The PS3 had Blu-ray, HDMI, and WiFi support Day 1. But...I'm not even sure what you mean by the bolded. Care to explain?
A common arguement for avoiding the Wii is it's primary feature, motion controls. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that waggling is good, but I will tell you that pointing is. Using the Wii remote as a cursor is pretty much as close to a mouse that you can get, there wern't many shooters on the Wii outside of Metroid Prime 3 and Goldeneye but those games controlled so very well. The Wii remote and nunchuk still share many of the same buttons as a traditional controller making almost any game possible and while pointing was the Wii's secret weapon a simple shake could also go a long way. I can't imagine using a button to spin in Super Mario Galaxy, it's just so natural. Same goes for New Super Mario Bros. Wii, even in NSMBU I still shake the gamepad just becuase of how good it feels.
The PS3 had Blu-ray, HDMI, and WiFi support Day 1. But...I'm not even sure what you mean by the bolded. Care to explain?
Where did I say that the PS3 and 360 didn't have any bad third party games? I argued that the quality was infinitely better.
The kind of good third-party games the Wii excel at are the ones that are unlikely to receive an average score of 9.I didnt say its how i value games, but the wii doesnt even have a single thirdparty game with a 9, i even named the retail games that look interesting to me, and none were a 9 on metracritic, except for okami.
Your story doesn't surprise me one bit, what Wii offered at the time was very different from what one would consider "modern games" (big budget affairs focused on cinematic set pieces and expansive world).I had pretty much quit "modern" gaming after PS1. I couple of times I loaned the N64 and Gamecube from my cousins and neighbours and although I wholeheartedly enjoyed Mario 64, Smash Melee and Resident Evil remake, I was starting to have a huge disinterest towards new games.
Ocarina of Time was a disappointment (although I, perhaps a decade later, changed my mind) and Super Mario Sunshine was even bigger disappointment. Most of the games I saw in the game magazines looked incredibly boring. I held up hope that maybe Final Fantasy X on the PS2 would be good, but as I watched a friend playing it I was even more disappointed than what I was with Super Mario Sunshine.
To me, the absolutely most boring era of video games was the GC/PS2/DC/XBOX era.
I continued to play with my C64, NES and PS1 (wasn't interested in new PC games either although I liked Rogue Squadron a lot). I thought those machines would be my last and I would never buy a new video game console. I started buying some old consoles I never owned such as Sega Mega Drive (Genesis) and N64, and thought there would be enough good already existing games for me to play the rest of my life.
Then the Wii happened.
I tried Wii Sports somewhere and, holy shit, I needed that machine. I hadn't had that much fun playing a video game since my teen years.
It brought me back in. Not that I still was much interested in modern games, but at least my 100% total disinterest had changed.
Of modern consoles I have Wii, 3DS, Wii U and Xbox360. Still not interested in Gamecube, PS2, Xbox or Dreamcast. Not even for collection purposes. That's still the dark age of console gaming for me, although the only Smash game I've enjoyed was in the Gamecube. Melee was fantastic, but both Brawl and U have been big disappointments.
I still have an issue with modern games in general. Most of the huge franchises bore me to death. Can't enjoy Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed, Uncharted, Halo, Call of Duty, Dead Space, Batman, Metal Gear Solid (although Ground Zeroes was interesting due to the small area in the style of Rambo II on C64) and don't get me started on Resident Evil... Had huge hopes for Revelations and it turned out to be a major disappointment.
Nintendo still provides good games on semi-regular basis and there are some gems in the indie companies. South Park last year was amazing and I enjoy the Fallout games a lot. I'm going with Nintendo machines and PC now. If the Wii didn't happen, I'd probably still be hoarding only retro games.
Aside from some indie titles and Fallout 3, consoles were still pretty boring when Xbox360 and PS3 came, but the Wii was new and different enough to get me interested again. Nintendo still tends to be just enough different to keep things interesting.
But let me tell you this, whatever console a Twin Peaks game would be released, I would buy that instantly and wouldn't even care if the game was bad or if that would be the only game I would ever play with it. So - other than Nintendo consoles - there's your chance
Where did I say that the PS3 and 360 didn't have any bad third party games? I argued that the quality was infinitely better.
You may not have caught this since I just posted it as an edit:
Basically, the PS2 had much better quality when it came to 3rd party support.
I had pretty much quit "modern" gaming after PS1. I couple of times I loaned the N64 and Gamecube from my cousins and neighbours and although I wholeheartedly enjoyed Mario 64, Smash Melee and Resident Evil remake, I was starting to have a huge disinterest towards new games.
