Support NeoGAF

[WrathOfOtaibah]

and you have the precise reason why wii sports is packaged into every wii, with more wii compilation 'tech demos' on the way including the orchestra nongame.

Which is a good thing, in my opinion. If it gets a good reception, then that is fine. My point is that you can't depend on Mario, Zelda, and Metroid to push Wii sales. Game Cube did nothing but rely on these titles and that is why it was third place. New ideas need to take place.

Assuming the new ideas take off, of course.

GRAPHICS = GAMES

YEP, YOU AM WINNAR

Seriously, if you think graphics don't matter, then go and play the NES. I'm sure if a Wii title looks impressive, you will like the graphics. Most Nintendo fans only put up the graphics = games debate when the titles are lagging behind the competition. Yes, the Wii is in competition with the PS3 and 360.

Its also obvious that graphics are not the sole reason for games. Yet the 360 Core Pack offers a bunch of technical improvements over the Wii and is only $50 more. After a price drop, it could very well be equal or less than the Wii's price.

artificial ps3 shortages absolutely wouldn't be in sony's interest.

Seriously. There's at least 10 million or so gamers who would be willing to pay $600 for the PS3. To manufacture only a couple million in a year does them no good. Even at an open price.

Time to take off the tinfoil hats, fellas, as it seems to be scrambling your brains.

 

[StevieP]

Its also obvious that graphics are not the sole reason for games. Yet the 360 Core Pack offers a bunch of technical improvements over the Wii and is only $50 more. After a price drop, it could very well be equal or less than the Wii's price.

Time to take off the tinfoil hats, fellas, as it seems to be scrambling your brains.

Heed your own advice. 360 won't be getting a pricedrop anytime soon unless they are in dire trouble. Sales outside North America have been shitty, but that's still not "dire trouble". Gates said if the XBox division isn't profitable by 2008, he'll nix it. They're still losing $100+ per console - do you think they are gonna drop the price soon?

Besides, is the 360 Core pack really only $50 more? I thought people had discussed that enough already here at GAF. The 360 Core pack is $340 if you want to save games, and $400 if you want to do anything over XBox Live. That's without the cost of a game. And what about if you want to hook it up to your wireless network? Or you want an XBox Live subscription? You're forgetting the additional costs here. You can walk home with a Wii and play with yourself (sorry lol) and not need anything else.

 

[soul creator]

Wait drohne, are you coming close to admitting that the dollars to mhz value of Wii is irrevelevant if we feel that the utility gained from purchasing the hardware is in itself enough to justify the price? Woah..

I don't think this was ever disputed in the first place. The "subjective" value of something is a different subject from the "objective" value of it. Some of us here were strictly discussing the latter, while others brought in the former. Hence the disconnect, lol.

I sold my NES system on ebay for like $60, and maybe the new owner will get $60 of "fun" out of it, but I was able to sell it for that much in spite of the weak hardware that actually composes it, not because of it.

 

[Chris Michael]

Does a Matt quote really warrent 11 pages? You dissapoint me GAF.

 

[Campster]

YEP, YOU AM WINNAR

Seriously, if you think graphics don't matter, then go and play the NES. I'm sure if a Wii title looks impressive, you will like the graphics. Most Nintendo fans only put up the graphics = games debate when the titles are lagging behind the competition. Yes, the Wii is in competition with the PS3 and 360.

Its also obvious that graphics are not the sole reason for games. Yet the 360 Core Pack offers a bunch of technical improvements over the Wii and is only $50 more. After a price drop, it could very well be equal or less than the Wii's price.

I'm not saying graphics don't matter, but your entire analysis boiled down to "whichever console had better screenshots would succeed," which doesn't make sense on any level.

And I put up the "Graphics=games" debate not because I'm a fan of Nintendo, but because I'm sick of the visual fetishism that goes on with games. They're no longer interesting systems but rather showcases of technological masturbation, a celebration of "Look how (derivatively) pretty we can make a game if we pour enough money into it!"

I still have strong questions about Nintendo's plans. The biggest one being that while they have changed their input system, they have not changed the broken business model that got everyone in this mess in the first place. Having to redesign Madden for the Wii controller, Zelda for the Wii controller, FPS games for the Wii controller, etc, will at first take a bit of creativity. But honestly, once new successful formulas for this input device are found, we're right back to our endless stream of sequels and clones that only improve graphically.

 

[.dmc]

Does a Matt quote really warrent 11 pages? You dissapoint me GAF.

