• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

So did wiimote revolutionize videogaming?

Ponn01 said:
I've played Wii Sports and it still uses the pseudo motion control, more so hit detection. Obviously people do not have a problem playing baseball games for 360 currently. Or Tiger Woods or such.

Now if the baseball bat fully followed my motion with the Wiimote that would be a great start towards the revolution and what I want to see with the Wii. Same thing with DQ Swords, now that I would be excited about playing and not some on rails pseudo-light gun hit detection swinging larp thing.

I tell you one thing, its Nintendo fans that are too quick to defend and pile on the praise and buy everything that end up killing themselves game wise. If you don't open your eyes and demand more you're not going to get it.

This is the kind of thinking that got me sick of games. People arent happy until a game plays like every other game because it is what they expect as standard. I, on the other hand would prefer games to be all different so that you get a diferent experience playing each of them. Oh how i wish it was still the NES days. :(
 
MasterMFauli said:
Whne i bought the Wii i ignored WiiPlay. Now i play it everyday. Great game.

@topic:

Correct non biased answer: YES

I mean...WiiSports is really the ultimate proof. Would i play WiiTennis, if i had no wiimote? No. Because i have MarioTEnnis for GCN, and i only played this one when friends were over here. WiiTennis is fun alone as well...all thanks to the controller.
Or ExciteTrucks...without the wiimote it would be...just not so great.
This is all looking at the hardcore-gamer that is me.

But more importantly, Wii proofed itself to be able to be a success on a broader audience. Be it better or not, non-gamer-people THINK that the Wii is great because of the controller. This success will make the wiimote a standard within the industry, thus revolutionizing it.

No shit you wouln't be playing it. It would come down to being the most boring rhythm game in history of videogames. And that's why Wii Sports is not that great of a game, it's core mechanics are downright boring and the extent to which the method of input works really does not elevate its status all that much.
 
PoliceCop said:
No shit you wouln't be playing it. It would come down to being the most boring rhythm game in history of videogames. And that's why Wii Sports is not that great of a game, it's core mechanics are downright boring and the extent to which the method of input works really does not elevate its status all that much.
Whats your ranking in Wii Tennis?
 
PoliceCop said:
No shit you wouln't be playing it. It would come down to being the most boring rhythm game in history of videogames. And that's why Wii Sports is not that great of a game, it's core mechanics are downright boring and the extent to which the method of input works really does not elevate its status all that much.

you don't know how Wii Tennis works, do you? It's all about strategy and swing technique; you plan your shots and then try to execute them. This works well on the Wii, because the difficulty is in nailing the swing.
 
ic_gaf3.gif


God.. you guys.. so awesome.. you're all so RIGHT ON!! Man, Mountain Dew for everyone, I'll just get my mum to bring some up from downstairs..
 
Shaheed79 said:
When your all forced to play Madden, Halo 5 and GTAVI with a wiimote knock-off we shall revisit this topic.

Compared to what?

They may release knockoffs someday(God I hope not) but one thing the other consoles will have will be a better selection of games to play. And thats better than any fancy waggle to me anyday of the week.
 
Wii definitely needs more time before we can ascertain what potential the Wii remote has brought or will bring. However, there are some examples floating around in which I do believe the Wii remote has been a benefit beyond a game pad. Godfather: Blackhand Edition has certainly changed how I feel sandbox oriented games of that type should be controlled. Maybe not SHOULD in a sense, but if such games are going to come to Wii then follow EA's lead.

Also, while FPS games still haven't nailed some things down namely because devs insist on the bounding box technique, I will say that it does feel better when I play FPS games on Wii. I don't know how many times I've gone back and played Timesplitters or some other FPS and the controller felt restricting because of analog aiming and the actual pad itself being a single unit. It's not something that has totally changed my habits, but the difference there is tangible I'd say.

Madden I think was one of the best initial examples of the Wii remotes benefit to a certain game. I never bought Madden 07 but did borrow from a friend and I liked it a lot. By that alone I am definitely going to get Madden 08 and hope things will only get better with that.

Racing games are a bit iffy. ExciteTruck, it really took some time to get used to tilting to play the game, but once I got it down it was fun to play it that way. However, unlike the two previous examples, it's not something that has totally changed my perception of how racing games would play with the Wii remote. I'm particularly far more interested in seeing how RPGs and action/adventure third person titles will be with the controller. It would be nice to see a turn based RPG where the player directly coordinates most of his/her attacks instead of just choosing an option from a menu and watching an animation sequence play.
 