Ocarina of Time was a disappointment (although I, perhaps a decade later, changed my mind) and Super Mario Sunshine was even bigger disappointment. Most of the games I saw in the game magazines looked incredibly boring. I held up hope that maybe Final Fantasy X on the PS2 would be good, but as I watched a friend playing it I was even more disappointed than what I was with Super Mario Sunshine.
To me, the absolutely most boring era of video games was the GC/PS2/DC/XBOX era.
I continued to play with my C64, NES and PS1 (wasn't interested in new PC games either although I liked Rogue Squadron a lot). I thought those machines would be my last and I would never buy a new video game console. I started buying some old consoles I never owned such as Sega Mega Drive (Genesis) and N64, and thought there would be enough good already existing games for me to play the rest of my life.
Then the Wii happened.
I tried Wii Sports somewhere and, holy shit, I needed that machine. I hadn't had that much fun playing a video game since my teen years.
It brought me back in. Not that I still was much interested in modern games, but at least my 100% total disinterest had changed.
Basically, the PS2 had much better quality when it came to 3rd party support.
The kind of good third-party games the Wii excel at are the ones that are unlikely to receive an average score of 9.
They are for the most part mid budget projects, often with arcade sensibilities.
Which is in contrast with the "better" third-party games on Xbox 360/PS3.
I perfectly understand when someone, like Dakhanavar, says that Wii library didn't entice him much because he was willing for something more akin to Xbox 360/PS3 offerings because they are indeed quite different in tone and identity.
This doesn't change that using metacritic is an incredible poor tool to choose a game to buy (a game which should be worth your time based on your tastes).
As far as last gen goes, anything and its mother got between 8 and 9.Not really even if im not interested. In a game if it get over a 9 on metracritic i wamt to play it to see what all the hype. Is about, unless i hate the artsyle. Now anything Im interested in i can go low 7s.
Only game console I've ever played with my grandma.
So it's a win in my book.
Nintendo was intentionally aiming for a very different audience than the one on PS3 and Xbox 360. There was no reason to implement hardware parity because it would have run contrary to their new audience's needs, which are cheap consoles that are easy to set up and use, worked well with their existing TVs (not HD), and can be played by the whole family.
This worked like a fucking charm. It's not their fault publishers ignored it because they weren't able to port their hardcore games from those platforms.
HD twins denote 2 HD system you know.
Every single of this thing behind an afterthought for MSFT shows how much anyone actually cared about this outside of console warriors.
and the point of Wii being underpowered was to avoid the increasingly high budget costs the competitors were pushing so that not AAA games could survive.
No platform holder gives a shit about this segment of the market so they've left anyway.
As far as goal post moving,
I'm partial to this gif
As far as last gen goes, anything and its mother got between 8 and 9.
For Wii you quickly learned to simply shut the critics out and goes by user ratings or reviews, they were far more informative and accurate.
I mean you got a review of a Fire Emblem docking points because the game didn't use Miis and motion controls after all.
Heck you even had a review of Football Manager where the guy expect FiFA.
What I mean is that last gen reviews were shit.
When people are discussing a console and they bring up things that it did poorly or didn't have, you can't ignore those criticisms because of design decisions. The Wii didn't need HDMI, WiFi, Blu-ray and other "amenities" because it was aiming to be an inexpensive console that sold on the hype and accessibility of motion controls. But that DOESN'T somehow make the lack of hardware and software features meaningless in the overall context.
And let's stop with this console warrior nonsense.
Didn't you bring up Okami? Most of the high scoring games last gen were at best disappointing, I was way better served not caring about scores and get user feedback to get a satisfying experience.Or maybe thats what people Liked? Most of those high scoring games sold great.
I understand why they did it, and I agree it worked, but my contention is that you can't ignore the lack of those things when judging how good a console was - especially in the context of having competition in two consoles that did.
I guess I need to spoonfeed you your own quotes. Maybe read what I'm quoting?
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=183308867&postcount=395
To think you're arguing others are moving goal posts. This is just too funny.
You've gone from claiming Xenoblade is a third party title.
To claiming that there's no good third party games on Wii.
To claiming that there's no good third party games on Wii that you like.
To claiming that 360 and PS3 didn't have as many bad third party games.