Most of the discussion isn't really about Matt's opinion, it's just been a catalyst for people to bitch about the price and rant about subjective interpretations of the notion of 'value'..

 

[AniHawk]

Seriously, if you think graphics don't matter, then go and play the NES.

What a stupid remark.

 

[castle007]

Does a Matt quote really warrent 11 pages? You dissapoint me GAF.

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[Pureauthor]

Most of the discussion isn't really about Matt's opinion, it's just been a catalyst for people to bitch about the price and rant about subjective interpretations of the notion of 'value'..

Don't forget arguing over the definition of 'opinion'.

Seriously, if you think graphics don't matter, then go and play the NES.

Say, that's a pretty good idea. I think I'll-

Wait, I don't own a NES. Oh, well. Next best thing! Original Gameboy FTW!

 

[cvxfreak]

Seriously, if you think graphics don't matter, then go and play the NES.

Or you can buy a Wii.

 

[Fusebox]

*zing!!*

 

[Scalemail Ted]

So about a month and a half from now?

 

[DefectiveReject]

So about a month and a half from now?

Sites like IGN will hopefully start receiving full units with Zelda and the like very soon.
How soon before launch did Craig @ IGN start showing off his DS??

Also can't wait for the likes of Lik-Sang to get one of these puppies, so they can pull it apart!! :lol :lol

 

[Scalemail Ted]

I do hope previews start coming in within the next couple weeks then.

 

[jarrod]

Neither PSP nor Wii really fit well within the traditional console model, PSP doesn't fit at all really admittedly. But neither has a comparably expensive chipset either, both are low cost, low emission, low energy consumption, steamlined solutions. Both machines are linked in a sense when you consider that their driving costs would actually be factors besides their chipset (quite unlike GC/PS2/Xbox). And really based on memory alone, the Wii chipset likely costs more than double to produce versus PSP, despite being a "GameCube Turbo" or whatever.

PSP's value comes in the form of it's gorgeous widescreen, large battery and logical networking capablities, all of which are actually it's costlist components, rather than it's Dreamcastic chipset. Similarly, Wii's major costs likely stem more from it's networking hardware, slot loading disc drive, internal flash and boutique controllers. Both machines are evidently eeking out a small profit too... really the setups are very comparable, even if markets aren't an exact parallel. The chipset in both cases though isn't the most impressive component financially and when looked at by performance alone, both machines should probably cost nearly half what they retail for when compared directly to last generation machines.... it's really other factors driving value here, in both cases.

 

[Gaia Theory]

The eternal debate:

Nintendo fans (self proclaimed, or specifically labeled by others) claim they don't care about graphics and the Sony or Xbox fans (self proclaimed, or specifically labeled by others) claim that Nintendo fans MUST care about graphics.

Which camp am I in? Some care to label me?

Point being - We all judge books and therefore games, by their cover. Period. What usually entices someone to 'like' a game before it is released and before anyone has played it, are the graphics of said game. Some will argue over the definition of graphics... do I mean the style or aesthetics of the game? Or do I mean the technical prowess of the graphics themselves (number of polygons, lighting, particles, etc...). It doesn't matter which definition you choose - graphics are the first line of contact.

However, ALL of us have enjoyed games that fall or lag behind stylistically or technically in the graphical department. Perhaps some of your favorite games SUCK at graphics, but WIN at gameplay? Maybe not.

Games are obviously a visual medium, but they are also the leading interactive medium of our time - so - perhaps the fact that we have people in camps that place the importance of graphics very high in their priorities, and have people in camps that place the importance of gameplay very high in theirs - is just an indication of the strongest characteristics in games.

Why does one camp have to be right, and be wrong? Why can't people be part of both camps?

Why argue?

 

[quetz67]

What a stupid remark.

yes, it is a stupid remark. and guess why? because more power and new generations do not only mean the graphics get better. more power opens new possibilities for gameplay too (bigger and more realistic worlds, physics, AI, destructible and deformable geometry etc.).

The Wii offers a new way to control games but it doesnt allow new concepts based on increased power. When I look at games like Motor Storm or Resistance the graphics they sure appeal to the graphics whore in me. But what makes them more interesting than just better textures and higher poly counts is how real they feel. Stuff and people behave like they should.