Angelus said:
Compared to what?

They may release knockoffs someday(God I hope not) but one thing the other consoles will have will be a better selection of games to play. And thats better than any fancy waggle to me anyday of the week.

I think its a bit early to say that. If the Wii keeps this up and becomes the worldwide leader, the games will come to the Wii, no doubt about it.
 
schuelma said:
I think its a bit early to say that. If the Wii keeps this up and becomes the worldwide leader, the games will come to the Wii, no doubt about it.


Why is it too early to say this and yet its ok to say that the Wii waggle is a revolution then?
 
Angelus said:
Why is it too early to say this and yet its ok to say that the Wii waggle is a revolution then?
One is commenting on the past five months, the other is commenting on the next four years.
 
Angelus said:
Why is it too early to say this and yet its ok to say that the Wii waggle is a revolution then?


When did I say the waggle is a revolution? I think the signs are there considering what its already done in Japan and the mainstream attention its received in the U.S..but no, its too early to say that.
 
The Wiimote is my favorite console controller ever. Just due to the controller if a game is on multiple systems, I'd usually get the Wii version.

I bought Medal of Honor Wii over the PS2 version despite 1up saying the PS2 one was better. And I have ALL of the PSOne/PS2 MoH games.

I bought Godfather Wii over the PS3 version, despite the PS3 one having better graphics.

Both were due to the controller.

Hell, I even want to try out games I wouldn't touch on other systems just to see how they play with the controller. Licensed stuff like Cars, Chicken Little, and Meet the Robinsons.
 
Amir0x said:
The N64 pad was a piece of shit controller, it's true.

But at least that system launched with Mario 64, which wasn't a hilariously overblown tech demo, and I couldn't buy it on SNES.

Or I was talking about the analog stick and its impact on the industry.
 
Wii-sports is Wii in the mind of casual gamers.

It is most certainly a killer-app, regardless of what GAF thinks of it.
It's the most important launch title for any console since Mario64 and probably the most important pack-in title since the original Super Mario Bros. (Not that there's been much competition)

It's a system defining experience, in my opinion, more than Halo ever was, though we'll never be able to compare tie-in ratios or anything like that.

That being said, I wouldn't say that the Wiimote has revolutionized gaming. I might have argued that in the past, but I had the chance to try eye-toy for the first time this weekend and had a realization.

I was pretty surprised by some of the stuff that it was doing, despite it being not as accurate or tactile as the Wiimote. I mean, there I was flailing in front of the TV in much the same way I do when I play Wii. The presentation of the game, however, inlcuding graphics, loading, ease of use, interactivity and general fun-factor was inferior. Disregarding these problems, it was all in all a similar experience.

I'm not saying the Eye-toy revolutionized this kind of gameplay either, just that it's hard to trace back exactly where certain trends in gaming begin.

So as a device, I don't think the Wii controller has revolutionized anything yet. I mean, it's certainly far out there. Different from every controller that has come before it. But the games haven't changed enough to truly call it a revolution.

Wii has, however, revolutionized the video game playing experience and the audience that can enjoy it. When Nintendo was saying this stuff in their PR before Wii was released, I didn't believe it was going to happen, but lo! Here we are.
 
civilstrife said:
Wii-sports is Wii in the mind of casual gamers.

It is most certainly a killer-app, regardless of what GAF thinks of it.
It's the most important launch title for any console since Mario64 and probably the most important pack-in title since the original Super Mario Bros. (Not that there's been much competition)

It's a system defining experience, in my opinion, more than Halo ever was, though we'll never be able to compare tie-in ratios or anything like that.

That being said, I wouldn't say that the Wiimote has revolutionized gaming. I might have argued that in the past, but I had the chance to try eye-toy for the first time this weekend and had a realization.

I was pretty surprised by some of the stuff that it was doing, despite it being not as accurate or tactile as the Wiimote. I mean, there I was flailing in front of the TV in much the same way I do when I play Wii. The presentation of the game, however, inlcuding graphics, loading, ease of use, interactivity and general fun-factor was inferior. Disregarding these problems, it was all in all a similar experience.