To claiming that there's higher quality third party on PS2
And as far as I know, Xenoblade wasn't a first party game when it came out, I think Nintendo just helped them publish it. Even if I'm wrong, it just strengthens my argument that the Wii had awful 3rd party support considering that's one of the top games on the console.
You think the Wii had good third party support and I don't. You know what the differences between us is though? I'm willing to accept your opinion while you seem to think believing anything otherwise is factually incorrect.
Yes, I was. Of course successful systems get a flood of crappy games but do you know what the differences between Wii and PS2 is? The PS2 had a consistent flow of excellent third party games that the Wii can't even touch. Grand Theft Auto series, Resident Evil 4, Metal Gear Solid 3, Timesplitters, Viewtiful Joe, Guitar Hero, Virtua Fighter, Tekken, Katamari Damacy, Beyond Good and Evil, Final Fantasy series, Persona series, Shin Megami Tensei series, Devil May Cry...I could go on. Can the Wii touch this? Absolutely not, the quality on average was way worse.
I've been saying that the PS2 had higher quality 3rd party titles because you people brought up the fact that every market leader gets shovelware. That's not moving goalposts, it's supporting a claim.
You're just making stuff up at this point and acting like a kid.
I can't tell if you are trolling or have really bad reading comprehension skills. My position has been consistent and nothing in the quote you pulled says otherwise. Your condescending tone and gif theatrics aren't helping your argument.
I said I thought Xenoblade was a 3rd party title but in the next sentence mentioned that even if I was wrong (because I wasn't 100% and didn't claim it as fact) that just strengthened my position because it would be yet another example of a solid 1st party title.
I never said that there are no good third party games on the Wii, just that most of them don't appeal to me which has been my position all along.
I've been saying that the PS2 had higher quality 3rd party titles because you people brought up the fact that every market leader gets shovelware. That's not moving goalposts, it's supporting a claim.
You're just making stuff up at this point and acting like a kid.
Originally Posted by Mael
The point of Wii was to AVOID making ports of shitty 3rd party games.
That's a feature not a bug.
If you aren't going to use your words to debate in a civil fashion you might as well quit posting. All you're doing is posting gif responses and deflecting which isn't doing anything except ruining the thread.
I've been saying that the PS2 had higher quality 3rd party titles because you people brought up the fact that every market leader gets shovelware. That's not moving goalposts, it's supporting a claim.
.
Originally Posted by Gucci Messiah
. I don't recall stuff like Arcade Zone, Calvin Tucker's Redneck Jamboree, Chuck E Cheese Party Games, Family Party, etc showing up on Sony and Microsoft's systems. .
Wii had WiFi out the box so I don't know why you keep insisting on the contrary.
It was made to be as inobstructive as possible, for that it needed WiFi if was to have any online capabilities.
It didn't need bluray because most games weren't going to use that much memory anyway, it would have been a prohibitive cost that brought nothing.
360 survived without Bluray, clearly Wii didn't need it especially since it wasn't trying to be a media hub.
HD penetration was low too at the time so lack of HDMi wasn't that big of a deal too (although it makes it really rough now).
Maybe. I don't think you can possibly say "Wii was bad because it didn't do ______," while still accounting for the things it did do well in good faith, though, when doing ______ almost certainly wouldn't have allowed it to succeed at any of those things.
It requires an underlying assumption that its mission and purpose were themselves wrong or bad, which I think sort of diminishes one's ability to evaluate its performance given that the entire console was based on that mission and purpose. (In effect you'll have already decided it was a poor console simply because of its priorities and intended audience, without even accounting specifically for what you believe was missing.)
Moreover, I don't think we should be evaluating consoles on the virtue of whether they can "do all things." Wii did a job that Xbox 360 and PS3 didn't; and it did it so well that it managed to sell 100 units on top of the 170 sold between the other two. Trying to interpret that in the context of whether Wii did the Xbox 360 and PS3 job as well as those platforms seems like a red herring, TBH.
The Wii made me take great distance with... online gaming communities. So much rabid hate and misinformation about this console, it was sickening. My gaming has been much happier since.
Such a great, wonderful system, with a killer library.
Thread topic: The Wii was such a good console
Gucci Messiah: The Wii's third party was nothing but shovelware and shit, let me move goal posts 10 times
Gucci Messiah: Stop ruining this thread
PS2 had plenty of crappy licensed games and terrible copycat games just as any other leading system.
Hell, some shovelware started on the PS2 like Action Girlz Racing.