This gen hardware made games like GTA possible, which is that fascinating because the world feels so real. And it wil feel much more real next gen. It might be an evolutinary change more than a revolutionary, but it will show and it will make those older games feel strange.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

Nintendo fans (self proclaimed, or specifically labeled by others) claim they don't care about graphics and the Sony or Xbox fans (self proclaimed, or specifically labeled by others) claim that Nintendo fans MUST care about graphics.

well, last gen it was obviously PS2 fans (i.e the world) that didn't care about graphics. Clearly nintendo stole a good idea from sony.

 

[Pureauthor]

For the record, every single game console I've owned/will own weren't the strongest of it's times. (Genesis, PS1, PS2, and Wii)

Plus, I primarily play handhelds.

Graphics don't matter to me.

 

[SantaC]

oh god, why is this thread still going on?

 

[plagiarize]

yes, it is a stupid remark. and guess why? because more power and new generations do not only mean the graphics get better. more power opens new possibilities for gameplay too (bigger and more realistic worlds, physics, AI, destructible and deformable geometry etc.).

The Wii offers a new way to control games but it doesnt allow new concepts based on increased power. When I look at games like Motor Storm or Resistance the graphics they sure appeal to the graphics whore in me. But what makes them more interesting than just better textures and higher poly counts is how real they feel. Stuff and people behave like they should.

This gen hardware made games like GTA possible, which is that fascinating because the world feels so real. And it wil feel much more real next gen. It might be an evolutinary change more than a revolutionary, but it will show and it will make those older games feel strange.

BOTH are valid ways of finding new gameplay concepts though. the DS made the 'realest' surgery game i've played, for example and yes i know the operations were crazy sci fi stuff but it still made me feel more like a surgeon than any other game.

and it has more power than the cube and xbox, so while it won't be able to do 360 and ps3 stuff it may still do 'new' stuff compared to last gen beyond the control differences. but like i say BOTH are valid ways of encouraging innovative software. the new control method is just arguably more so, because you can't just make the same game and pretty it up and no, i'm not saying that's all that's been happening on the next gen consoles (hugs dead rising) just more looking at the DS/PSP situation.

i'm not saying the Wii is going to leverage the DS's sales either... just that the DS has more innovative and different games than the PSP despite the PSP being more powerful, because the inputs and dual screen set up almost force developers to rethink their games.

i'm glad to see some people here starting to suspect that the Wii may arguably be in a different market to the PS3 and 360, because it's always what springs to my mind when people start saying things like 'the DS doesn't matter because it's a different market!'. the DS looked for a wider market and found it. the Wii is looking to do the same, to sell to a different kind of person.

 

[Speevy]

oh god, why is this thread still going on?

Because apparently Matt threads aren't taboo anymore?

 

[Pureauthor]

Frankly, I think the majority of people in this thread carried themselves rather well.

No biting each other's heads off.

 

[Comic]

I can't afford a PS3. I can afford a 360, but I can't buy any games for it. I can afford a Wii and games to play on it. All three have at least one game I want to play. Well, at least two of them do.

My choice is easy: I buy a Wii.

 

[Wollan]

well, last gen it was obviously PS2 fans (i.e the world) that didn't care about graphics. Clearly nintendo stole a good idea from sony.

Umm.. That's a real bad, wrongful comparison as the PS2 was within the same level as the others and it actually had a higher frequency of games that made you go Wow.

 

[quetz67]

BOTH are valid ways of finding new gameplay concepts though. the DS made the 'realest' surgery game i've played, for example and yes i know the operations were crazy sci fi stuff but it still made me feel more like a surgeon than any other game.

and it has more power than the cube and xbox, so while it won't be able to do 360 and ps3 stuff it may still do 'new' stuff compared to last gen beyond the control differences. but like i say BOTH are valid ways of encouraging innovative software. the new control method is just arguably more so, because you can't just make the same game and pretty it up and no, i'm not saying that's all that's been happening on the next gen consoles (hugs dead rising) just more looking at the DS/PSP situation.

i'm not saying the Wii is going to leverage the DS's sales either... just that the DS has more innovative and different games than the PSP despite the PSP being more powerful, because the inputs and dual screen set up almost force developers to rethink their games.

i'm glad to see some people here starting to suspect that the Wii may arguably be in a different market to the PS3 and 360, because it's always what springs to my mind when people start saying things like 'the DS doesn't matter because it's a different market!'. the DS looked for a wider market and found it. the Wii is looking to do the same, to sell to a different kind of person.