I'm not saying the Eye-toy revolutionized this kind of gameplay either, just that it's hard to trace back exactly where certain trends in gaming begin.


So as a device, I don't think the Wii controller has revolutionized anything yet. I mean, it's certainly far out there. Different from every controller that has come before it. But the games haven't changed enough to truly call it a revolution.

Wii has, however, revolutionized the video game playing experience and the audience that can enjoy it. When Nintendo was saying this stuff in their PR before Wii was released, I didn't believe it was going to happen, but lo! Here we are.


To help you out, I want to point out a small case from history.

The discovery of oxygen is creditied to a man named Lavosier and not a man named Priesiley (I know I didn't spell their names correctly). Anyway, Mr. P isolated the chemical oxygen first, but he didn't know it was oxygen or why that was important. Lavosier said, "hey this stuff is oxygen, and it's absolutely crucial to the ideas of combustion." This started the chemical revolution with a bang. :D


Therefore, it doesn't matter if the itoy could do similar things first. Whoever does it right, and changes the way people think gets the credit.

If you don't believe me, study the Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
 
As everyone else has said, I think it revolutionized the industry by making games more intuitive for newcomers.

But the important question-the one all of us care about-is: does it have the potential to revolutionise games and change gameplay on a fundamental level? I believe it does, though I certainly understand why one might think otherwise at the present time. Every developer was unprepared for the Wii (even Nintendo themselves); a large part of the reason the wiimote is so underutilized right now, is because most devs got on board very late, and many are jumping on right now. Many of the original games are party games/minigame fests, because: a) they can be made cheaply and quickly b)they are an excellent vehicle for experimenting with new gameplay concepts.

Additionaly, most devs have no prior experience utilizing motion sensing, and interpreting accelerometer data is actually very challenging. Many are just beginning to climb the learning curve. Just compare Zelda to the Godfather; the former is a first party game with relatively crappy gesture recognition (and it only has 3 gestures!). The latter has 25 accurately recognized gestures, and it's a freaking EA port. That's an enormous improvement for just 5 months (perhaps EA was using LiveMove), and motion-sensing will undoubtedly become far more accurate in the near future. Many of the most immediately useful gameplay features offered by the Wiimote (aiming in Zelda, Trauma Center) use the pointer, because pointer data is easy to interpret.

One particular problem that has so befuddled The Black Brad Pitt
The Black Brad Pitt said:
explain in detail the depth of control you have over the ball, because in the manual it doesnt mention any advanced techniques that the game picks up.
and Policecop is that of inadequate instruction. Many gamers are oblivious to the depth present in Wii Sports; I was as well, until others told me. For tennis, all the manual says is "you can give the ball a lob or a spin depending on how you hit it." SSX Blur is the same; uber recognition is actually quite reliable and fairly flexible, once you've gotten the correct gestures into your muscle memory. It took me a while in uber practice mode to get down my gesture size, shape, speed at different parts of the gesture, when to press/release A, etc. The manual just says "draw the shapes in the air," which Eurogamer comically misinterpreted as drawing with the pointer.

It's easy to tell if you're pressing a button or not, but it's not so simple with motion controls. When players screw up a gesture, they should know exactly what they did wrong. I think both games would have gotten much higher review scores if they'd included video of various gestures being performed, or directly communicated accelerometer data to the player (i.e. map each axis to a sound at a varying pitch, so players could match the sound coming from the wiimote to the sound made by the correct gesture). So yeah, lots of wiimote games have depth that isn't well communicated.
PoliceCop said:
What happened when Conan played Serena in Wii Tennis?
A perfect example. Serena couldn't see the depth (didn't even swing backhand when she needed to), whereas Conan was getting into it and playing like real tennis.

Ponn01 said:
You're trying to argue input method. In that case I will throw you a bone and tell you PS3.

The point you are missing or just obtusely ignoring is that you can port the game as is to another system and mimic the controls with an analog stick or some other input method, the game does not use full freeform motion control.
Not at all. 2 reasons why:

1) Sheer volume of input data. How can a traditional controller mimic the input coming from 6 axises (axi?) of acceleromter data, 2 axises of analogue data, 2 axises of pointer data (3 if you count distance), and 4 binary buttons, all of which can be operated simultaneously and independantly? It's just not possible. The wiimote allows a theoretically far greater amount of control over in-game actions. Some early examples include Trauma Center and Wii Sports (esp. boxing).