Thread topic: The Wii was such a good console
Gucci Messiah: The Wii's third party was nothing but shovelware and shit, let me move goal posts 10 times
Gucci Messiah: Stop ruining this thread
It kind of is moving goalposts as it isn't supporting the claim people are contesting. This is why people brought up that every market leader gets shovelware, it's a different point to the comparative quality of the PS2 library:
If your argument is 'PS2 library better', then fair enough.
Your argument of 'only the Wii has shovelware this bad', then that's blatantly untrue, the former line doesn't support it and the responses are valid.
So you were mistaken when you said that you couldn't recall shovelware appearing on PS2, as you seem to remember it now?The conversation of the thread shifted organically to discussing the quality on the Wii library considering that's what many people use to determine if a system was good or not. I said the first party content was lacking compared to the GCN/Wii U and that the third party support was terrible. You took this in a literally sense, like I was saying the Wii didn't get any games published for it by anyone outside of Nintendo, so I had to correct you and let it be explicitly known that I thought the support was barebones. You brought up a list of games that you like claiming that I was 'factually wrong' and I replied back that most of the 3rd party stuff doesn't appeal to me personally and that we just have a difference of opinion. You then threw a fit and claimed that I had an agenda and now we're here.
It's not moving goalposts at all. I said the Wii 3rd party support mostly consisted of shovelware, casual games, and bad spin-off titles. Then somebody countered that this happens with the market leader most of the time. I agreed and then pointed out that the difference is that the PS2 had a more consistent output of quality games which is the truth. The Wii was flooded with mini game collections and fitness games but every once in a while you'd get a gem like Monster Hunter or Lost Story. PS2 was flooded with licensed crap but we were consistently getting stuff like Grand Theft Auto, Metal Gear, Devil May Cry, Shin Megami Tensei, Final Fantasy, etc.
First you re-write gaming history then you re-write thread history. I'm impressed, really bravo.The conversation of the thread shifted organically to discussing the quality on the Wii library considering that's what many people use to determine if a system was good or not. I said the first party content was lacking compared to the GCN/Wii U and that the third party support was terrible. You took this in a literally sense, like I was saying the Wii didn't get any games published for it by anyone outside of Nintendo, so I had to correct you and let it be explicitly known that I thought the support was barebones. You brought up a list of games that you like claiming that I was 'factually wrong' and I replied back that most of the 3rd party stuff doesn't appeal to me personally and that we just have a difference of opinion. You then threw a fit and claimed that I had an agenda and now we're here.
It's not moving goalposts at all. I said the Wii 3rd party support mostly consisted of shovelware, casual games, and bad spin-off titles. Then somebody countered that this happens with the market leader most of the time. I agreed and then pointed out that the difference is that the PS2 had a more consistent output of quality games which is the truth. The Wii was flooded with mini game collections and fitness games but every once in a while you'd get a gem like Monster Hunter or Lost Story. PS2 was flooded with licensed crap but we were consistently getting stuff like Grand Theft Auto, Metal Gear, Devil May Cry, Shin Megami Tensei, Final Fantasy, etc.
Yeah, but you're better off playing Phantom Brave on PS2. They fucked up a few things in the Wii version. Also the PS2 version came with a soundtrack on first print in the case.
Also, why the hell would you play GG on Wii when the PS2 version exists and AC+R edition exists on PC.
So you were mistaken when you said that you couldn't recall shovelware appearing on PS2, as you seem to remember it now?
First you re-write gaming history then you re-write thread history. I'm impressed, really bravo.
*CTRL + F Opoona*
C'mon GAF. You slackin'.
I never said I couldn't recall any shovelware. I said I couldn't recall such trashy games on the system that the Wii regularly got. I was 10 when the PS2 came out. And it's not moving goalposts but ok.
*CTRL + F Opoona*
C'mon GAF. You slackin'.
Excite Truck is the game I remember the most and wish Nintendo would have Monster Games make a true sequel with online multiplayer, Wiimote controls and all modes.
You've already turned this into a shitfest with your goal posts moving, consistent denial despite multiple people calling you out and destroying a thread that was supposed to be positive.I never said I couldn't recall any shovelware. I said I couldn't recall such trashy games on the system that the Wii regularly got. I was 10 when the PS2 came out. And it's not moving goalposts but ok.
There was no revisionist history. You got unreasonably upset that I think the Wii had lackluster 3rd party support and that's about it. I'm not going to engage in personal attacks or condescending posting so unless you have something interesting to say I'm just going to ignore you to avoid turning this into a multi-page slap fight.