The problem I have with the Wii is that it mostly relies on the new control stuff. But with advanced version of 'eyetoy' cameras you can mimick most stuff the wiimote can do. And most games I will play on Wii will be party games, which wont even use the accuracy the Wiimote might offer.

 

[Jokeropia]

wii's material value is incomparably poor. that's all i'm saying.

Again, I don't think Nintendo make a larger profit on Wii hardware than they made on GC hardware. (As they actually considered taking a loss on it initially.) Believe it or not, but motion sensing + 3D space regognition + Wifi + memory storage + Wii Sports + miniaturization etc. actually costs money.

I see a $250 price tag with Call of Duty 3 that looks like pure shit. Then you have Battalion Wars 2 that looks bright, colorful, but easily something that can be done on Xbox or PS2 for that matter.

Uh, maybe you should look at the good-looking games on the system instead. (SMS, Pokemon Battle Revolution, Excite Truck etc.)

Think about the best selling game for DS, Mario. How much does that game use the touch screen ?

Actually, the best selling game for the DS is Nintendogs which is very dependent on the touch screen.

Umm.. That's a real bad, wrongful comparison as the PS2 was within the same level as the others and it actually had a higher frequency of games that made you go Wow.

Haha, hell no.

 

[the thoroughbred]

What a stupid remark.

I don't think he actually realises that a lot of people are anticipating the virtual console, and the fact that those NES games are considered some of the best and classic games. Also a lot of my GBA games are NES classics ans SNES ones too. What a chump.

 

[Red Blaster]

Haha, hell no.

Huh? The only Cube games that probably couldn't be fully replicated on PS2 where RE4 (which they got running anyway), Star Fox Adventures, and maybe the Metroid Prime games. Everything was well within PS2's realm.

 

[plagiarize]

The problem I have with the Wii is that it mostly relies on the new control stuff. But with advanced version of 'eyetoy' cameras you can mimick most stuff the wiimote can do. And most games I will play on Wii will be party games, which wont even use the accuracy the Wiimote might offer.

well, the main thing that makes me happy about the Wii (and the functionality of the sixaxis actually) is that it's standard. it's there to be used. peripherals never have that kind of penetration. i'd be very happy to hear that the new eyetoy is being bundled as standard for every PS3.

making something a standard across everything has a huge effect as we're seeing with the Wii and sixaxis. it encourages developers to rethink things.

 

[Jokeropia]

Huh? The only Cube games that probably couldn't be fully replicated on PS2 where RE4 (which they got running anyway), Star Fox Adventures, and maybe the Metroid Prime games. Everything was well within PS2's realm.

Well I disagree. As far as I'm concerned only the best looking PS2 games (like MGS3) passed the threshold where I have virtually no complaints about the graphics at all. (Compared to most GC and Xbox games.) And even MGS3 doesn't look as good as RE4 GC, Metroid Prime, Ninja Gaiden Black, Jade Empire et.al.

 

[SuperPac]

The problem I have with the Wii is that it mostly relies on the new control stuff. But with advanced version of 'eyetoy' cameras you can mimick most stuff the wiimote can do.

Well, two things the Eyetoy can't do so accurately is read subtle motions or pick up the movements of more than one player at the same time. It doesn't allow for 3D movement, either -- up/down/left/right sure, but not forward/backward etc. I'd say the Wiimote offers far and away better control than a camera would in almost every situation.

And most games I will play on Wii will be party games, which wont even use the accuracy the Wiimote might offer.

They won't? How d'ya figure? The first Mario Party that comes out for Wii will *definitely* use the accuracy.

 

[Comic]

Huh? The only Cube games that probably couldn't be fully replicated on PS2 where RE4 (which they got running anyway), Star Fox Adventures, and maybe the Metroid Prime games. Everything was well within PS2's realm.

I can't think of any PS2 games that wow'd me. Graphically at least.

 

[Red Blaster]

:lol

Okay I get it now.

 

[gamergirly]

The problem I have with the Wii is that it mostly relies on the new control stuff. But with advanced version of 'eyetoy' cameras you can mimick most stuff the wiimote can do. And most games I will play on Wii will be party games, which wont even use the accuracy the Wiimote might offer.

 

[jarrod]

Huh? The only Cube games that probably couldn't be fully replicated on PS2 where RE4 (which they got running anyway), Star Fox Adventures, and maybe the Metroid Prime games. Everything was well within PS2's realm.

