming Nintendo's next console will be backwards compatible with the Wii. Seeing as the Wii was Nintendo's first console to incorporate backwards compatibility--and mostly because the hardware is so similar to the Gamecube's--I wouldn't count on that. Let's also hope Nintendo can be bothered to make some decent internal storage options available on their next console so this texture upgrade--which will never, ever happen on any Wii game ever--is possible.

Seeing as how not having an internal hard drive hasn't hurt them in the market, it wouldn't really surprise me if they didn't include one on the next system.  Of course, hard drives are so cheap now that they could easily include one at very little cost.

 

F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time

I'd say Nintendo's next system will probalby be similar to the X-Box 360 in terms of power, will probably feature a signficiantly larger ammount of internal memory if not a full HardDrive, and still be focused on alternative methods of play like motion control and social gaming.

Whether they focus on the avid or the casual gamer really depends on the continued success or future downturn of the Wii.

4

Author
Time

So how did the gaming gods treat everybody this holiday season? My parents got me Resistance 1 and 2, Hot Shots Golf, and BioShock.

I also got a bit of cash, so I'm probably going to pick up Valkyria Chronicles also. Looks to be a sleeper hit for RPG fans. And, while not gaming related, I had to pick up one of these after seeing the one my nephew got on Christmas morning :)

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

MTFBWY

Author
Time
 (Edited)

There is no game i am looking forward to more than Final Fantasy XIII.  and they have delayed it so many times its unbelievable.  Now the release date is christmas of 2009.

It was supposed to come out in Christmas of 2007, then in feb of 08.  Has been in development before final fantasy XII was made and released, and was originally supposed to be on the Playstation 2.

Christmas of 06 was around the last time final fantasy XII was going to be released but was out in november i think for some reason. 

People have waited already almost 2 years for this game, a three year wait better make it the greatest fucking rpg ever or square enix= fail

Now the other game i am looking forward to is Mass Effect 2.  Which will probably be delayed because of that stupid mmo called the old republic.  Hey i wanted a real Kotor 3 but will settle for the mass effect trilogy to be finished if they can't make Kotor 3.  But Bioware better not fuck with the release date of the second mass effect game or pull all the developers writers and code makers off of that for this gay fucking mmo monthly fee shit.

Never was a world of warcraft type and never understood it.  The only Final Fantasy game I never bought was XI because it was a monthly fee mmo with no story and no single player console game mode.

I have a friend who is also into J-RPG's like me who says i should play StarOcean for the ps2 or play Lost Odyssey for the xbox360.  He loaned me blue dragon and i beat it within a week.  I found it rather easy which is funny because the average gamers thought it was too hard, even the reviewers said so.

Mario galaxy was too easy a platformer for me. And Zelda Twilight Princess was too easy as well even on the wii.  Most games give me zero challenge.  I even beat Halo 3 on legendary and it was a breeze for me.  Though the online matches are far more tough.

Would i find the Call of Duty Modern Warfare game challenging i wonder, does anyone recommend it?

The last Splinter Cell game i played i found more annoying than difficult, how is Metal Gear solid 4.  I loved mgs1, 2 and 3. 

Has anyone played the new 007 game? 

I wonder because i liked goldeneye 64, nightfire, eon, and from russia with love.

 

 

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