Support NeoGAF

[Chmpocalypse]

dp

 

[Refreshment.01]

Controversial is the wrong word to explain the Wii. A better term is "polarizing" as people's perception of the Wii comes down to whether or not you like motion controls or casual gaming. People like the Wii because it created new ways to play games while others didn't like it because very few developers used motion controls properly and the overabundance of shovelware released for the system.

However, the Wii will be remembered as the system that opened the floodgates to the casual market and helped to make gaming a mainstream form of entertainment.

It doesn't need to be one thing or the other. The Wii is both polarizing and controversial. Just look at the reactions when the control was unveiled and when Nintendo made it clear they were exiting the hardware battle.

The polarization came after the console release and how some people didn't want to adapt to new methods of input in a console.

Yeah, people in here really aren't remembering things correctly.

There was an incredible amount of hatred towards the Wii from the traditional gaming press and your standard forum-goer.

Do people not remember the 'non-game' narrative? Or how the Wii's sales didn't count (this one still continues)? EGM refused to review Endless Ocean as a piece of video game software. It's not that they just didn't review it (a lot of games don't get reviewed), they said this:

[EGM Article transcription....]

If I could be bothered I'd go back and search for even more hilariously tone deaf comments.

There was genuine hatred and vitriol spewed at the Wii and Nintendo for daring to target people outside the 18-34 male demographic because they thought it was going to ruin gaming forever. It was embarrassing then, and in hindsight it's even more embarrassing. If only they knew they were fighting for the right for publishers to strip their games of content and change design concepts so they could force people into paying them more money

Astonishing...

First time i' ve heard of that. Coming from a professional gaming press outlet with so much popularity makes it the more incredible.

 

[Sayter]

I don't know about being controversial. I know it's the Nintendo console I couldn't stand.

#@!*&$ waggle.

 

[Markitron]

It's the worst mainstream console of all time, and has ruined Nintendo for me. It wasn't good enough at anything to be controversial.

 

[DoktorEvil]

The Nintendo Wii has broken barriers in terms of gaming, but it attracted detractors for various reasons that are too many to list. Does anyone think that the Wii can be said to be the most controversial (or polarizing) console ever released?

Nope!

It's still:

"$599 US Dollars"

That PS3 announcement just soured a whole lot of people more than a struggling console has.

Yeah, people in here really aren't remembering things correctly.

There was an incredible amount of hatred towards the Wii from the traditional gaming press and your standard forum-goer.

Do people not remember the 'non-game' narrative? Or how the Wii's sales didn't count (this one still continues)? EGM refused to review Endless Ocean as a piece of video game software. It's not that they just didn't review it (a lot of games don't get reviewed), they said this:

If I could be bothered I'd go back and search for even more hilariously tone deaf comments.

There was genuine hatred and vitriol spewed at the Wii and Nintendo for daring to target people outside the 18-34 male demographic because they thought it was going to ruin gaming forever. It was embarrassing then, and in hindsight it's even more embarrassing. If only they knew they were fighting for the right for publishers to strip their games of content and change design concepts so they could force people into paying them more money.

EGM had legitimacy then??

In funny in retrospect to look at how many people complained about waggle controls and yet the games that did implement it well were some of the better game experiences last gen. At least Nintendo wasn't nickel and dining you on every single piece of software they had on the Wii(well maybe those toy tie in games like Skylanders).

I never felt cheated playing any Wii games, compared to the constant hidden content on most AAA locked away behind a paywall called DLC, but I also admit games like Skyrim, Mass Effect, or Fallout 3 or Borderlands had a ton of content/replayability.

 

[Refreshment.01]

No, just the easiest.

And you shouldn't get so upset that I pointed out the fact that easier aiming in a survival horror game makes that game easier. I mean, duh. Of course it makes it easier when part of the challenge is danger closing in while you try to line up your shots. It doesn’t make it any less awesome of a game, but it does (almost?) break the difficulty. Easier doesn't make it superior.

You make a valid point about playing with the classic controller (though I prefer the Gamecube one). Hadn't thought about that. If you take that into account, with the options available on Wii (and the fact that RE4, one of the greatest games of all time, wasn't in HD anyway), I have no problem considering it to be the best version (it did have Separate Ways, after all).

It became easy cause of the superior aiming controls and precision when all else remained the same. In that sense is a clear showcase of the advantages of pointer over thumbstick for aiming. The fault was with Capcom getting cheap and not making substantial adjustments to the game to compensate the aiming advantages. We should consider also that the game controlled that well in a time when Wii Remote aiming was a lot less refined, so imagine how more updated controls would have worked in RE4.

How did Capcom handled mouse aiming in the PC versions?

Also some see it as the superior version since the inmersion is enhanced because of the way the controls work now, you know more akin to actually aiming a weapon.

All the hardcore gamers I know (and working for a major game developer, I know a lot) like their games to be as immersive as possible (hence their excitement for things like VR). Being constantly reminded that they're playing a game ("look at the gamepad") and not part of the world they're enjoying breaks that.

The "constantly been reminded they're playing a game" is a very interesting claim to make, even more so when considering the Gamepad as inmersion breaking tool.

Acording to your point of view you can't get inmersed in most of today's games then. "Press LR", "now saving", "Now loading", "Checkpoint", "300 exp". Heck, the mayority of game's today take the context sensitive iconic representation of a button we saw popularized in Zelda and make it an essential navigational/interactive tool.

What about cases the Gamepad increases inmersion? Having be a window into your character's backpack, be a representation of the Jensen neural interface, or pressing the buttons on a keypad. Apply it in a minimal way to something like The Last of Us with the Gamepad representing Joel's backpack or when finding diaries and notes you actually read them in your hands instead of they superposing over the main screen or interacting with a tape recording with the sound coming from the speakers.

As with most cases with Nintendo's latests input method choices and kirks their fails/success rests up in the quality of the implementations not the devices themselves. Not every developer is creative enough or has the time to use the potential that rests in there.

 

[Refreshment.01]

So who was it supposed to appeal to? Traditional, hardcore gamers? They didn't want a low quality, standard definition screen in the controller at expense of hardware power. Anybody could have told you that.

It was a pretty transparent attempt to copy the "accessible" touch screen control scheme of the DS that somehow missed the problems inherent in the difference in usage and form factor between a portable and home console. An attempt, like the rest of the system, to try to do things that worked in different contexts in the past in the same fashion in the present, to poor results.

Mostly agree with your general stance towards Wii U and Nintendo making questionable decisions regarding it's console plans, yet i think the point of the Gamepad scapes you.

The Gamepad is an evolutionary path of the traditional two handed controller instead of the revolution the Wii Remote was. At minimun the screen in the Gamepad is a convenience: Can be a keyboard, can work as a remote terminal, enables asymmetrical local multiplayer, customizable key shortcuts, works as slidepad, etc. Then there's software build around the device that does enable new experiences, see: Nintendo Land, Wii Fit, Wii Party or something like Mario Maker for example.

Your other argument: "A screen in a controller at the expense of processing power".

i don't know here... maybe at the expense of price point would be more plausible? The Wii U independent of the Gamepad is designed to be an small form factor console that is easy for Nintendo to migrate their tool sets an assets (even if it ended up not working that well due to their HD development problems). After all, the device comes with a redesign of the old GameCube CPU. Had we had the device sans Gamepad we would have ended up with something similar at a lower price point i think.

In the end even with the Gamepad if Nintendo had other design philosophy for the device we could have something more powerful close to the same price, but with a bigger form factor and some derivative of X86 architecture.