I'd say Twilight Princess and Rogue Squadron 2-3 are likely beyond PS2 as well. Really, PS2 even had trouble with (comparatively low end) stuff like Tales of Symphonia or Sonic Heroes though... likewise I'd say there's plenty of "to the metal" PS2 games that couldn't be perfectly replicated on GC as well.

 

[quetz67]

Well, two things the Eyetoy can't do so accurately is read subtle motions or pick up the movements of more than one player at the same time. It doesn't allow for 3D movement, either -- up/down/left/right sure, but not forward/backward etc. I'd say the Wiimote offers far and away better control than a camera would in almost every situation.

you are talking about this gen eyetoy. a two camera version could easily track 3D movement (and more than one person)

They won't? How d'ya figure? The first Mario Party that comes out for Wii will *definitely* use the accuracy.

I am talking about sport games for instance. To swing a tennis racket you just need to do some movement roughly mimicking the swinging of a tennis racket. Timing will probably be more important than accuracy of movement.

So if you have Andre Agassi (who probably knows how to swing a tennis racket) playing against someone who knows computer games and their timing and gameplay mechanics, Andre probably will lose the match.

Thats were IMO the potential of the controller is wasted. To become a better tennis player in Wii-Tennis you dont need to learn how to perfectly swing a tennis racket, but you need to learn the gameplay mechanics which then is about the same as with a standard controller.

 

[plagiarize]

Thats were IMO the potential of the controller is wasted. To become a better guitar player in Guitar Hero you dont need to learn how to perfectly play a real guitar, but you need to learn the gameplay mechanics which then is about the same as with a standard controller.

fixed to show the flaw in the argument.

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

I'm not saying graphics don't matter, but your entire analysis boiled down to "whichever console had better screenshots would succeed," which doesn't make sense on any level.

And I put up the "Graphics=games" debate not because I'm a fan of Nintendo, but because I'm sick of the visual fetishism that goes on with games. They're no longer interesting systems but rather showcases of technological masturbation, a celebration of "Look how (derivatively) pretty we can make a game if we pour enough money into it!"

I still have strong questions about Nintendo's plans. The biggest one being that while they have changed their input system, they have not changed the broken business model that got everyone in this mess in the first place. Having to redesign Madden for the Wii controller, Zelda for the Wii controller, FPS games for the Wii controller, etc, will at first take a bit of creativity. But honestly, once new successful formulas for this input device are found, we're right back to our endless stream of sequels and clones that only improve graphically.

The Xbox 360's first year titles have been able to combine fun and graphics. The two are not polar opposites. This is something Nintendo fans have yet to get through their heads. It is possible to have cutting edge graphics with awesome gameplay. I'm just pointing out that the only time Nintendo fans put up the "GRAPHIX = GAMEZ" debate up is when their game looks poor compared to the competition. Yet I bet you anything that the fans will go on and on about graphics if it looks similar to the competition.

This is my point. Taking it anywhere further is just missing the point and looking for things that are not there.

They're still losing $100+ per console - do you think they are gonna drop the price soon?

They've been doing it with the Xbox and are doing it again with the 360. If they feel they need to have a lower price to fight Sony, then they will.

Uh, maybe you should look at the good-looking games on the system instead. (SMS, Pokemon Battle Revolution, Excite Truck etc.)

Uh, I have, buddy. Even those are all easily done in the realm of the Xbox. There has yet to be one title on par with the premier looking games on the 360 or PS3. It will never be toe to toe with these games. This is reality. Its up to you if you want to imagine that it is on par. I don't really care, whatever helps you sleep at night better.

I am probably getting Excite Truck at launch. The truth is that I don't care about graphics either but at the same time, I don't furiously masturbate at every good looking Wii game and proclaim it to be 360/PS3 level. Then when a game looks poor, I pretend that graphics are irrelevant. This is the genesis of my argument.

Anyone who is trying to assume this is some ridiculous anti-Nintendo tirade is delusional. Then again, the schizophrenic nature of Nintendo fans regarding graphics could very well lead to that conclusion as well.

 

[Ponn]

Good 'ol Nintendo thread still going strong since yesterday. Too bad the OP is banned so he can't own up to what he had done:lol

 

[Jokeropia]

The truth is that I don't care about graphics either but at the same time, I don't furiously masturbate at every good looking Wii game and proclaim it to be 360/PS3 level.