Even if it's possible to mimic something, that doesn't make it practical. The mouse, touchscreen (this is for dog$), and pointer can all be classified in the same category of input device, as they provide a position on a rectangular 2-dimensional plane. But writing and drawing (and Canvas Curse) are only practical on a touch screen, and only the pointer provides data on distance and orientation. Analogue sticks and tilt could be grouped together as limited range 2-d input devices. But the recentering spring in an analogue stick makes it better for specifying rates of movement (like how Mario runs); tilt's lack of a spring makes it better for specifying constantly maintained states (like the position of your gloves in Wii boxing). Accelerometers and buttons get their own catagories. The Wiimote is the only standard controller in all of gaming with all 4 categories. Trying to use one input device to mimic another generally results in suckiness (see Mario64 DS's touchscreen control).

2) Physicality. You sound like you're putting forth the argument that there's no value in any motion control that simply uses gestures to perform a non-analogue function that could be done with a button press. Obviously, one benefit is being more intuitive, but that doesn't count because real h-kore gamerz don't care. The human mind is far more adept at performing reality-based gestures than entirely abstract button sequences. Yes, hardened Master Ninjas like me and you are no exception. Motion control theoretically makes it easier to learn and remember a greater number of functions and sequences of input.

I'll argue that the method by which input is provided has differing effects on a player, even if that input is the same. Different movements can have powerful connotations in the human mind, and stimulate the brain in various ways. Developers can now explore the creation of physical immersion within their games, and many gaffers do care about it. Just take a peek at the Godfather thread. Or think back to E306, where we found out that we could thrust forward the nunchuck to shoot Samus' grappling beam. It's replicating a button press, but everyone thought it was cool, because it sounded like a physically satisfying action.

But hey! Why play DDR on a dance pad when you could use the face buttons on your dual shock? It'd be the same game, you'd be better at it, and you also wouldn't look like a spaz!

And yeah, Sixaxis is limited by 1) being two-handed, making Wiisports possible but totally impractical, and general gaming less comfortable 2) Containing only 1 accelerometer, whereas both Wiimote and nunchuck can be moved independantly 3) No pointer 4) No controller output whatsoever, while the wiimote has both rumble and audio. Feedback is doubly important when the controller is being interacted with physically.

PoliceCop said:
Honestly I have no idea, I didn't put much time into the game after I learned the mechanics because I hated it.
After you learned the mechanics? When was this? A few hours ago, after everyone explained them to you? :P
 
Great post, mugwhump. It's just a shame that Wii isn't powerful enough to do the games that really interest me like Oblivion for example. I guess it doesn't really matter though considering I own a Wii and 360 and will eventually own a PS3 later this year.
 
Good post mugwhump. A lot of people ignore point 1, including developers. Gestures won't be great until they are more than a simple correct or failed implementation. If gestures incorporate speed, angles, size of motion, etc. and use that information to change the result on an analog scale, they become much more interesting. I expect a lot of improvement from Wii controls as developers come to grips with them.
 
By "revolutionizing video gaming" I figured people would be talking about doing things in a game that couldn't be done before via new control schemes. I didn't know "my mommy played a round of Wii Tennis with me" was what was meant. Hell back way back when I lived in my parent's home, my dad used to play a round of Tekken now and again..guess it was revolutionary for it's time :lol

Regardless I think it is too early to know what kind of impact it will have until some games really take advantage of the Wiimote. What we've seen so far is a pretty lazy implementation by most developers.
 
mugwhump said:
As everyone else has said, I think it revolutionized the industry by making games more intuitive for newcomers.

But hey! Why play DDR on a dance pad when you could use the face buttons on your dual shock? It'd be the same game, you'd be better at it, and you also wouldn't look like a spaz!

I'm not sure DDR is a good example, because the dance pad isn't a generic controller. The question then is, can you play Zelda on the dance pad? For that matter, can you play Doom, or even Starcraft? I think a controller also can dictate what kind of games 'fit' that paradigm, so perhaps not every game is suitable for the Wii.
 
kint88 said:
I'm not sure DDR is a good example, because the dance pad isn't a generic controller. The question then is, can you play Zelda on the dance pad? For that matter, can you play Doom, or even Starcraft? I think a controller also can dictate what kind of games 'fit' that paradigm, so perhaps not every game is suitable for the Wii.

Hmm... actually, you COULD play Zelda on the dance pad. It has the same buttons as the game pad, just layed out in a different way. But would you WANT to play the game with the dance pad, or would you rather play it with the game pad? The Wii is probably the most versatile controller ever created, as evidenced by the waggle games like Wii Sports playing much better than they would with the old style controllers, as well as traditional games adapted really well for the controller like Godfather.
 
WiiSports is really, as of right now, the one true triumph of Nintendo's Wii philosophy. It's been said before, but it deserves to be repeated: removing that layer of abstraction between the game controls and the actions on screen has actually made it more accessable to a wider audience, not to mention more interesting and fun. That's something of a revolution, even if it's not really beneficial to the typical NeoGAF gamer.

However, when Nintendo announced the controller, they implied that it would revolutionize all of gaming. That isn't happening (yet). Nintendo made sure to name-check the FPS-genre back then -- that's certainly a 'hardcore favorite' that has yet to see perfected controls on consoles, so it's easy to see why they did. But since then developers, including Retro (under Nintendo's own guidance) seem to be struggling with the implementation of the Wii-controls in this genre. I'll reserve judgment until Metroid Prime 3 is released, but I think it's safe to say that FPS+Wiimote is not quite the match made in heaven that it was said to be back at TGS'05.

It's one thing for third parties to staple on waggle as a gimmick to their PS2/Cube/PSP-ports. But games such as Smash Bros. Brawl and (to a lesser extent) Mario Galaxy imply that Nintendo really isn't sure what this revolutionary controller fundamentally adds to their own traditional IPs (nice additions such as the aiming in Zelda or the added point-and-click interactivity of Mario Galaxy notwithstanding). The innovative games that truly make great use of the controller will probably be new IPs (geared mostly towards the new gamers that love WiiSports, I imagine, though I'm holding out hope for a hardcore title with revolutionary controls as well), and that's probably for the better. But the rhetoric of an all-changing revolution can be toned down now. It's an interesting alternative, but it certainly doesn't invalidate traditional controllers.

The DS has evolved to the point where (good) developers don't feel the need to add touch-gimmickry to their game unless it really works to the game's advantage -- and occasionally they come up with an innovative design that couldn't have worked (as well) without the touch screen. Only rarely do touch-interfaces enhance established IPs, and quite a few excellent games (Mario Kart DS, New Super Mario Bros.) largely ignore the touch screen altogether. And we as gamers are happy to 'go back' to those traditional, touch-free games. Wii games might evolve along a similar track, and that would really be the best case scenario.
 
in my opinion the wii-mote makes gaming more intuitive.


Let's take SSX and Dragonball Z Budokai Tenkaichi 2!

SSX feels great and smooth with the new controller. I can't imagine to use a normal controller for this.

DBZ is the best example released for the wii so far I think. I sold the Budokai 2 because of the mass of moves you had to learn. These combos where about 10 buttons after each other and you have to learn them.

with the wii-mote you can do a kamehameha easiely by doing like they do. you can sprint after the enemy by putting the nunchuk down fast and so on.

It is really easy to do so and it is a lot of fun. Otherwise you can do the special moves too. So its good for pro gamer too.

I tried out the Cube-Steering you can choose as well, and it was like the old budokai!

So the Wii-Mote is a quite great improvement to gaming imho.
 
Um, obviously not! In fact when it comes down to game mechanics it had the reverse effect of a revolution. What's that called? Devolution? Wii games are primitive and less advanced than standard input games. It brought nothing new to the table, only less precise input. Plus it made Developers (even Nintendo themselves!) apply the control scheme to games where they seem forced and are implemented just for the sake of it.

And the sad thing is there aren't even any games announced which seem to take advantage of the Wii controller. How ridiculous is that? Although there were people who predicted exactly this from the beginning. The Wii controle scheme doesn't work, it never will and its outdated technology will only bring gaming down. Sad state of affair that it is selling so well and any gamer can only hope that it turns out to be a fad.
 
I just played MOH Vanguard and that is the most hideous control ive ever experienced. Didnt like that AT ALL.

The fixed reticule mode is even MORE atrocious. It feels similar to controlling zelda's 1st person camera.
 