I don't masturbate to any graphics ever, I just think top-level Xbox/GC games are at a level where I have no complaints whatsoever. I have an X360 and the only time I really notice a difference is when I'm playing Oblivion and look down from a huge height or at a nice sunset or something. (And even then it doesn't affect me any more than a few seconds of "hey, this is pretty cool".)

 

[quetz67]

fixed to show the flaw in the argument.

you are right, but other games not making it better doesnt doesnt prove anything.

All those games like guitar hero and the eye toy games are not more than a gimmick IMO and if Wii doesnt exceed that it stands no chance, as gimmicks dont last as long as deep and interesting gameplay expieriences.

 

[SuperPac]

you are talking about this gen eyetoy. a two camera version could easily track 3D movement (and more than one person)

Oh, so you were talking about a hypothetical future product instead of one that actually exists today. My bad for not realizing it. Anyway, camera controls rely on various other things like camera placement, ambient room lighting and being able to distinguish you from background junk, etc. that is not an issue with the Wiimote.

I am talking about sport games for instance. To swing a tennis racket you just need to do some movement roughly mimicking the swinging of a tennis racket. Timing will probably be more important than accuracy of movement.

So if you have Andre Agassi (who probably knows how to swing a tennis racket) playing against someone who knows computer games and their timing and gameplay mechanics, Andre probably will lose the match.

So now you're talking about a sports sim? I thought you were talking about party games not using the accuracy. Which is it?

Thats were IMO the potential of the controller is wasted. To become a better tennis player in Wii-Tennis you dont need to learn how to perfectly swing a tennis racket, but you need to learn the gameplay mechanics which then is about the same as with a standard controller.

Is this a big issue? Guitar Hero is fun because you don't have to know how to play the guitar to have fun with it. Just like I don't have to be a tennis pro to be good at Wii Tennis.

 

[MoxManiac]

As for pointing out the disparity between the hardware and the price, you can point it out but I don't really see where you can do with it. It's Nintendo's strategy. Microsoft and Sony have chosen to sell overteched hardware at a loss and Nintendo has not. Most of the negativity surrounding the price/hardware issue tends to revolve around the fact that Nintendo is actually making a profit!

Well, that's the thing. -I-, as a consumer, expect the console manufactor to take a loss to bring me the most cutting edge hardware as possible for my money. Sony and MS have set a precedent; they take a loss to put out the most powerful hardware possible. Why should I allow Nintendo off the hook to not do the same?

I don't care about a company's profitability. I care about the value of the hardware I am getting for X amount of dollars.

 

[Amir0x]

tba online content
-Animal Crossing 2 (Nintendo) tba
-Forever Blue (Nintendo/Arika) 2007
-Metal Slug Anthology (SNK Playmore/Terminal Reality) March 2007
-Metroid Prime 3: Corruption (Nintendo/Retro Studios) spring 2007
-The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (Nintendo) November 2006

Pretty sure according to that one latest interview, there will be zero online content for Zelda wii. But if there was something new i missed i would like to see it

well, last gen it was obviously PS2 fans (i.e the world) that didn't care about graphics. Clearly nintendo stole a good idea from sony.

Here's the problem with people who bring this up. Last gen, you could be a PS2 fan and 'care about graphics.' It's in the same generation as GCN and Xbox, and can produce visuals like MGS3 and Final Fantasy XII or whatever that stands among the best on any platform. So while clearly, it didn't reach the power of those systems it's not even, shit, in the same galaxy of difference as Wii vs. 360/PS3. There was no generational gap.

Wii is not a next-gen system. Never can its games stand alongside the best of 360 and PS3 graphically, and at best you'll be hoping for some artistically competent cel-shading game to make up the difference. The same thing was said about DS, and by some voodoo and crappy non-games it managed to strike some chord. But there is always going to be a difference between what a consumer values in a handheld, and what a consumer values in a console. I think for that we will all agree.

So in conclusion, it's feasible that the massmarket will adore a machine that allows them to "GET ACTIVE" and look ridiculous in front of their friends - waggle may be seen as some sort of healthy pasttime, thus catapulting games into the mainstream (if you're one of those hilarious manchildren who thinks gaming isn't mainstream yet, and waits until Ninendo says it is). But it's not because Nintendo got the idea that 'graphics didn't matter' from PS2, even if they pretend they did.

 

[quetz67]

Oh, so you were talking about a hypothetical future product instead of one that actually exists today. My bad for not realizing it. Anyway, camera controls rely on various other things like camera placement, ambient room lighting and being able to distinguish you from background junk, etc. that is not an issue with the Wiimote.