I think the Wiimote is too forced into games. Just using the wiimote for the sake of using it never worked, just look at EyeToy for PS2. I think Sony's approuach with SIXAXIS is far better, where you combine traditional controls with tilting. Developers can choose to implement SIXAXIS support or just go with the classic controller. Even gamers have the option to choose depending on the game. MotorStorm let's you steer with the stick or the motion sensor, whichever you prefer is fine.
 
East Clintwood said:
Um, obviously not! In fact when it comes down to game mechanics it had the reverse effect of a revolution. What's that called? Devolution? Wii games are primitive and less advanced than standard input games. It brought nothing new to the table, only less precise input. Plus it made Developers (even Nintendo themselves!) apply the control scheme to games where they seem forced and are implemented just for the sake of it.

And the sad thing is there aren't even any games announced which seem to take advantage of the Wii controller. How ridiculous is that? Although there were people who predicted exactly this from the beginning. The Wii controle scheme doesn't work, it never will and its outdated technology will only bring gaming down. Sad state of affair that it is selling so well and any gamer can only hope that it turns out to be a fad.

cartman_tears.gif
 
If Wii had ps3 style visuals with waggle people on here would most likely praise it to death.

Anyway you shape it, move it or make it, Wii has changed gaming.
I'm afraid that Mainstream>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>GAF when it comes to dictating trends and winners and losers at the end of the day, and MILLIONS of mainstream consumers are buying Wii because it makes it easy for them to game. Its simple, its fun, and the games are coming.
3rd parties are flocking to it, not because they suddenly like Nintendo but because that’s where the mainstream are going and that’s where the money is to be made.

So for one it most likely has revolutionised the gaming industry because its shifted power from one company to another almost overnight. And secondly its made gaming to MOST PEOPLE fun again, engaging, new and different.
So in short yes it has changed gaming and waggle will be the standard next generation Sony half implimented it, so if Nintendo and Sony finish this generation ahead of MS it's gonna be waggle all the way.
 
neorej said:
I think the Wiimote is too forced into games. Just using the wiimote for the sake of using it never worked, just look at EyeToy for PS2. I think Sony's approuach with SIXAXIS is far better, where you combine traditional controls with tilting. Developers can choose to implement SIXAXIS support or just go with the classic controller. Even gamers have the option to choose depending on the game. MotorStorm let's you steer with the stick or the motion sensor, whichever you prefer is fine.



It is kind of a paradox that Sony is doing so miserable, yet 'got it right'. I'm inclined to disagree.


I think you are forgetting a few things about wii's interface. The console also supports the GCN pad and the Classic Controller. Not to mention the nunchuck may not be the only thing to plug into the wiimote later on. There are also multiple ways to hold the wiimote when playing.

That is one of the biggest things for me, the fact that I have a choice over controls. It is quite an interesting dynamic when I go my buddies house to play VC Mario Kart 64, and half the people use the GCN pad because they prefer it, and the other half use the Classic Shell. Future games like Mortal Kombat and Smash Bros. will also give us that choice, I hope more developers follow suit.

I can sit down, play some SSX Blur with the wiimote, nunchuck, and motion controls, then with the click of a menu button play Starfox 64 with the classic GCN pad and its buttons. If I want, I can then simply turn the wiimote sideways for some Mario. It makes the separate experiences more refreshing, and I can talor what style of play to how I feel, how long I'll be playing, and how intoxicated I am.

With the 360 or Sixaxis, there is really only one choice. One of the key things that could make wii a revolution is giving gamers the option of how they want to play. Right now, after games like SSX Blur and Madden I feel as if the new control methods have been force-fed to us, and I can only hope that in the future developers let us choose between classic modes of play with the other controllers.
 
East Clintwood said:
Um, obviously not! In fact when it comes down to game mechanics it had the reverse effect of a revolution. What's that called? Devolution? Wii games are primitive and less advanced than standard input games. It brought nothing new to the table, only less precise input. Plus it made Developers (even Nintendo themselves!) apply the control scheme to games where they seem forced and are implemented just for the sake of it.

And the sad thing is there aren't even any games announced which seem to take advantage of the Wii controller. How ridiculous is that? Although there were people who predicted exactly this from the beginning. The Wii controle scheme doesn't work, it never will and its outdated technology will only bring gaming down. Sad state of affair that it is selling so well and any gamer can only hope that it turns out to be a fad.

Nintendo says Wii is meant for all, but the truth is that the Blue Ocean strategy neglects hardcore gamers. Thats probably why hardcore games from Nintendo dont make much use of the new input methods. On the other hand , "Blue Ocean" games like Nintendogs or Wii Play make intense use of the new control methods. Its normal that hardcore gamers dont see or get the revolution, and thats because it is not aimed at them.
 
Starchasing said:
Nintendo says Wii is meant for all, but the truth is that the Blue Ocean strategy neglects hardcore gamers. Thats probably why hardcore games from Nintendo dont make much use of the new input methods. On the other hand , "Blue Ocean" games like Nintendogs or Wii Play make intense use of the new control methods. Its normal that hardcore gamers dont see or get the revolution, and thats because it is not aimed at them.



It has really only been 5 months of the system. I don't think hardcore gamers are going to do anything short of flock to wii's 250 price tag when Metroid Prime 3, Battallion Wars, Smash Bros., Resident Evil 4, RE:UC, and Super Mario Galaxy hit this year.
 
Starchasing said:
Nintendo says Wii is meant for all, but the truth is that the Blue Ocean strategy neglects hardcore gamers. Thats probably why hardcore games from Nintendo dont make much use of the new input methods. On the other hand , "Blue Ocean" games like Nintendogs or Wii Play make intense use of the new control methods. Its normal that hardcore gamers dont see or get the revolution, and thats because it is not aimed at them.

In these first few months I've been able to play a bunch of good to great games targeted at hardcores -- namely Zelda, SSX, Sonic (all making use of the wiimote features and/or intuitiveness), and a few other little interesting games more appealing to the casual crowd, like GodFather & COD. I didn't buy MoH or Red Steel but I hear those have their good moments (expecially the former).

I've even had the chance to put my hands on a couple of flight games (only bought one though), with a third coming out this month, and those are descendents of probably the most hardcore genre ever. While Heatseeker is at best a mediocre game, you know what is the one fun thing about it? Controlling the plane with the wiimote. It feels like a real light sport plane (I know -- I fly one).

If you don't like those games, fine, but please let's stop the bullcrap.
 
I've been thinking about this for a long time and I think the Wii is more of an evolution rather than a revolution. Now not all evolution is linear. It branches and some species survives while others don't, so I'm not saying that waggle is deffinitely the way it's going to be from now on. In fact I really don't believe it will be.

The input method has changed. It's a good step, but the problem is, the games are still largely the same type of games we have been playing for decades. FPS are still FPS, racers are still racers, etc and they all play the same way they have been played for years.

The idea of a GREAT controller in of itself is what would keep the Wii from being a revolution in the first place. A GREAT controller is like a glove. You're not supposed to think about it when you're playing games. It's supposed to disappear, become a natural extension of your arm, so you can concentrate on THE GAME.

Does the Wii controller even do this? For some games yes and some games no. You still have a learning curve, and for some games it may even be less intuitive than the old dependable analog stick.

So at best you could make a case for the Wii revolutionizing controllers....but deffinitely not gaming.


underfooter said:
It has really only been 5 months of the system. I don't think hardcore gamers are going to do anything short of flock to wii's 250 price tag when Metroid Prime 3, Battallion Wars, Smash Bros., Resident Evil 4, RE:UC, and Super Mario Galaxy hit this year.

And I'm going to disagree with you and say that just as the majority of hardcore/avid gamers ignored those games on previous Nintendo consoles, they will again. I think the more correct term you are trying to use is hardcore NINTENDO gamers. Which is but a part of hardcore gamers.
 
jimbo said:
A GREAT controller is like a glove. You're not supposed to think about it when you're playing games. It's supposed to disappear, become a natural extension of your arm, so you can concentrate on THE GAME.

See Flow.
 
If Wii had ps3 style visuals with waggle people on here would most likely praise it to death.
...but it doesn't, and that is where many of the complaints stem from. While I'm not a HUGE motion control fan, I've had some good fun with it and I admit that Nintendo has done an excellent job of making it a viable option. The fact that the Wii is limited by its hardware does not sit well with many of us, however, and that reduces its appeal.

You could "what if" any of the three systems, but the fact is, their hardware is finished and set in stone.
 
Top Bottom