I know it isnt an issue with the Wiimote, my argument was if you dont use the accuracy of the Wiimote it doesnt count if such a device would be as accurate

So now you're talking about a sports sim? I thought you were talking about party games not using the accuracy. Which is it?[/QUOTE]
For me and also in the way Nintendo advertises it, tennis games on Wii are mostly party games, especially Wii sports.

Is this a big issue? Guitar Hero is fun because you don't have to know how to play the guitar to have fun with it. Just like I don't have to be a tennis pro to be good at Wii Tennis.

For me it is an issue, as mastering the new control isnt the key to become a better player. Look at Zelda. The first time in game history you could have had the option to really aim your sword attacks to make most damage or to really counter your opponents attacks. Even if only offered as an advanced control scheme for pros it would have been great. But now you just swing the Wiimote in whatever direction and Links swings his sword in some other direction.

Even if it didnt make a difference in actual damage they could at least have the sword movement follow the Wiimote movement. The way they implemented it I am not hyped for Wii-Zelda at all and probably will get the GC version.

 

[jehuty]

Poor Nintendo, they can never do anything right in the eyes of the "hardcore".

Its either:
-stupid waggle or touch controls
-crappy last gen graphics
-dumb internet
-kiddy games
-stupid non-games
-not enough blood
-and etc


Note to all you hardocre gamers. Nintendo didnt make the Ds for solely your enjoyment, and they arent making the Wii solely for your enjoyment either. I think its safe to say the the crowd they are targeting could give two-s*&ts about which games have extra super bumbmapping and linear quantum AA.

Most people that dont play video games dont play them because they cant be bothered to learn so many diffrent control techniques. These same non-gamers can play games like solitare and sudoku because the controls are basic and simple, just a cick and drag really.
The Wii was built to emulate that simplicity, and for those hardcore gamers you get a nunchuck attachment.

Graphics do matter as does online play modes and all other extras, the thing is though, they dont matter as much as many gamers think they do, especially to someone whose rarely plays video games at all.

 

[Joe Molotov]

Hey guys, you can stop posting in this thread now. If you haven't heard the news, Matt Cassamassina just got OWNED on IGN boards!! Ben Rofflesburger!

 

[StevieP]

I'm not a manchild, and I KNOW gaming isn't "mainstream" - it's a niche entertainment medium. You are looked down upon by society for being a gamer. A non-gamer asks you "so, what are you doing Friday night?" and you reply with "I'm going to see a movie" - that's perfectly acceptable. If you reply "well me and my buddies are going to sit down and play Halo on the XBoxen" and you'll get a weird look accompanied by "what are you, 14 again?" in most cases. Simply put, the gaming market HASN'T expanded very much since the inception of the medium. The Wii may or may not change that, but certainly Sony and Microsoft haven't done much for the stigma.

The Wii's power IS next gen, as well. It's just not AS next-gen as the other two systems. Like it or not, it's well beyond the XBox if you know how to use the TEV units. The Gamecube was almost on par with the XBox (it would've been nearly identical if it had more memory), and the Wii is at least twice as powerful as the Gamecube with lots more memory. It won't take cell shading to make the system look nice, it will take a talented developer and an engine that wasn't built from the Gamecube era. What you're seeing at launch isn't indicative of the capabilities of the system in the least bit, and while individuals like Amir0x have an obvious slant against the Wii and its "waggle", I'm perfectly fine with XBox << Wii <<<<< Xbox 360 level visuals. If I were a graphics whore, I wouldn't be touching the next-gen systems for graphics anyway (they're already out of date in comparison to PC). I'd get a new GPU or go SLI with my 7800GTX and play on PC, because PC visuals will always surpass consoles. If I cared that much about extra-bumpy dirt, extra motion blur, and bald space marines that look like they're coated in plastic, I certainly wouldn't be purchasing those games for consoles with specs that are set-in-stone.

As for Zelda having 1:1 sword controls - are you kidding? Maybe the next Zelda game, but this one is an up-port of the original Gamecube concept - it's a traditional Zelda game, and it would be awkward to have to play it in first-person perspective to get proper sword control.

 

[quetz67]

Hey guys, you can stop posting in this thread now. If you haven't heard the news, Matt Cassamassina just got OWNED on IGN boards!! Ben Rofflesburger!

Who is that Matt Cassamania anyway?